Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by bacci0909
kooky old grandpa? this, coming from someone who has an account on ATS?

I don't quite know where you're going with that one. Not all ATS members are kooks.

Seriously though, Dr. Paul's ideas would set the US back hundreds of years. He's an uber-Constitutionalist, and that's just dangerous.

He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act and let individual states decide whether or not to enact similar legislation. The US Constitution didn't protect African slaves and their descendants from a life of forced servitude for over 80 years, and it didn't prevent black people from legally being treated as second-class citizens for the best part of 200 years. Nor did it give women electoral and legal equality for over 100 years.

Exactly mate, you nailed it!

He is an uber-Constitutionalist and that indeed is dangerous. It is so ridiculous actually. If you think about. Ron Paul has no real answers or solutions to the problems generated by our system. The only answer he has is that it is because of corruption, immorality etc.etc.. making the failure of this system a kind of psychological problem. Besides that all he does is repeat old conservative and liberal rhetoric.

In my opinion the entire system is failing.

Still compared to the other candidates I find him the most honorable. But that is simply because America's politics is so incredibly backwards and single minded.

reply to post by Navieko


Not liking a politician an expressing that viewpoint is not trolling. If you get personally offended by it, perhaps that's a personal issue.

I disagree with Paul on a great many things. only on a select few topics do I actually agree with his stances (ending the Fed is one)

I simply do not like Ron Paul, I don't think he is a good candidate for President. That opinion is not trolling. Sorry you feel like it is, but you're wrong.

I am one that doesn't like it when a politician puts his faith on display as a selling point. It's fine to have a faith, but keep it to yourself. I simply don't want someone to be in office talking with an imaginary friend and taking that imaginary friend's advice. That just doesn't work for me.

It also doesn't work for me to have a politician claim that he wants government out of people's lives and then in the next breath try and force government intervention into the reproductive habits of women. To me that sounds a bit hypocritical.

I also don't agree with his ideas on education. I think that it's backwards to think that homeschooling children for the poor is a good idea. I think that the idea that Ron Paul has will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. The wealthy will of course gain the advantages of a private education while the poor being forced to home school their kids will wind up severely limiting those children's opportunities.

So what's trolling about that?

Ron Paul is different because he doesn't pander to the multinational corporations like almost all other officials in his position have. Some people call him a kook, but he's a kook with unshakeable principles and has the immense courage it takes to challenge the status quo system.

No matter what you think of him, his kind of courage to ask the questions he asks is the testing fire that burns out lies and reveals truth. It seems plausible that at least half of the "crazy" allegations he makes has some truth to it; and if that is true, then everything he's standing up against could use some reform if it's to truly serve the benefit of the American people.

He is the only candidate in the game who has the courage to make real clean-ups and strengthen our country.

reply to post by muse7


because ron paul does not say change change change without saying how he will conduct change.

usually, like obama, they say change change change , all candidates have similar stances on issues with a slight twist, ron paul doens't just have a twist. he twists issues into a pretzel and re thinks them.


Yes it is easy to say he is just a politician like the rest. I dont' remember the last politician to question the fed, oh wait kennedey did and umyeah he is dead, i don't remember the last candidate to give himself a pay cut, quite they obvious they ask for a raise. I can't remember the last candidate to look for spending cuts on elected "Official" expeditures. I can't remember the last candidate who wants to protect liberty instead or perpetuating government control.


he could be a huge liar, if he does turn out to be a liar he will disillusion our country into revolution as the system does not work, if he does do what he says well he will die as the establishment can't have that... but this time instead of buying the story.. there will be violence.

Oh and he is consistent, he does not waffle to be liked to which ever group he is talking to . he does not play to the crowd he says unpopular stuff, and he sticks to his guns. I like that .

my opinions

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Navieko

 

Not liking a politician an expressing that viewpoint is not trolling. If you get personally offended by it, perhaps that's a personal issue.

I disagree with Paul on a great many things. only on a select few topics do I actually agree with his stances (ending the Fed is one)

I simply do not like Ron Paul, I don't think he is a good candidate for President. That opinion is not trolling. Sorry you feel like it is, but you're wrong.

