The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is the Only Rational Choice

I just stumbled upon this article and thought I should post it here. Laura Trice, a Huffington Post contributor, briefly lists 10 reasons why Ron Paul is the only rational choice for our next president. Here are a few of those reasons:

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

4. Dr. Paul doesn't care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

Here are a few more reasons to vote for Ron Paul:
Ron Paul wants to end the wars, which would cut trillions in annual spending.
He wants to end the Drug War, which is evidently unwinnable.
He wants to audit the Fed. and balance the budget.
He opposes the Patriot Act and is a strong advocate protecting the Constitution and Americans rights.

Ron Paul on the issues

Here are some reasons to not vote for other candidates:
Herman Cain: He used to be a chairman for the Federal Reserve.
He wants to continue the wars and expand our armed forces.

Herman Cain on the issues.

Rick Perry: He wants to continue fighting the wars and actually expand our armed forces, because 761+ military bases aren't enough for him.
He wants to continue the Drug War.
He supports the Patriot Act.
He's backed by big banks:

He's a flip-flopping phony:

In 1984, the liberal pretty boy Perry was elected as a Democrat State Legislator. In 1987 Perry voted for a 5.7 billion dollar tax increase!

In 1993,Governor Perry praised Hillary Clinton's socialized health care scheme,describing it as "most commendable."

Long before Perry created his phony macho image of a Texas cowboy, he was a male cheerleader at Texas A&M in the 1960's. This is not intended to insult male cheerleaders, but only to draw a contrast to his carefully crafted macho cowboy image.

Rick Perry on the issues.

Michele Bachmann: She's brainwashed by religion. I think that just about covers it.

She supports the Patriot Act even though she takes a pro-Constitutional stance.
She wants to stay in the Middle East.

Michele Bachmann on the issues.


Mitt Romney:

"Corporations are people my friend"

"The Federal Reserve is audited."

2:00 -
He supports the Drug War.
He supports the Federal Reserve.
He wants to continue fighting wars and also expand our armed forces just like Perry while also lowering taxes.
He supports the Patriot Act.

Mitt Romney on the issues.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I don't agree with a portion of Ron Paul's politics, but that does not sway me from respecting and supporting a very intelligent and honorable man.

Ron Paul is the only honest politician running in the 2012 race. And that is what we need in the white house a HONEST man who will listen to the people and put his own beliefs and interests below that of the will of the people.

Obama ran under the guise of change and hope and gave us secret wars and financial solutions that will destroy future generations.

S&F for you Tupac.

Ron Paul 2012!!!!

reply to post by Openeye

I don't agree with a portion of Ron Paul's politics, but that does not sway me from respecting and supporting a very intelligent and honorable man.

Same, I disagree with his stance on taxes, but agree with him on just about everything else.

Ron Paul is the only honest politician running in the 2012 race. And that is what we need in the white house a HONEST man who will listen to the people and put his own beliefs and interests below that of the will of the people.

Definitely, and he never dodges questions. If he is asked something, he states his opinion up front and doesn't beat around the bush. He is probably the most honest presidential candidate that we've had in decades.

Obama ran under the guise of change and hope and gave us secret wars and financial solutions that will destroy future generations.

Yep, and as far as I know every other presidential candidate except Ron Paul wants to continue these wars.

S+F, A really well put together post, I enjoyed seeing the contrast between Paul and the other candidates. While I don't agree with Paul on every issue, at least the ones I disagree with him on there's room for debate.

Paul's big hurdle is getting past the GOP primary. Karl Rove and Roger Ailes and the rest of the right-wing media circus have already made it clear who they're going to back - Rick Perry. If you don't want to see that disaster in the WH then you have to get out and vote in the primaries.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Paul's big hurdle is getting past the GOP primary. Karl Rove and Roger Ailes and the rest of the right-wing media circus have already made it clear who they're going to back - Rick Perry. If you don't want to see that disaster in the WH then you have to get out and vote in the primaries.

Yeah I really can't understand how so many Americans support Rick Perry. How is he going to benefit this county as president?

