why is it a good thing that Ron Paul has never compromised?

First off, let's get this out of the way, I like Paul's foreign policy and willingness to shrink our imperial forces, but am unsold on his domestic policies, though I view all of this as a charade for the true elite to keep the masses arguing.

Back to the question I had for Paul supporters and nonsupporters, why is the fact that he has not even TRIED to find middle ground with fellow congressmen a reason to support him as president? The art of compromise is what politics is supposed to be about not just voting for your own ideas and ignoring the rest as invalid. A president has to compromise to get legislation passed unless they can drum up support enough to shove bills through. I find this highly unlikely from a man referred to by those in his own party as "Dr. no".

IF he were to be elected and began a series of executive orders to move things in his direction, how is that liberty? It really is no different than what we have experienced the last 30+ years.

reply to post by the owlbear


If a bill is unconstitutional he votes "no" automatically.

Doesn't that make you ask the question as to how many bills they try to push through that are unconstitutional?

I'm sure Ron Paul would be happy to compromise as long as the outcome is constitutional. Which is the job of the president to a 'T' actually.. He vows to protect the constitution and is able to do that through veto.

He hasn't always voted no to everything. That is a common misconception.

Another common misconception I've found is his ideas of re-empowering the states causing the federal government to have less power.

The only argument people can seem to come up with is he will let the states do whatever they want..

The real reason he wants this is because the 10th amendment states that all powers not "Specifically" granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

He is a pure constitutional candidate and that is a good thing!

Don't quote me on this but. He is not simply a no man. He is a strict constitutionalist. I believe that's why he refuses to compromise. If it goes against or is not supported by the constitution then he doesn't support it. Again I stress that I'm 100% sure about that.

By not compromising it shows strength of character. He sticks to what he believes in something a President should do.

I think not compromising shows strength to stand by your belief. I think compromising just shows you don't believe in what you speak but that's me. And correct me if I'm wrong but Paul doesn't agree with executive orders since it gives the president legislative power that it shouldn't have.

Compromise shows a lack of conviction !! If you believe in something strongly enough you should always stand your ground....Ron Paul is no sell out !!!

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear

 

If a bill is unconstitutional he votes "no" automatically.

Doesn't that make you ask the question as to how many bills they try to push through that are unconstitutional?

I'm sure Ron Paul would be happy to compromise as long as the outcome is constitutional. Which is the job of the president to a 'T' actually.. He vows to protect the constitution and is able to do that through veto.

He hasn't always voted no to everything. That is a common misconception.

Another common misconception I've found is his ideas of re-empowering the states causing the federal government to have less power.

The only argument people can seem to come up with is he will let the states do whatever they want..

The real reason he wants this is because the 10th amendment states that all powers not "Specifically" granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

He is a pure constitutional candidate and that is a good thing!

edit on 17-8-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

Okay...I'm trying to raise an issue about how he doesn't compromise and you are a blind follower. When he starts handing out brown shirts to show your support will you be the first in line?

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Compromise shows a lack of conviction !! If you believe in something strongly enough you should always stand your ground....Ron Paul is no sell out !!!

No compromise divides us, rather than having discussion about common ground. When one faction takes too much power...well, read your history books.

Because there's no compromises with our rights in the Constitution.

Same should be so with the man who represents it.

Originally posted by buster2010
By not compromising it shows strength of character. He sticks to what he believes in something a President should do.

No, it shows an unwillingness to find common ground with those of differing beliefs. If it isn't his way, waaaaaaa, no no discussion about how we can make things better and diffuse this situation.

Originally posted by LeTan
Because there's no compromises with our rights in the Constitution.

Same should be so with the man who represents it.

So your beliefs should be the only ones imposed? Don't you see how polarizing you people are? I fear for when he doesn't get the nomination next year and all of you hit the streets since you feel justified.

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear

 

If a bill is unconstitutional he votes "no" automatically.

Doesn't that make you ask the question as to how many bills they try to push through that are unconstitutional?

I'm sure Ron Paul would be happy to compromise as long as the outcome is constitutional. Which is the job of the president to a 'T' actually.. He vows to protect the constitution and is able to do that through veto.

He hasn't always voted no to everything. That is a common misconception.

Another common misconception I've found is his ideas of re-empowering the states causing the federal government to have less power.

The only argument people can seem to come up with is he will let the states do whatever they want..

The real reason he wants this is because the 10th amendment states that all powers not "Specifically" granted to the federal government by the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.

He is a pure constitutional candidate and that is a good thing!

edit on 17-8-2011 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

Read the headline...he has been, and is unwilling to work with others to find a MIDDLE GROUND. Not every vote in his 18 terms has been a constitutional issue. I fear a person who does not grow and change over that period of time and believe they are small minded....after all even Barry Goldwater was able to get some sense later in life

reply to post by the owlbear


You obviously didn't read my post.. If you did you wouldn't be arguing anymore..

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by the owlbear

 

You obviously didn't read my post.. If you did you wouldn't be arguing anymore..

