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 I do not support Ron Paul.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Now, some people on here possibly realise im not a huge fan of Ron Paul. Saying that though, I do believe he is the best choice out of the republican candidates and isn't a complete puppet for the elite. I thought I'd list some of the reasons why I wouldn't vote for him.

Reasons:

His stance on abortion, im pro-choice and he is very much against it. This I think is absurd, it's a personal choice. I think his thoughts on it show he is not for individual liberties but for state power.

He is a free-market capitalist who I believe wants to take it back to how the economy ran around 1900. Naturally as a socialist I think this is ridiculous. Free-market capitalism only ends up with want we have now.

He wants to get rid of income tax, completely. Income tax I feel is the fairest sort of tax.

He wishes to apply cuts on things like education and healthcare.

He wishes to get rid of the civil right act of 1964.

His profiting of racist newsletters.

This is just to name a few things though. I got lazy.

ontheissues.org...




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I'm not going to go in depth to rebut your very simplistic views on Ron Paul - all of these things have been discussed and "debunked" countless times over.

What I am going to do is ask you if this is how you really see things or have you just not researched the man and his positions? Do you really think Ron Paul wants to cut education? Do you really think he would endorse regulating abortion?

Little trickles of misunderstanding start here on ATS, if you stick around long enough you can watch them blossom into deformed flowers. I am left wondering if the gardeners have a final goal in mind or are just careless with their gardens.

Your link provides NO context and no explanation for Ron Paul's votes. You should know, as an informed voter, that a bill's title is more times than not, very misleading. Just because a bill is called "Happy Glittery Unicorn Initiative 2011" does not mean it's all about happy, glittery unicorns. There very well could be language written in the bill that allows happy, glittery unicorns who are no longer fit to work be made into dog food. Some might consider this a bad thing and vote against this bill in it's entirely (You can challenge portions of a bill in court, but as the bill is being passed it's an "all or nothing" situation.)

There is a reason for each vote Ron Paul has made - if you see something like "Civil Rights" and someone tells you Ron Paul voted against it, you should find out WHY. In this instance it's not because Ron Paul scoffs at the idea of civil rights, it's because the rights granted in the bill to some people would alienate or dissolve the rights of others. It's not always easy being a moderator, and sometimes you have to make principled decisions that others won't understand.

You're responsibility, as a voter, is to inform yourself. Reading blogs that take a candidate's position out of context and intentionally hide relevant information from you aren't helping you meet this criteria.
edit on 2-1-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


He wishes to cut the federal aspect of education. Which im against.

He believes abortion is murder. Which I think is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


He wishes to cut the federal aspect of education. Which im against.

He believes abortion is murder. Which I think is ridiculous.


Do you know what the Department of Education does? Why is it so bad if it gets cut? Can you please explain to me why the Federal Department of Education is so valuable on a national level?

I am torn on the abortion issue, and haven't (after many years considering) fully reached a position on it, but Ron Paul has clearly stated many times that he doesn't believe it should be regulated at a federal level. He is against it on a personal level but he is also a huge proponent of individual liberties and freedom.

I don't believe in Jebus or whatever deity you pray to, but I believe in your right to do so. Does that mean we can't be friends?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


He wishes to cut the federal aspect of education. Which im against.

He believes abortion is murder. Which I think is ridiculous.


It doesn't matter how he feels, it matters how he will rule. He will defend states rights to legalize abortion more than most pro-choice politicians. Just like his stance on gay marriage; he's a very man/woman type of guy with marriage yet he's the biggest proponent on legalizing it on a federal level.

Everything he wants to do, he wants to do independently of his personal beliefs and morals. Those things he wants to cut? He wants the states to handle them and to give each state block grants to do just that. He's not wanting to cut these programs; he wants to decentralize them.

I don't agree with a lot of his personal beliefs but I trust that he would defend every single one of my rights more than any president we've had. That alone makes his personal beliefs a non-issue. He will get the job done and he will respect our rights. That's all that matters right now.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 





Location: Not-so-Great Britain





Naturally as a socialist I...


Stopped reading right there.

2nd



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


He wishes to cut the federal aspect of education. Which im against.


WHAT?? The whole problem with education is that it's completely federalized! And this was all planned a long time ago. Watch the first half of this speech and see how much Hasn't come to pass yet..

Look for #8...


edit on 2-1-2012 by rstregooski because: beer

edit on 2-1-2012 by rstregooski because: beer



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


While I agree that RP has some good ideas (like ending those ridiculous wars), he also has a whole array of bat# crazy suggestions that make him unelectable.

For example:

It's obvious that US politicians now only serve the interests of their corporate donors. And this issue needs to be resolved. RP's solution? Make them sign a voluntary pledge stating they won't influence policy based on donations!!!

I mean...is he serious? Where does he live? Fantasy land? Is he getting senile????


This single opinion is such a severe sign that he's a bought sock puppet, it's impossible to vote for him if you are against corruption and the corporate takeover of the US.

Romney and the rest are just as bad...and Obama's pretty bad too. So basically you can't win

edit on 2-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 





His stance on abortion, im pro-choice and he is very much against it. This I think is absurd, it's a personal choice. I think his thoughts on it show he is not for individual liberties but for state power.

He is a free-market capitalist who I believe wants to take it back to how the economy ran around 1900. Naturally as a socialist I think this is ridiculous. Free-market capitalism only ends up with want we have now.


Your second paragraph only undermines your first. If you are against free markets then you are not pro-choice, but merely pro-abortion. The use of "pro-choice" to describe an advocacy of abortion is simply doublespeak.

Further, we currently do not have a free market in the United States. Free market, by definition, means no regulation, no credentialism, and no licensing schemes.




He wants to get rid of income tax, completely. Income tax I feel is the fairest sort of tax.


A tax on cigarettes is a defeatable tax. A tax on whiskey is a defeatable tax. A tax on jewelry is a defeatable tax. None of these items I just mentioned are essentials, meaning people do not need cigarettes, whiskey and jewelry in order to survive. However, if people want to purchase these products they are free to do so and Congress has the complete and plenary power to tax those items. The People also have the complete and plenary power to defeat such a tax by simply not purchasing the product.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy"

~Chief Justice John Marshall~

Taxes have nothing at all to do with "fair".




He wishes to apply cuts on things like education and healthcare.


He wishes to apply cuts on government spending and intrusions into the education and health care industries. There is a huge difference.




He wishes to get rid of the civil right act of 1964.


That's because he understands that all people everywhere are in possession of unalienable rights and do not need the arrogance of government usurping the supremacy of unalienable rights and replacing them with government granted "rights" that have the audacity to abrogate and derogate the rights of some people in order to give others privilege.




His profiting of racist newsletters.


There are racists who post in this site and the owners of this site are presumably profiting. Even so, here you are using this site to denigrate a man you believe has profited off of a "racist" newsletter.

You have the absolute right to voice your opinions and you should exercise this right as often as you feel compelled to do so. You also have the absolute right to think critically and should exercise that right as often as you can compel yourself to do so.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 
Thanks for sharing your opinion on why you don't like him. I hope you find a candidate who fits your vision of what a President should be that you can support.

Are you even eligible to vote in the US, though?




top topics



 
2

log in

join