I am one that doesn't like it when a politician puts his faith on display as a selling point. It's fine to have a faith, but keep it to yourself. I simply don't want someone to be in office talking with an imaginary friend and taking that imaginary friend's advice. That just doesn't work for me.

It also doesn't work for me to have a politician claim that he wants government out of people's lives and then in the next breath try and force government intervention into the reproductive habits of women. To me that sounds a bit hypocritical.

I also don't agree with his ideas on education. I think that it's backwards to think that homeschooling children for the poor is a good idea. I think that the idea that Ron Paul has will widen the gap between the haves and the have nots. The wealthy will of course gain the advantages of a private education while the poor being forced to home school their kids will wind up severely limiting those children's opportunities.

So what's trolling about that?

Looking at a mans faith as a basis to judge a man is retarded.. do you also judge by the color of skin heritage adn background?? All of those things will have influence on the way he will lead.

people like you are the problem, the man is not afraid to be himself and he is not hiding anything as to not deceive you and even with this transparency you judge him on that?? you do realize that is why our system is so twisted.. because people cannot be themselves nor be accepted because of twits like you that judge for stupid reasons. they have to play a game that you perpetuate. You like liars that tell you everything you want to hear and promise you the world if you ask them if they are muslim they say "do you want me to be" then when i ask them if they are christian they say " do you want me to be" if that is the type candidates you want, the ones that say what you want to hear then go ahead. why should they hide who they are ?




as for homeschooling you obviously do not work in the education field.. I have been in both private and public schools and was home schooled . My father and I are both involved in the field of education. Our system sucks and putting them in home schooling would be the same or better than the garbage we have at our schools.


When i was in public school our senior year some home schooled kids enrolled and steamrolled face and were way ahead of the kids in my class. It was humbling.

You have no idea what you are talking about all your are spouting off is prejudice.

reply to post by muse7

According to the current POTUS, Congress is irrelevant. He has taken us into war with several countries(without Congressional approval, or public approval), he has signed into effect executive orders when he couldn't get Congress to go along with what he wanted. All you have to do is look in the news.

At least Ron Paul does not think that Congress is an outdated idea. I think he may be the only one(and someone can correct me if I am mistaken) in Congress who thinks the system can be repaired.

And anyone can have an opinion on who they believe would be a good or if not good at least a passable POTUS. They are really not on a band wagon for anyone per-say. It just SEEMS like people are on the band wagon for Ron Paul because he can back up what he says with his actions. Not so true with the present POTUS.

reply to post by yaluk

Looking at a mans faith as a basis to judge a man is retarded..

Actually it's quite the viable reason to choose whether or not to vote for a person. There is a separation of church and state in this country because our founding fathers knew that while a person has the freedom to believe whatever they want and that is good, having religious influence in our government is bad. This government has far too much Christian influence as it is. This is part and parcel why we have been at war in the middle east, religious purposes.

as for homeschooling you obviously do not work in the education field..

Obviously.

I have been in both private and public schools and was home schooled .

Oh, believe me it shows.

My father and I are both involved in the field of education. Our system sucks and putting them in home schooling would be the same or better than the garbage we have at our schools.

Not always, the reason I am against this is because some parents are't capable of schooling their children. The GOP has been against any type of education in this country for a very long time. The reason they don't want our children to have any sort of education is that the under educated are far easier to control. Throughout human history leaders have made sure the population was dumb and therefore subordinate. It's the oldest trick in controlling the population. And that is exactly why Ron Paul wants to have dumb parents home school their children, so that they can ensure that the US has a bumper crop of uneducated dullards who can only work menial jobs and have far fewer opportunities than wealthy children.

The problem with the Western world and especially America is that it has no new idea's. Nothing at all. You look at all the candidates and they basically propagate the exact same system.

America is stuck. Stuck in it's own rhetoric.

It is politically extremely backwards and outdated. Take for example the unspoken fact that America is the most religious country in the world. If a politician openly admits to being an atheist his career is finished. This is backwards, extraordinarily backwards I might say.

Ron Paul is an honest man and he (in my opinion) is a decent conservative so to say. He addresses issues such as the Fed, CIA corruption and corporate power abuse, real problems.

