Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Should Not Be President

Ron Paul has been demonized and marginalized by the media, and I see his detractors frequently making blanket statements such as "He is a nut" or "He is an isolationist." No supporting evidence is offered with these false statements. These are just mindless sound bites devoid of intelligence or reason. Thus, I was happy to read this article that addresses this issue of mindless bashing of the only politician that the founders of our country could agree with.

 

you're preaching to the choir here Luna !! I respect Dr Paul very much and I am displeased with the debates ignoring him . We have allowed the networks to pick our candidates long enough

 

Your choir is off key as usual.

People his age usually dont get to drive cars at night..much less a country.
They cant stay up all day and most sleep more than 8 hours per night.
He wouldn't be allowed to be an air traffic controller..or most companies acting CEO because they know AGE IS A LIMIT.
The private sector knows what government doesn't..hey.. isn't that a PAUL principle ?

Clancy wrote many good books..we still wouldn't let him buy the Vikings..maybe the books might be Fiction ..not fact ?

2. Only a NUT might think Iran poses no threat to us or our friends.You see there are facts leading to that theory based upon intelligence ?

I love the Viet Nam deal..better yet USE JAPAN..
Only a true Paul nut cant see the facts.

HE IS UN ELECTABLE. yippee! ..quite true..you see there is a HISTORY to back that up.

Paul IS OLD..WRONG ..and non electable.
Even if he wins IOWA or places 3rd..he is another EDWARDS.
TOAST.

 

Ronald Reagan???

 

CBS was very forthright in the way they discriminate with the candidates. It's something we've seen but they gave us the formula after the South Carolina debate. Less poll # = less questions. They essentially marginalize candidates. If the public doesn't get to hear from them, how can they rise in the polls? It's a Catch-22 they've created.

Now, I can see the sense in this at some point, but early on this tactic is nothing more than shaping an election and it almost guarantees that we will have only establishment approved candidates come primary season.

Now, there is a poll out that shows Dr. Paul in a dead heat for 1st place. We'll see how the media handles that this coming Saturday with the next debate.

As for Ron Paul being a nut:

"The Mightiest Oak Is Just A Little Nut That Didn't Give Up!"​

C'mon, people! Be a nut. Plant the seed of your own Liberty!

Ron Paul in 2012!!

 

Check this video out; it's kind of long you can just watch the first couple of minutes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNv_mFI8f5g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNv_mFI8f5g[/ame]

 

yeah but we brought it on ourselves,the american people wont get off their rear ends and take their country back so we gget what we deserve the same ole same ole back and forth of demopublicans and remocrats that will be willing puppets willing to serve the establishment and trash the constituion instead of serving the people.Paul tells it like it is.That the establishment has many other unnnessary planned wars the american people dont want in the future.None of the other candidates will mention that because unlike Paul,they are bought and paid for.

 

great video.too bad it turned out to be false that he would win in 2008.The fact that talking pieces for the establihment and murdoch-Gleen Beck and O'reily were attacking him and the corrupt bastasd Guliani was blasting him is all the proof in the world the corporate controlled media is afraid of him.

 

Yes sir you are correct , Paul would make a great President , actually he is what

this Country needs.

 

There sure are a lot of american sheepies on this forum and other forums as well asleep at the wheel on that.Either that or they are the stupidest blind sheep in the world I have ever met.

 

I happen to like Ron Paul.

But even if a person thinks he would be the worst President ever he does deserve to be heard.

They don't want him to be heard because the American people may just like what he has to say.

He is the only canidate with a steady message.

 

Not only that but the ONLY one willing to serve the people and believes in the constitution and interested in serving us instead of the establihment.

 

I would not say sheep ,some just refuse to believe what America does & her

influence on the World stage. You know my Country would never do that.

 

That is why I cannot vote for anyone else. That is also why I cannot understand the vilification this man receives. The propaganda machine does an excellent job of marginalizing candidates who would actually make a difference, while promoting status quo types like Romney and Gingrich.

 

I wrote this several years ago, but it's still valid.
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-i-dont-support-ron-paul.html

 

Why is it that whenever there is a problem in the world. They don't call France, they don't call the UK, they don't call Germany, they don't call China, they all us.

Why is it, whenever there is talk about America withdrawing from the world stage in secret, the leaders of countries all over the world call up our leaders and say "What are you doing? Don't you realize what will happen without your leadership?"

Sure, in public they talk mass (*)(*)(*)(*) about us, but the wikileaks have proven that once the peasants have gone home, and the world's leaders are back in their offices, they are on the phone with Hillary Clinton asking "What is America's position on this issue?"

I love the argument "Ron Paul's position on foreign policy matches Thomas Jeffersons'" and that doesn't raise any eyebrows?

Since when would any fool think that an early 19th century foreign policy could ever possbily work in today's world?

Everything about Ron Paul is 19th century. His monetary policy, his domestic law policies, his foreign policy. Everything is completely and totally outdated and useless today in the 21st century.

It's the American equivalent of Islamic imams calling for a revival of the days of Mohammed. Incompatible with the modern world.

We are not going to find some magical prosperity in radical fundamentalism or a return to some imagined 19th century fundamentalist ideal. The Fed is never going away, America's carriers will still ply the oceans and the world will always look to us for leadership, advice and yes, sometimes intervention.

The reason why is because Europe can't intervene, and they don't want China intervening.

 

Unless you are willing to go item by item I will offer a simply response to your well written summary.