Not every bill is about the Ron Pauls interpretation of the constitution. And if you think it is...do you remember a few papers called the articles of confederation?
I said I respected the guy, but felt like he wants to dictate opinion on his interpretation on liberty and the constitution for all rather than try to kill the rhetoric that you all love of "Ron Paul or revolution.". He's one man. Pick up your guns and hold congress hostage to pass HIS law. Liberty at last.

reply to post by the owlbear


One man can change the world..

It's happened...

Would you compromise your own ideals?

reply to post by the owlbear


Wow, it only took less then ten posts for you to bring up Nazism and compare such to Ron Paul...nice. Gotta say tho, i didnt catch on to the whole brown shirts thing at first, had to reread it for a second because I didnt really believe that someone would allready fall in to Godwin's Law.

If you read the post you responded to, you woul see that the things that he votes no to are based on constitutionality. And being in the Congress of the United States, every freaking bill that comes up is about constitutionality, plain and simple. If its within the powers that are granted to Congress, he says yes, if not, he votes no. There are more no votes since most of the douchebags in Congress tend to not even know what is constitutional and what isnt.

Originally posted by the owlbear
First off, let's get this out of the way, I like Paul's foreign policy and willingness to shrink our imperial forces, but am unsold on his domestic policies, though I view all of this as a charade for the true elite to keep the masses arguing.

Back to the question I had for Paul supporters and nonsupporters, why is the fact that he has not even TRIED to find middle ground with fellow congressmen a reason to support him as president? The art of compromise is what politics is supposed to be about not just voting for your own ideas and ignoring the rest as invalid. A president has to compromise to get legislation passed unless they can drum up support enough to shove bills through. I find this highly unlikely from a man referred to by those in his own party as "Dr. no".

IF he were to be elected and began a series of executive orders to move things in his direction, how is that liberty? It really is no different than what we have experienced the last 30+ years.

Reality check. Most of his fellow Congressmen are corrupt criminals. They vote for the money they're getting from the lobbyists and as a result of blackmail. He is one of a tiny minority who put the interests of the people first. With the others of that tiny, tiny minority he has sought and found common ground.

What he doesn't compromise on is blatant lies and corruption.

Originally posted by dizzie56
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Wow, it only took less then ten posts for you to bring up Nazism and compare such to Ron Paul...nice. Gotta say tho, i didnt catch on to the whole brown shirts thing at first, had to reread it for a second because I didnt really believe that someone would allready fall in to Godwin's Law.

If you read the post you responded to, you woul see that the things that he votes no to are based on constitutionality. And being in the Congress of the United States, every freaking bill that comes up is about constitutionality, plain and simple. If its within the powers that are granted to Congress, he says yes, if not, he votes no. There are more no votes since most of the douchebags in Congress tend to not even know what is constitutional and what isnt.

Most of Congress don't give a rat's poop about the Constitution, and increasingly the bills they want to pass are in breach of the constitution - so, of course, he votes against them, as any honest, non-corrupt member of Congress should.

The question isn't why he votes no, but WHY so many vote yes.

He is also one of the few with enough intelligence to think for himself and see what is really going on in DC, and he has the courage to stand up to it.

Originally posted by dizzie56
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Wow, it only took less then ten posts for you to bring up Nazism and compare such to Ron Paul...nice. Gotta say tho, i didnt catch on to the whole brown shirts thing at first, had to reread it for a second because I didnt really believe that someone would allready fall in to Godwin's Law.

If you read the post you responded to, you woul see that the things that he votes no to are based on constitutionality. And being in the Congress of the United States, every freaking bill that comes up is about constitutionality, plain and simple. If its within the powers that are granted to Congress, he says yes, if not, he votes no. There are more no votes since most of the douchebags in Congress tend to not even know what is constitutional and what isnt.

So it's okay to interpret the constitution in His almighty eyes. And for you to follow. This is my point. He has not tried to find any middle ground. Ever. And that doesn't raise a flag for you because you're suddenly in his camp. And anyone that thinks otherwise is "the problem". I never brought up naziism. I was just trying to make a point about how he will not even try to compromise. When did hitlers name come up?

Originally posted by the owlbear

IF he were to be elected and began a series of executive orders to move things in his direction, how is that liberty? It really is no different than what we have experienced the last 30+ years.

Executive orders are unconstitutional and it’s a shame the American people put up with them.

Who said that? Oh, it was RON PAUL!!!!
www.ronpaul.com...

So, check, we have established that he isn't going to "begin a series of executive orders" like you are worried about. One thing that is true about Ron Paul, he doesn't go against his convictions. If he said it, you can believe he will follow it.

As for your 2nd point, do you not understand that everything Ron Paul stands for has its basis in LIBERTY?

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas enjoys a national reputation as the premier advocate for liberty in politics today.

www.dailypaul.com...

He wants to return us to the ideas of liberty. The founding fathers fought for our liberty...the Constitution was written to protect our rights and liberties....if you follow the Constitution, you are on the side of liberty.