But are his "solutions" really solutions? That is my fundamental question. It is silly to cheer for him only because he has the guts to address these issues. That is not enough for me.

reply to post by HauntWok


I really think you are exaggerating your views. You just sound like a conspiracy nut to me(sorry mate). I disagree with Paul, but not in the way you do.

I mean really, are you just trolling or what?

Bandwagon? More like a freight train.

reply to post by muse7


Well maybe they looked at Ron Paul's actual voting record and saw that he didn't
vote "present" over and over like our current president.

I am no fan of shrub and his lies and support of PNAC and CFR, but the
current crowd is CFR puppets as well.

Maybe they realize that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different
results if the definition of insanity.

In regards to doing the same thing over and over I am referring to the results that are
seen here and in Europe.

As Lenin said "The goal of socialism is communism" and I think Lenin is a pretty fair
authority on both "-isms".

I am not an advocate of the current model, what we have is closer to fascism, the merger
of corporations and the government as mentioned by Mussolini, others call it crony capitalism
and that is quite accurate as well.

The conventional democrats and republicans will only bring you more of the same.

One of the nicknames for Mc Cain fits well here, aka vote for the same ppl and you gt Mc Same.

As Einstein said we cannot solve our problems with the same kind of thinking that created them.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by WP4YT

 

I didn't realize I won anything by voting for someone that wins, unless the person I voted for is someone who will do good for the country.

Then why on EARTH would you vote for Ron Paul?

Because I happen to like Ron Paul's views, ideals and I think he will make this country better, not worse. That's my opinion, and why I will vote for him.

Originally posted by HauntWok

This whole concept of voting for someone because they will "probably win" has to be the most naive concept I've ever heard of, and the sad thing is you are not the first person I have heard it from. Why not just let the government automatically vote for me then?

The reason that Ron Paul isn't going to win is not because people are going to vote for someone based on they will "probably win" it's because his ideas just are wrong, and people can spot someone that shouldn't be president a mile away.

I'll give you that Ron Paul has a nice little cult following, and he does a good job as a Jim Jones-esque cult leader. But America doesn't want a crazy cult leader in the white house, they want a person they believe will fix the country without having everyone drink cyanide laced kool aid.

The reason Ron Paul will not win is because the majority of voters (along with the majority of the US population) are old timers of the baby-boomer generation who grew up when America was in it's prime (during the cold war), who are used to being spoon-fed everything by the government (social security, etc). This is also the generation that solely relies on the "boob tube" (tellyvision, aka lie machine) to get their news, and to know who is running for president. Unfortunately Ron Paul is against corporate greed and government handouts (i.e. free "gubbment cheese" money to corporations), and being that all the news stations on TV are corporations, and big surprise here, FOR PROFIT, their goal is to make as much money as possible. So of course, they are not going to give air time to a candidate against their agenda.

Ask anyone who is "older" (i.e. above 60 years old) about Ron Paul, they will say "who?" They don't even know about the guy, let alone vote for him, because the only source they get their information from about the elections is an antiquated piece of equipment that the broadcasters control and is not a free-speech, free-market news source.

Now, ask anyone below 55 years old who Ron Paul is, especially younger people (18-30 years old) and they will always know who you are talking about and tell you they are voting for him! These are just my personal experiences. And I live in a highly liberal "blue" state. Now, unfortunately, the younger generation are not of the baby-boomer generation who's very namesake implies they are a high percentage of the population. Therefore, fewer voters.

It's amazing how Ron Paul supporters are called "those crazy people on the internet" or how talking heads on the tellyvision box say "oh, those internet polls don't matter" (their way of saying "keep your eyes glued to the boob-tube, you old farts, it's how we make money and don't dare get your information from anywhere else!") But this is amazing considering more than 50 million Americans have access to the internet. YEAH!! Damn internet people are a REAL MINORITY aren't they?

But, the real joke will be in the next 7-12 years when the baby boomer population starts dying off, the US population plummets, and no more old timers are getting their news from CNN or Faux. It will only be "that crazy internet cult" left.

Originally posted by HauntWok


There is a little group here on ATS that is furiously pimping for Ron Paul, they post dozens of Ron Paul threads all the time just to get his name out there and get themselves some undeserved stars and flags.