For the most part I like Dr. Paul for the same reasons you dislike. Free trade agreement (which rarely have anything to do with "free trade") should not exist because uninhibited trade among individuals should be the default.

You claim he doesn't understand the money supply and the implications of a gold standard. You actually imply that he is a conspiracy theorist. That claim is simply ridiculous. The multitude on professional economist that agree with the Austrian school are not conspiracy theorist. The Nobel Laureates that strongly disagree with an unbased currency and understand the implications of such a system are not "conspiracy theorist." As someone who has studied this subject thoroughly and has come to several conclusions similar to Paul's, I would love for you to tell what you think I don't understand.

You completely ignore incentive factors in your remarks on education and ignore the arguments from Paul regarding what caused the current state of education in the poverty stricken areas to begin with. That was simply cherry picking. Regarding the thoughts on the environment you described Paul as apparently supporting a Coasian type approach. That is completely wrong. Actually as a follower of the Austrian School I would imagine that Paul finds the notion of a "negative externaility" laughable like most proponents of property rights.

I am skipping healthcare because that is its own monster that deserves a much longer response than than this one. Most of the following issues, immigration, abortion, and the second amendment; his arguments pertain to the what is allowed under the constitution. A lot of Austrians actually support abortion (although there is a rift regarding the non-aggression axiom here) and a lot support the free movement of labor (me included.)

Finally, in regards to foreign policy, you call Paul an isolationist at one point. This, basically, is going to make anyone who has studied libertarian or Paul's proposals closely dismiss your entire argument on face. Paul has no intention of not, " being fully engaged in the world." For the life of me I cannot understand how someone understating the ramifications from blowback in the last century, and wanting to interact with nations via markets and diplomacy makes them somehow "isolationist." That is not what that word means. As a matter of fact he probably wants more interactions among the american people and the people of the word than any candidate on either side. He supports literal free trade. He supports a willingness to talk with anyone. That does not mean he is going to negotiate with terrorist or turn a blind eye to evil.

 

FIAT monetary systems go back to ancient times. There's nothing particularly modern about them.

 

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the minimum wage. He also wants anyone who wants to work here get a visa. So he expect me and my family to compete with foreigners in a lowest bid gets the job scenario where the bidding will drop down to what is barely enough to cover a cot and a meal. I don't want to live like that. And as an American I shouldn't have to.

What is wrong with Iran getting the nuke? They'll use it on Israel is what is wrong. And don't say they will fear reprisal. They don't fear death. They have no problems dieing if their enemies die first. Besides Ahmed thinks the 12th imam will show up and protect his ass from reprisals.

Ron Paul is too extreme. With him in charge we'll have dieing, starving people in the streets.

 

You have zero facts in your rant, but thanks for sharing your ignorant hate.

 

What is it with libertarians and thier addiction to Austrian economics? Austrian econs are a very distinct minority and not many Austrians are actually influential on the world stage.

 

Most libertarians subscribe to the Austrian school because they feel it best describes and explains economic systems.

So what?

Again, what difference does this make?

 

Again, the free market (which Paul supports) is social darwinism. Average longevity in the U.S. would quickly drop because let's face it, most old people can't pay for their own health care without government systems like medicare and whatnot. Also, a lot of dumbass women that had 3 kids they couldn't care for and chose not to get abortions, would be starving on the streets and have their kids taken away. Along with a lot of other people who couldn't find jobs due to having insufficient skills, in turn due to the fact that manual labor is becoming more and more obsolete, due to technology.

Lots of physically and intellectually not very skilled people would starve or freeze to death due to not being able to pay for food and shelter.

We'd be left with the fittest. Survival of the fittest.

Is that the "right" way to go? Who knows; I'm not saying I'm going to argue one way or another. But it's the way it would go, under the free market that Paul would support (I believe he's an anarcho-capitalist?)

 

Johnson was invited into the campaign by Paul.
Further, whatever issues Paul faces, Johnson is one step behind him.
Paul can get on a stage, but can't get a question.
Johnson cannot get on half the stages.

He's taking his complaint to the FEC and FCC.

while you may not wish t support Johnson, you may wish to use the opportunity to express your discontent with the media response/control over the debates/news.

He makes a very compelling case.

You can also help by contacting the FCC and FEC and expressing your position on debate sponsors (such as cbs) using arbitrary parameters to manipulate the the exposure given to each candidate.

 

Why do you assume that people wouldn't voluntarily help those individuals who were truly in need of assistance, or that state and local governments wouldn't be better suited to administer welfare programs than the central government?

Speculation based upon facts not in evidence.

Have you ever considered the possibility that welfare programs incentivize certain women to behave this way in the first place?

You're buying into the fallacy of a static workforce. Laborers have always adapted to advances in technology, so there is no reason to believe it'll be any different for this generation.

Most every individual is capable of eventually obtaining some form of gainful employment. Obviously, some will never have as much as others, but there is no good reason why an able-bodied individual shouldn't be able to support themselves and even afford some modern luxuries.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that individuals in need would have to go without simply because the Federal government wasn't taking care of them. Private charities and state and local governments could easily fill the void.

Additionally, good arguments can be made that Ron Paul's economic and social reforms would facilitate economic growth and prosperity, which means more wealth and more jobs for everyone.

No! Ron Paul is not anarchocapitalist (not that I'm endorsing or condemning anarchocapitalism).

Ron Paul is a libertarian minarchist in the mold of a Constitutional republican. I suppose you could call him a Federalist, too. A classical liberal.