It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


About "Why Ron Paul Sucks"

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:12 AM
OK, here's the lowdown on my post "Why Ron Paul Sucks."

About two weeks ago my friends and I was sitting around a table, doing what we usually do when nothing else is at hand: smoke, drink and converse. We got into a discussion about presidential candidates; opinions flew. At some point I said something along the lines of I would not vote for any of the candidates excluding Ron Paul. Not many of the people at the table were not very sound when it comes to politics. However, one of my friends said "Ron Paul sucks." He gave a few obscure reasons as to why, nothing that really persuaded me against voting for Paul. Then, I said something like "who would you rather have? McCain is a Nazi. And if a democrat gets into office, the only thing that's going to happen is higher taxes and an increase in the federal government intervening in our country's affairs. After this I don't remember much - too many drinks.

Anyway a few days ago he sent me this e-mail (which I modified by correcting some grammatical errors, removing expletives as well as some things I didn't see fit) trying to dissuade me from voting for Paul:

"It doesn't make any #ing sense because, apart from ending the war (because he believes we should not intervene in ANY foreign conflict ever [read: not even Holocaust II: The Quickening], not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything), he holds zero liberal values. None.

Ron Paul does not support the right to choose, and hides behind some sort of wishy washy, supposed "principled" states right position, but indeed authored a bill that would define life beginning at conception. So, I wonder how he'd really act if given the chance? Additionally, Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws (like states alone can combat issues relating to global warming, and put pressure on other countries to do the same). Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education. Ron Paul does not believe in government funding of the arts. Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. ETCCCCCCETERA.

These are just sound bite examples, and there are long, complex explanations behind most of these positions of his (I guess???), but my point is that a liberal-minded person who was wavering back and forth between Paul and [put some Democrat schmuck here] should not really be having that conflict of conscience as, aside from their stance on the war, these two are polar opposites of each other. That's my point. I was not saying one should/should not vote for them.

Though, now I am. I wouldn't vote for Paul if my life depended on it."

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:13 AM

" makes no #ing sense for someone who is liberally minded to vote for Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul as president can not alone affect changes to institutions and ideals liberals hold president, alone, can do that. Yes yes...I know...I get it. I #ing STUDIED constitutional law. I understannnnnd, man. But (as we've seen with this current administration) is that she/he can certainly affect the landscape deeply enough that those changes do happen. Do you need any further example than the nomination of two extremely right-wing Supreme Court Justices that will be around and voting when your kids have kids? Yeah...didn't think so. But here's another: agencies and rule changes. Look no further than the EPA, who has its head appointed by the president and whose rules change with the political wind every time a new president is elected (I really believe that agency heads should be elected positions because of this profound political influence a new administration has on the agencies, but I digress). Look at the changes made to (read: erosion of) air quality standards & water quality standards, the rule change that allowed the EPA to decide if new pesticides would harm endangered species without consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, increased logging in our national parks (Dept. of Interior), etc. So yeah...a president (and their administration), no matter who he or she is, can have a profound impact on our lives. So don't sell me that "Ron Paul can't alone do those things" line of bull#, because I'm not buying it.

Now, I am not going on this rant because I fear Ron Paul. I don't. Snowball's chance, and that jazz. The reason I am going on this rant is because it pisses me off to no end that people can so blindly decide to vote for someone just because of sound bytes they hear, without knowing what is really going on and what the candidate really stands for. Do a little bit more research on the candidate, no matter your political views and no matter their party. There are a lot of people that consider themselves true-blue "democrats" (whoever the # THEY are any more...but that's another story), and would still go out and vote for Lieberman just because it has a "D" next to his name on the ballot. There are fiscal conservatives who actually voted for Bush the second go round for the same reasons (LOL...egg on your face, bitches!). And so on, and so forth. This, of course, doesn't just pertain to presidential politics, but your local politicians too. They can actually affect your personal landscape more immediately and importantly at times than your president, and locally is where your vote concretely makes an impact (especially with so few people actually voting these days). Just...please...DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH on these people before blindly supporting them. And if you find someone you really like, actively campaign for them, work on getting them elected, etc. Your vote ain't enough."

I Quickly found some holes and replied.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:21 AM

I sent him this e-mail:

"I'm not even registered to vote. What did I do to deserve this? It's good and very persuasive nonetheless.

Just because I liked a few things Paul has to say, it doesn't mean I wholeheartedly support the rat bastard. I still like him better than McCain or Obama. And you're right, I have based this opinion entirely on the superficial aspects of their campaigns - sound bytes, video clips. I have done no research. Who says I cannot? It's not like he'll ever be elected anyway.

Those "wishy washy...states' rights" you're referring to are a fundamental part of the United States. Ron Paul is hiding behind over 200 years of American history? This country was fought for and founded because the government that was in charge governed too much and did not allot the original states rights. You may not find states' rights in the Constitution but they were a great part of the philosophies of the United States' founding fathers.

Excluding Paul's stance on war and a few other things, I probably wouldn't agree with much of what he has to say. But who would be much better: Obama who is promising all kinds of outlandish things that, most likely, will never be enacted by a republican dominated Congress; how about McCain who is essentially George Bush with a John McCain suit on, and a more respectable military past.

Even if Obama were able to get some of his most radical (relative to the U.S.) ideas accepted by Congress, would the tax increase be worth it? Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay more for a higher standard for living, the government should. All we would have to do is eliminate some of the bull# agencies employed by our government. Agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency, or the Department of Homeland Security would be fantastic starting points. Agencies that violate the rights of the citizens of the United States should not be allowed to operate. I guess that would also mean that the United States government should not be allowed to operate.

And McCain. I wouldn't touch him with a "thirty-six and a half inch pole." He's too old and too "neo-con." I'm sorry but I would prefer against being at war with a Iraq for the next 100 years. In fact, # McCain. The republicans are just using him because he's a more attractive (I don't mean pretty) version of Bush. A seasoned war veteran who suffered the horrors of imprisonment and torture during the Vietnam War knows exactly what a Christian country needs. Jesus likes to kill people, I forgot.

How can one question the validity of an individuals choice to use sound bytes to pick a presidential candidate when they use the like to bash the same candidate? It just seems silly to me. If one disagrees with the methods by which someone selects a presidential candidate, they should not use the same methods to argue their point."

He never responded to the e-mail but I called him up later and asked him if I could edit his e-mail and post it on ATS as my so we could find out what other people had to say. Also, I told him I would defend his point as much as possible. I didn't get very far.

I agreed with pretty much everything everyone said to dispute me on my "Why Ron Paul Sucks" thread. I still feel Ron Paul is the best candidate despite what my friend said. Thanks to all who participated in the "Why Ron Paul Sucks" thread.


new topics

log in