Hopefully the upcoming debates will show Perry's true colors and show Americans that he's a terrible choice. But the MSM trying to put a negative spin on Ron Paul and highlighting aspects of his campaign that they pass off as "crazy" and against the grain will influence a lot of people.

The debates will be the important things, because the corporate media isn't going to help Ron Paul out. There are 20+ debates to come, and so far he's been doing great in them, Iowa especially. Next Wednesday, September the 7th is the next Republican debate, and Rick Perry is joining the fun. I can't wait to see Ron Paul go against him.

Rick Perry is their "chosen one" I'm thinking.

But yes, Ron Paul is the most rational choice of the available options. There is never going to be a candidate 100% for any one person, but he comes close for this country in these times. Hope this time more people keep seeing this.

Great post. Thank you.

Unfortunately for me, such lists always move me to respond point by point... and while I have determined that my support will go to Dr. Paul; some of my comments may show that such support is not unconditional... (I sort of wish more people understood that when electing a government, "unconditional" support to a candidate (or worse a party) is not patriotic... it's usually wrecklessly foolish.)

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up -- for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

Dr. Paul is as much a professional politician as any other in the field. His ability to function as a practicing physician is commendable, but it does not translate to leadership ability. That comes from his character, which unsurprisingly even many failed businessmen can have. Don't mistake business success for leadership ability or competence in governance. Down that road lies the politically created meme... and we have seen where that evoked 'common' perception has led us. Our country is NOT a business.... (Their country may be.. but the America of "the people" is NOT, and never should be.)

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

This one seems a rather vague repeat of number 10... which is kind of a bad sign... but I will reiterate;
running a business is in NO WAY like being the executive authority of a nation, nor a commander in chief. No matter what the political marketeers want you to believe... not one aspect of running a business has anything to do with leading a democratic republic ... businesses are rightfully "fascist" entities not 'democracies' and certainly not 'republics.' I will grant you that business leaders would sacrifice nearly anything to get the opportunity to be a 'governing' leader... can you imagine why?

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

The two points are not connected. I agree, he appears to understand the contrast between Keynesian and Austrian economics, he understands the fallacies and embedded scam of the sale of supply-side economics to the nation, and this is important, because other leaders in our past have relied upon the indoctrination of 'select' economists to formulate fiscal policy. BUT it has nothing to do with his position within the committee... he is there because of political maneuvering and seniority... little else. By the way, no member of the subcommittee makes ANY monetary policy... that's the Fed's domain. All they do is try to keep the market manipulation under some form of oversight... but they can change NOTHING... nor can "we the people" since "our" Congress repeatedly abdicates the Constitutional responsiblity to a private banking cartel.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

To paraphrase an old movie you may remember, "I'm fuzzy on the whole right and wrong thing!" Being right is a matter of perception. Being correct is a matter of the substance of the discussion. That being said, yes, Dr. Paul's continual focus on the Constitution and the framework's intent to control the government is most appropriate... why? Because modern politicians seem intensly dedicated to "getting around" the rules meant to keep them from their profiteering ways. As for Dr. Paul's public service; it stands for itself. His tenure as a public servant can, and likely will, be characterized by punditry as it is all about image in the political theater the party has allowed to emerge. Some will cry "career politican" when a few electoral cycles ago he was "not capable" because he was "too out there," as in, too far removed from the political party's objectives... fortunately for us, Madison Avenue and Hollywood have become stale and incompetent in their services to the political gamesmen.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be "hypocritical and immoral."

Well, it's hard to argue the point that it is not ethically shallow to expect handsom remuneration for 'public' service as a matter of practice. But were you in charge of determining your own compensation, I suspect even you would be better off than someone who isn't. Congress has become a profitable place to work... and they have made great efforts to embed the practice so as not to be challengable.

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

That is, rather sadly. a matter of opinion. Not all politicians are "good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmers or charismatic zealots" but the most successful ones at least start out that way... and some who weren't become that way in order to serve the party. And those who can;t are marketed that way ... because according to the intelligesia elite, Americans a re shallow and have no sense of substance over image.

