I have a few questions I would like to put to some of you in hopes of better understanding the possible ramifications of electing Ron Paul to the
As an American citizen and a registered voter I would preface by saying that I believe in America as an ideal and would cite Theodore Roosevelt and
Ronald Reagan as the greatest American presidents of the last century. As such I identify with moderate conservative values and believe there is a
civic duty to intelligently participate in the electoral process, meaning I try to be as informed as possible and take the responsibility
After reading the opinions of many here and across the web regarding Ron Paul as a presidential candidate, I have found myself in agreement with
enough of his political views to warrant my further researching of the platform behind his Presidential bid.
In the past I had not seriously considered Ron Paul as a viable candidate, truthfully because I have seen him as an unelectable independent interest
who in all likelihood would only serve to fracture the conservative electorate( I remember the Ross Perot debacle too well) and guarantee another 4
years of the incumbent (at this juncture I believe a one term Obama presidency is in the nations beast interest)
After digging around a bit and reading what both his detractors and supporters have to say I have to admit that he seems very appealing in some
aspects, but in others strikes me as deserving of Rush Limbaugh's recent fruitcake lampooning.
I believe Ron Paul is sincere and can be trusted to stand by his beliefs once in office and not be swayed by partisanship and special interests. (He
is clearly a principled man and his congressional voting record speaks for itself)
I believe Ron Paul would not shrink from making the tough and painful call if necessary.
One of the greatest downfalls of President Obama's administration is his seeming inability to make tough, decisive calls for fear of public criticism.
An administration should establish policy based on the campaign promises that put them in office, not current opinion polls or the whims of the media.
The right decision is not always the easiest and most popular, the President can never please everyone and should not try.
I agree with Ron Paul's views in limiting and even reversing Federal bureaucracy and federal regulation in favor of states rights.
I agree his position on free trade, the American withdrawal from both the WTO and NATO ( NATO has no real purpose with the fall of the Soviet Union)
and most of his immigration policies ( I disagree with his position on the 14th amendment, that the tradition of automatic citizenship by birthright
should be rescinded.)
I am in agreement with his position on no federal legislation regarding same sex unions, health care and free speech.
I am an atheist and I'm mixed to mostly cold on his support of prayer in school and his objections to federally funded education, U.S participation in
the U.N. and his opposition to abortion. These are secondary issues at the moment and by no means major disqualifiers.
My main questions and concerns are Ron Paul's economic policies such as his idea's on ending the federal income tax, abolishment of the federal
reserve in favor of a return from fiat currency to a commodity-backed currency. Admittedly, I am not an economist but do have an understanding of the
economy and am hoping for some education here.
With the current state of the U.S. economy (and the globe by default), isn't doing away with the regulation of the federal reserve and the advantages
of a fiat currency an incredibly dangerous proposition? Does this not severely curtail a large economic powers possible options to flexibly react to
the needs of its economy?
I see no real advantage for the U.S. to embrace a commodity-backed currency short of a last ditch effort to save the economy in a hyperinflation
scenario (which is not currently the situation).
By my understanding, returning to a gold standard could be extremely detrimental to the U.S. at this particular time as the U.S. dollar is already
under attack by China, the change would both further destabilize the dollar and force large scale devaluation of American financial assets. The U.S.
dollar is currently the worlds primary reserve currency so unless the goal is implementing economic isolationism it is in the U.S. economic best
interest to continue with the current system and accept the fact that the current standard of living can only be supported by practicing
international trade in a global economy.
Deregulation and economic liberalization were two of the primary causes for the mess the country is in now, how does allowing the banks even more
freedom make any sense at all after they just took less than a decade after partial deregulation to muck up so badly that a trillion dollar bailout
I would love to believe in this guy, however the more I read I am beginning to believe Ron Paul's politics are driven by his ideology to
disempower,redefine and restructure the federal government with little regard for the practical consequence to society.
I understand the office of the president only has so much power and much of what Ron Paul proposes would not pass the congress if nothing else due to
the influence special interests and lobbyist agendas.
After the most recent ATS straw poll it is obvious there are a lot of people that believe in Ron Paul's message and understand this issue better than
myself. I would greatly appreciate anyone's input who can enlighten me as to the benefits to the country of a Ron Paul presidency (beyond breaking the
status quo of the two party system or symbolically "sticking it to the Man")?
edit on 8/18/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)