Ron Paul The Anarchist

reply to post by GovtFlu


Please understand, I KNOW Paul couldn't do these things, but thats so unimportant. What's important is that any opponent can use his own words to illustrate what he believes in. Ending social security/Medicare is not a widely held US Value. THAT won't be seen as ideology, but through a political lens, as an attack on poor people, disabled people, retired people, elderly people, minorities, etc.

That's reality.

reply to post by GovtFlu


You're missing the point.

It's not about reality, it's about perception.

His opponents, if they ever take him seriously, which isn't looking too likely, can simply say, "Ron Paul wants to destroy programs designed to help the poor, the elderly, minorities, the retired, the disabled, the mentally handicapped..." and so on...

If anyone thought he had a real chance at the nomination (his party isn't that stupid though, so he won't) there'd be adds about Ron Paul wanting to destroy Medicare and Social Security in all 50 states in about 5 mins.

You can't really fight that by saying, "Oh I do think all those programs are wrong, and I want to terminate them, but don't worry, I won't be able to... and on top of that, I'll work with Washington to sort out an alternative..."

tell that to granny living hand to mouth, surviving off of government funded meds... and her kids, and her friends, and their kids, and the AARP... and so on...

He doesn't have a chance...

BTW. I'm so Liberal I actually come all the way around the political circle and agree with him on stuff, (not that SS/MC/MC is unconstitutional - foreign policy stuff) and my choice for Pres would be Kucinich, another ideologue, but he's also completely unelectable.. and like Paul, DK would often do well in debates and be completely ignored...

America is tooo large and too set in its ways to go for such radical change... especially when change comes with such huge baggage.

btw: this sort of thing will come out 24/7, if he ever gets close... another reason he won't.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
Ron Paul will never win because of his comments about Medicare/Medicare/Social Security.

It's a pipe dream to think that'll play outside of a very small minority.

He only looks sane in a field that chooses Bachmann... put him against Obama, who will say, "Ron Paul says the program millions use to afford medicine is illegal".

He won't win.

Although I agree with Ron Paul on bringing our troops home....I don't agree with him regarding his stance on Social Security.....(he did somewhat have my vote...until I studied about this issue)....now not so sure. Rick Perry is another one that wants to get rid of Social Security. He won't get elected either...the elderly are really angry at him...and they are many....because of their stance on social security (meaning Rick Perry and Ron Paul).. ...they won't get the senior vote.

I was initially going to be diplomatic, but I've decided against it.

Mnemeth, you very plainly do not know what the word anarchist means.

Anarchy is derived from the Greek term, "an-archos." An is a prefix meaning, "without." Archos refers to "archons," or rulers.

Ron Paul is seeking to be elected the President of the American government. A government is a ruling body; and Paul is ostensibly seeking to become the leader of it. Advocacy of that, is about as far from either the letter or spirit of anarchy as it is possible to get.

You are not an anarchist. You are a statist. You might be a libertarian, yes; but being a libertarian while still advocating political leaders, is a different thing to being an anarchist.

I on the other hand *am* an anarchist; in that I do not advocate any government, any candidate, any manifestation of the centralised state whatsoever. There were elections in my country of residence yesterday; I did not vote, and I have only voted once in 16 years. I want the state to become entirely irrelevant, and for humanity to ultimately transcend it completely.

Ron Paul is not an anarchist, and neither are you.