It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why didn't Ron Paul vote against the NDAA?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
This may be old news but I haven't seen any threads on it.

Ron Paul, the defender of the peoples liberties, didn't vote against one of the most dangerous acts in modern American history. Why was this? Surely he should have been standing against it, even if he saw it as futile.

Source

Edit: Btw, im not saying that he was for it. Im just saying its odd that someone who is opposed to it so adamantly wasn't there to vote no.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Tea4One because: additions




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Maybe it's because he's trying to become the next president.

After all, if he makes it into office i'll bet his pen is gonna be busy getting rid of all this crap.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Gird your loins my friend, ravenous cult like Ron Paul supporters will be in here incredibly butt hurt that you would dare to question the man. I support Ron Paul but ATS is seriously getting out of control with the Dr. Paul love fest. It's OK that he's not perfect, and the OP raises a very good question. Where the hell were you on this one Ron?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I do love how people believe they count our votes



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Because he wasn't there that day. He did vote against HR 1540, which is the provision that everyone is upset over, right?

Vote On Passage: H.R. 1540

ETA: It's a good question, though. NDAA has to go through, but what matters is that he voted against the provision that is under scrutiny, and he was the only one from Texas to vote no out of their 32 representatives.

Interesting to note that almost all from Massachusetts voted no, while all of Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and all (except Ron Paul) from Texas voted aye. And one of only 6 Republicans that voted against it.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Sek82 because: ETA



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Not voting is not the same thing as voting yes.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


I see some signs that the NDAA could be used too arrest the criminal Bush REGIME.......



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


That is an interesting point. Why didn't he vote No? Was he not in DC to vote because of his campaign? Would his vote even have mattered? Lets have a look,

---- AYES 283 ---
---- NOES 136 ---
---- NOT VOTING 14 ---

Looks like Bachmann didn't vote either. It could be safe to say the 2 Prez candiates weren't able to vote because they were on the road. Ron Paul does in fact strongly oppose the NDAA, which any RP fan or hater already knows.

Btw, when was the NDAA voted on? Was it 12/15/11? Wasn't the Iowa GOP Debate also on 12/15/11? If so, that explains why he and Bachmann didn't get to vote. Given the chance, I think we ALL know that Paul would vote NO.

Ron Paul Furious About Indefinite Detention Act (NDAA)






edit on 27-12-2011 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


Oh, good point. Derp.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Surely him voting no would give him a more respectable view to potential voters?

Why wasn't he there that day? Should he not of made sure he was there to vote no. He may of said no to the provision but that failed, he had a second chance to say no to it overall.

But it still isn't a no. Which is what you'd expect from someone with his views. Especially after he was so angry about it.

Edit: So he was on the road? Surely he could have made arrangements to vote no to a very dangerous bill. I can agree that it may not have been 100% possible but for someone who is against it as shown in that video. You'd expect him to be there regardless of other commitments. This act is no small matter after all.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Tea4One because: additions



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Gird your loins my friend, ravenous cult like Ron Paul supporters will be in here incredibly butt hurt that you would dare to question the man.

OMG NOT COMING HERE WITH FACTS???

Facts?
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

MUST WATCH VIDEO!

Ron Paul on National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):


Everyone MUST see this video



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
Surely him voting no would give him a more respectable view to potential voters?

Why wasn't he there that day? Should he not of made sure he was there to vote no. He may of said no to the provision but that failed, he had a second chance to say no to it overall.

But it still isn't a no. Which is what you'd expect from someone with his views. Especially after he was so angry about it.

Edit: So he was on the road? Surely he could have made arrangements to vote no to a very dangerous bill. I can agree that it may not have been 100% possible but for someone who is against it as shown in that video. You'd expect him to be there regardless of other commitments. This act is no small matter after all.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Tea4One because: additions


Since others have given logical answers as to why he may not have voted against the bill as you asked in your OP, one has to assume you're trolling.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Diceman22
 


Or im just questioning the man, which is allowed... I think. He isn't infallible is he?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Do you think Ron Paul purposely avoided voting on this because he secretly wants to use it against the people?
Or do you think he just happened to not be there because he is out campaigning?
Or maybe a combination of both?

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts about this.
My guess would be he was just busy and wasn't able to show up.
What do you think?

Also, would this thread be another attempt to disparage RP like in this prior attempt?
" Ron Paul is a racist "

It just seems you are approaching this from a very bias position with pre-conceived notions, all things considered.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Actually, I agree with you. This was important enough that he should have been there to vote. I think Ron Paul is by far the best candidate to be the next president, but I am a little disappointed that he didn't take the time to vote on this particular bill. Bachmann didn't vote on it either.

When character, integrity, and consistency is your biggest selling point, you can't get lazy.

Not that his vote would have mattered, but it would have sent a statement that he still means what he says.

It won't change my vote, but it does sting a little.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by Diceman22
 


Or im just questioning the man, which is allowed... I think. He isn't infallible is he?


Sure everyone is fallible.
That's a human trait that we all share.

Why is there always a false dichotomy at play here? He's either perfect or he's totally imperfect?
I think that's illogical either way you go.
Let's try to stay within the middle and find balance I would suggest.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 

It just seems you are approaching this from a very bias position with pre-conceived notions, all things considered.

Well, of course - T4O doesn't like Paul


That said, he's a good enough chap. I have to agree with prior mention on this one, if this was the night of one of the debates, Paul working to become president is IMHO more important than offering up yet another of his famous "No" votes on a piece of legislation I'm pretty sure he knew was going to pass anyway.

Can't win for losing - catches flack for his "ceremonial" votes, then catches flack for not being there to make them. You just can't please people anymore.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


No. As stated, I just believe it odd for a man who is so for civil liberties that he wasn't there for one of the most disturbing acts in modern American history.

I just like to question the man, I just like to argue against his supporters. I like to offer an other side of it, after all, this website is filled with Ron Paul lovers who approach everything Ron Paul with a very bias position with pre-conceived notions. I've seen other things to support the idea that he is racist, or, he just wanted to profit from racism. Neither are good in my eyes.

I just forget you can't say a bad thing about Dr. Paul, because once hes president everything will be wonderful again



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One


I just forget you can't say a bad thing about Dr. Paul, because once hes president everything will be wonderful again


I don't think so.

To me voting for RP is symbolic more than an actual practical attempt to change anything.

It's meant to send a message to the current establishment that people want a different course for the country.

Are you pro or con the NDAA? I am con. What's your opinion?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 



I like to offer an other side of it, after all, this website is filled with Ron Paul lovers who approach everything Ron Paul with a very bias position with pre-conceived notions.


This is where you prove to have your own bias. I have never seen a Paul supporter come with anything except facts and records. Those of us who rabidly support him, do so with tons of ammunition and research to back our positions. There is no biased position or pre-conceived notions, there are just facts!

This very thread shows that Paul supporters know Paul's positions, have links, and videos where he says stuff in his own words, and also that we can admit we wish he would have voted on the bill.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Republican Leadership didn't push the bill through on the same day as the debate on purpose. They have been known to do such things. Maybe Paul would have won even more supporters if he had flown out, voted, flown back, joined the debate late, and mentioned the reason he was late. That might have gotten him an even more rabid following, but it probably wasn't the prudent or safe move at the time.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join