4. Dr. Paul doesn't care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

Of course he does. You can't be a successful politician in America if all the largest special interests don't like you. Being successful in politics in America is all about convincing people to like you. Nevertheless, it is clear that this maxim is not the driving force behind his ideas... which cannot be said of the rest of his peers who will go so far as to flip-flop on fundamental issues (and parties) if it means they can get more political currency to play with.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

This, we have heard from other politicians before (although he is the first I have heard of to actually attempt to make a formal requirement of it.) but our politicans cannot comply with such a mandate. Even the actual "proponents" of bills hardly ever actually read them... because they are most often crafted by teams of political appointees and generally rendered unintelligable to anyone who doens't have months (or a gigantic braintrust like ATS) to dissect the minutae concealed within.

2. Dr. Paul will bring practical wisdom, cut spending, balance the budget, stabilize the economy and probably be able to do away with the IRS and income tax, a tax that is not constitutional and was started to fund the civil war and supposed to stop after the civil war. He wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, giving the states and parents back control. He wants to do away with other large government agencies, restoring the rightful power to the states.

The initial assertion is hardest to accept, and may be even self-defeating. While it is very likely true that the income tax bill was improperly established and inadequately ratified or vetted, the idea that the bill was about the civil war is completely off the mark. This bill was meant to funnel tax of the fruits of American labor to pay for the adventures of the elite empire builders who dominate our nation by means of contrived debt. The idea that in one fell swoop, the labor and wealth of American citizens became 'owed' to the federal government is as unconstitutional as it ever could be. The civil war comment almost seems like an invitation to invalidate the list entirely.

The US Department of Education is as much a failure as almost any other venture imposed upon the people of this country. The late George Carlin had a good way of looking at it... but I will spare you the profanity. (for the curious www.youtube.com...)

1. Dr. Paul's old-fashioned decency, integrity, honor and real-life experience are exactly what our country needs after hiring actors, puppets, oil and other group-connected slick sales men and marketers. He's been married to the same woman, Carol, for 54 years (married 1957).

Again, we connecting two disparate matters. First off, his marriage may be a well-deserved and notable success; but it hardly stands to reason that a man who is not married that long, or at all, is not potentially as good a leader as he may be. As for the first; all of the superlatives and lauditory descriptions are matters of appearance. While I tend to expect they are generally true... we have been wrong in saying such things before.... I can only hope we are not now. WHAT HE MAY ACHIEVE AS PRESIDENT IS STRICTLY PREDICATED ON THE SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE... AND MORE DIRECTLY ... THOSE "OTHERS" WE ELECT (OR ARE APPOINTED) TO SERVE IN LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICAL CAPACITIES.

No one governs alone. America was meant to govern herself... the political parties have nearly destroyed that capacity... only an insightful administrator can engender the change in doctrine required to eradicate the self-serving 'for sale to the highest bidder' government we see in place today. Dr. Paul is more likely than any other candidate in the last 30 years to be that kind of leader.

reply to post by Maxmars


to see such critical thinking is quite refreshing, especially considering the narrative of reasons offered in support of the only promising candidate of the bunch.

i can only hope that those who read the moderator's response truly realizes that what is being offered...what america is being offered is a number of possible evils...evils of varying levels, to be sure, but still evils to be elected on the behalf of the republican house.

and rp truly is, by design, just another evil within the republican party...although he does happen to be the far lesser of all presently offered evils. but...

he is still evil - in the sense of what he is part of, what he is striving to achieve, and where he could possibly end up as...all of which is currently governed by TPTB...the true evil that is thoroughly rooted throughout the framework of the american government.

and those who read this post...don't take the use of the word evil as religious. the use of it the term is to simply emphasize what is very wrong with american politics.


alas, food for thought.

If Ron Paul won the election, he would be 77 years old when taking office. He would be 81 years old at the end of his term. While Ron Paul is certainly worthy of our respect for being a thoughtful and innovative figure in politics, I don't think that is is appropriate for the United States to elect the oldest person that it ever would have had in history to the office of president.

Maybe in the next century, when we all have nanobot upgrades and life-extension modifications.

reply to post by kristobal

If Ron Paul won the election, he would be 77 years old when taking office. He would be 81 years old at the end of his term. While Ron Paul is certainly worthy of our respect for being a thoughtful and innovative figure in politics, I don't think that is is appropriate for the United States to elect the oldest person that it ever would have had in history to the office of president.