Keep marginalizing the internet, it shows your ignorance. Yes, the internet will matter less for this election since the baby boomers are still around, but when they are all dead, the internet will decide future elections. It will be too late for Ron Paul's candidacy, but his Son will be of age to be president by then. And while Ron Paul has great ideas, Rand Paul has better ideas, a higher position (senator vs. just congressman), is a far better public speaker and knows how to make a crowd cheer with glee.

Originally posted by HauntWok

They can be summed up in two ways, either they are actually working for the Obama administration trying to get people to cast a vote for Ron Paul instead of a real candidate thereby getting votes away from someone that would win and get Obama out of the white house, or they actually believe in the bat [snip] insane ideas Paul spouts (which might actually be worse).

I used to have the same views you did and did think Ron Paul supported were crazy loons.


I actually voted for Obama in 2008, did not do my research on Ron Paul, and took the MSM's views on Ron Paul as gospel. When Obama completely failed me in the 2 years after he was elected, I denied ignorance and did some research on Ron Paul after a friend suggested I look into him.

I was amazed at what his views really were, and all his ideas for fixing the country actually made sense. Who would have thought, a politician suggesting to cut spending to bring the country out of debt, instead of spending more and more money?? I mean, doesn't that make sense? When someone has a credit card and is in debt, why the flying cluck would he spend more money to get out of debt? Aren't you supposed to reduce spending? LOL?

Needless to say, next year, I won't make the same mistake. Ron Paul is getting my vote this time around.

reply to post by muse7


I think the OP echoes exactly the right things. And honestly dont we have better choice than Ron paul...I know he is a favourite here, but what about Romney? Backman? dont u think these deserve some attention here?

My suggestion is to wait for the polls sometime in Dec and see who is popular as the dec polls tend to indicate who the next pres might be

Only thing a president can do these days is pull back troops so why not vote for the guy you know is going to do it, all the other plans anyone has will be stopped by congress, we have seen this with obama

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
reply to post by muse7

 

I think the OP echoes exactly the right things. And honestly dont we have better choice than Ron paul...I know he is a favourite here, but what about Romney? Backman? dont u think these deserve some attention here?

My suggestion is to wait for the polls sometime in Dec and see who is popular as the dec polls tend to indicate who the next pres might be

Are you serious? You are urging people to base their decision on poll results? That is exactly WRONG!

That is how a lot of people already vote - they do what everyone else does, and they don't use their brain to make their own decisions. This is why the elites have been able to manipulate the population into the mess we're in. This is why people like you are referred to as "sheep".

Unbelievable.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by projectvxn

 

To right a US withdraw from the rest of the world will create a power vacuum filled by one of two things

1. China
2. Radical Islamic Extremism.

Neither of them good.

Well, I'm not going to debate if China is not good and I don't think it's a fair selection, but where do you think America would withdraw from and why would it create a power vacuum?

America would no more want to stop exporting than any other country so America would not want to withdraw from that, and if you want to export you need to accept the fact other countries will expect America to import their goods too.

Armed forces? Well from a NATO/UN perspective, America is either part of the party or leaves and loses its vote. Not sure that leads to a power vacuum.

None NATO/UN armed forces? It's a fine line on that I guess, but not sure which ones you actually mean if you are referring to anywhere America is based that is not part of a NATO/UN sanctioned agreement in which several other countries are also involved - number may seem smaller unless you look at them per capita.

I don't think it's as much leaving a power vacuum as losing a position of power that would be more a concern for America.

Originally posted by sunny_2008ny
reply to post by muse7

 

I think the OP echoes exactly the right things. And honestly dont we have better choice than Ron paul...I know he is a favourite here, but what about Romney? Backman? dont u think these deserve some attention here?

Romney? Someone who promises exactly the same solutions Obama and every other candidate out there has? Solutions that have time and time again failed?

great idea...

Check his platform.
Check his record.
Check his voting history.

Not too difficult to see why people are for him.

Now, realistically, we know that a) he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually getting elected, and b) even if he was, it'd be difficult to get the Congress' buy in....however, voting for him sends a message that some of us want to see a return to what this country was founded on, and see the government be more responsive to the people vs. big corporations.

reply to post by muse7

Did you become any more enlightened after posting your thread?