Maybe in the next century, when we all have nanobot upgrades and life-extension modifications.

Quit being influenced by MSM and think for yourself. Who cares about his age, do you not respect the wisdom that comes with age? It doesn't matter if he's 77, 53, or 120 years old, he would make a great president, and suggesting that his age would play a factor in how he handles that position is just stupid.

That is such a dumb reason to oppose electing him as president, I really can't believe people think that way. :shk:

I totally agree that my comment about Ron Paul is ageist. Ageism sucks: I've been a victim of it myself. At age 32 I had a job interview with a major video games publisher, and the person conducting the interview flat out told me that I was too old to work in a marketing position there.

Flying home on a plane from europe I met a guy who was depressed because he was 'fired' from his professional soccer team in Europe for being too old, at 33.

But just as soccer players get too old to be competitive on the pitch, so do people get too old to occupy highly demanding and stressful positions. You don't want a 77-year-old in charge of an aircraft carrier in a warzone. And you probably don't want one leading a complex, nuclear-armed country in a period of major global instability and chaos. There is a reason why most people in professional life, doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. retire in their 60s.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

1) The elimination of minimum wage.
2) His views of medicare, medicaid, and other essential federal assistance programmes
3) His intentions to give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights.
4) His intentions to remove or repeal Roe V Wade
5) His intentions to abolish social security
6) His delusions about the free market system

Obviously though, these reasons are why Paulers support him in first place, and these reasons are why he loses every presidential election year and why he'll lose again.

Republican voters want a candidate that will preach values and beliefs, not actually practice them. This is why Reagan and Bush seniors administrations were near opposites to libertarianism.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Oh yes, but he'll "end the wars" and "legalize pot", as if those are the core and overriding concerns that folks have these days. Paulers are so quick to jump at every other candidate because of every policy they hold, but with Ron Paul, we should may exceptions here and there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Oh yes, but he'll "end the wars" and "legalize pot", as if those are the core and overriding concerns that folks have these days. Paulers are so quick to jump at every other candidate because of every policy they hold, but with Ron Paul, we should may exceptions here and there. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What are you talking about dude? Are those not good reasons?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
What are you talking about dude? Are those not good reasons?

Afew minor policies such as ending the wars or legalizing pot should not be immediate and only policies to vote for any candidate, that's rather silly.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Afew minor policies such as ending the wars or legalizing pot should not be immediate and only policies to vote for any candidate, that's rather silly.

Agreed.


Yet...

1) The elimination of minimum wage.
2) His views of medicare, medicaid, and other essential federal assistance programmes
3) His intentions to give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights.
4) His intentions to remove or repeal Roe V Wade
5) His intentions to abolish social security
6) His delusions about the free market system

These require more amplification, unless you honestly contend that such characterizations are adequate representations of his demerits, in your opinion..... that would be rather silly too.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate on how you have come to accept the adequacy of these bullet points? I will understand if you should decline....

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

1) The elimination of minimum wage.
2) His views of medicare, medicaid, and other essential federal assistance programmes
3) His intentions to give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights.
4) His intentions to remove or repeal Roe V Wade
5) His intentions to abolish social security
6) His delusions about the free market system

Obviously though, these reasons are why Paulers support him in first place, and these reasons are why he loses every presidential election year and why he'll lose again.

Republican voters want a candidate that will preach values and beliefs, not actually practice them. This is why Reagan and Bush seniors administrations were near opposites to libertarianism.

Great post. I'll also add that I refuse to vote for anyone that is a member of the GOP or Democratic party, since both are servants to the elite.

Paul will not win, the system is rigged.

Rick Perry is the leading GOP candidate because tptb wants him to be so. The MSM pushes that ignorant hillbilly non stop, and the sheep flock right to it.

Americans won't learn until they wake up in a tent city one cold morning.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul.

1) The elimination of minimum wage.

So you support corporations and corporatism, as well as the elimination of small business? Thank goodness Obama has you on his side.

2) His views of medicare, medicaid, and other essential federal assistance programmes

His views are that they should be reworked since they're working so poorly now. Why are you so against making them work better?

3) His intentions to give states back the powers they held before the 1860's, when slavery and racial segregation were states rights.

The 13th & 14th Amendments won't be repealed any time soon. So that argument is completely fallacious, not to mention the fact that he would not even allow slavery, as you and everyone else knows. Yet you keep attempting to bring that up. Einstein was right about insanity after all.

4) His intentions to remove or repeal Roe V Wade

Here is his stance on Roe v. Wade:

Federalizing Social Policy

A couple of excerpts:

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue.

Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue.

Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.

Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us.

5) His intentions to abolish social security

Good thing I'm here to cover you with truth:

Ron Paul on Social Security

Q: Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?

A: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.

Looks like he still wants the elderly to be taken care of. The rest of that page is very much the same: replace SS with something that actually works and helps people.

6) His delusions about the free market system

The free-market system works just fine if allowed to. The market can regulate itself. RP on free markets:

The Free Market as Regulator

The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft -- these are creatures of government.

Truly horrible ideas.

Republican voters want a candidate that will preach values and beliefs, not actually practice them. This is why Reagan and Bush seniors administrations were near opposites to libertarianism.

Which is exactly why we should elect Ron Paul. Glad to see you agree with us!

/TOA

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by TupacShakur
What are you talking about dude? Are those not good reasons?

Afew minor policies such as ending the wars or legalizing pot should not be immediate and only policies to vote for any candidate, that's rather silly.

Ending war is a minor policy to you? Wow. Here it is, folks! A prime example of why there are no more people walking in a circle complaining about the sitting president authorizing the murders of the citizens of sovereign nations. Because it's a small, insignificant issue.

A round of applause!

/TOA

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Afew minor policies such as ending the wars or legalizing pot should not be immediate and only policies to vote for any candidate, that's rather silly.

First of all, ending the wars is about as far as you can get from a minor issue. I don't even need to elaborate here.

Onto your next "minor issue", America has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, due to our Drug War. It's not just a simple "Legalize it bro!! Ron Paul 4 doobiezz!" issue, millions of people go to jail for drug related crimes.

Take a look at this:

American arrests: 2009

13,687,241 -- Total Arrests

[color=limegreen]1,663,582 -- Total Drug Arrests

858,408 -- Total Marijuana Arrests

99,815 -- Marijuana Trafficking/Sale Arrests

758,593 -- Marijuana Possession Arrests

581,765 -- Total Violent Crime Arrests

1,728,285 -- Total Property Crime Arrests

That is insanity. The Drug War is a joke, millions of people are arrested annually for drug-related crimes. Alcohol and tobacco are legal yet they kill over half a million Americans annually, while all illegal drugs combined kill 18,000 Americans, roughly 3% of what two legal drugs kill. Our legal system is so skewed and out of touch with reality, but people are so brainwashed from either MSM propaganda, DARE classes, AboveTheInfluence, and ignorant parents that they prepetuate this illogical Drug War.

He's not just for "legalizing pot" either, he's for allowing the citizen the freedom of choice. If a person wants to buy some heroin, they could buy some heroin. If a person wants to buy some crack, they could buy some crack. Sounds crazy? Tell me, how many of your family members would go out and score some rock once it's legal? Would you and your friends flock to the store to buy crystal meth and stay awake for 5 days?

The Drug War is a waste of taxpayer money, and the taxpayers who fund it are the ones being incarcerated. Why not take a tiny fraction of what's spend busting down doors and raiding dispensaries or peoples homes to throw another person in prison for a drug related crime, and instead spend that on accurate, unbiased educational programs that inform the public of the dangers of drugs? This could be done in a number of ways, commercials, billboards, a read and sign before you buy handout at the drug store, and so on.

But instead this endless, unwinnable Drug War continues to waste taxpayer money. A minor issue? Far from it, tell the hundreds of thousands of Americans who were sent to jail for a drug-related crime that the Drug War is a minor issue and see what they think.

We don't need laws to tell us that drugs are bad, that's what education is for. If drug-related laws were really there to protect the public, alcohol and tobacco would be made illegal in a heartbeat.

Straight from the horses mouth: