Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by Relander

Current system is simply flat-out undemocratic and wrong, not to mention that one EC vote and reprepsentative with voting rights will hardly have that profound impact.

Congress has the authority over the district already. This problem you keep citing of lack of representation will never be met where the government operates out a town that is open to residents and is not a state. There would be a huge problem with complications of having a federal government operating inside of a state and would be a big matter in state rights. If you want to propose an overall better system, be my guest.

Ron Paul's track record in fighting against lobbying is propably the worst from all the candidates where as McCain & Obama has proven records in this. Fred Thompson having a history of lobbyist himself doesn't convince me, especially when he worked for pro-abortion group but personally opposes abortion.

Lobbying is not that big of a matter when the canidate in question is not effected by it. McCain & Obama might have a better record than many others in lobbying but they pale in comparison to the other things RP has tried to accomplish while in office. Thompson's history of lobbying is minimal and from what I have read did not impact his work in the senate.

And rules can be changed and should be changed when they don't fit anymore. What gives the Founding Fathers superior, unquestionable and god-like authority to make "inalienable principles" that no-one could change even a tiny bit? What if slavery would have been allowed in the Constitution, should this be kept the same too? We don't have to turn the Constitution upside down here but reform it to fit today's USA, not what it was like over 200 years ago. I can't see how giving EC vote and Congressman with voting rights for D.C. residents goes against anyone's personal liberty or abolishment of the whole Electoral College, right on the contrary.

You are not understanding what I am saying. There are a few rules that might need to be changed (broader voting rights for those in D.C. is an example), but removing rights of people from the Constitution is not a changing in rules, but a change in principle. Principles that structure a society should not change, regardless of the time and place. Individual liberty is such a thing.

I don't believe Paul's isolationistic stances, will to cease most federal programs and strong pro-free market policies could win him the presidency. He scares most of the moderates and independents off with his agenda.

He's an isolationist in-so far that he believes that the U.S. meddling in the affairs of the Middle East has come back to bite us in the ass. This is entirely true as well when you take a look at our involvement in Iran before their revolution and us training the muhjahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, who are now currently using that same training against today. Some countries cannot be dealt with rationally and Ron Paul recognizes this. George Washington was the one who said to stay out of the affairs of other countries.

A lot of people like the nanny state that exists here in the U.S., no matter how debunk, corrupt, and inefficient it is. Canidates all over like to show 'hope and compassion' by giving large budgets to programs that simply do not work, or even refusing to recognize this fact. I don't know why RP is not given any coverage on the mainstream media when he has a large following on the internet while canidates such as Hillary Clinton are featured on prime time.

As it's mandatory to know every little bit of everyone's lives here and it takes so much time to check out few threads once in a day or two. Right, nice exaggeration & simplification there once again "Wise"Bobo. I don't think you're in any position to judge other people's way of conducting discussion here.

It does take a long time to post responses in certain threads, and this is one of them. This itself took me around 20 minutes to respond and type up to your post.

You need to get off of your high horse, Relander. I don't know where your attitude comes from, but the manner in which you have responded when I've tried to easen things up and be more social in this thread is not warranted whatsoever.

[Relander]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

If you want to propose an overall better system, be my guest.

I already have: merge Washington D.C. into Maryland or turn the city into a new state while getting the Congress out of its affairs. Federal republic is appropiate in itself.

Lobbying is not that big of a matter when the canidate in question is not effected by it.

True, however I would say that many if not most politicians are more or less affected by lobbyists (depending of issue) as they're important source of campaign funding, information and even personal income. Lobbying is a major problem of US politics though just one of the many flaws.

RP has tried to accomplish while in office

In regards to government reform? Sure Paul voted against restricting independent grassroots political committees but that's much about it what I have seen. Whether smaller, more limited government is a good or bad thing is a matter of opinion and doesn't automaticly lead to specific conclusions.

Thompson's history of lobbying is minimal and from what I have read did not impact his work in the senate.

Thompson lobbied for years as far as I know so I wouldn't say it was minimal. Whether it had significant effect on his senate career or not, I don't know.

You are not understanding what I am saying. There are a few rules that might need to be changed (broader voting rights for those in D.C. is an example), but removing rights of people from the Constitution is not a changing in rules, but a change in principle.

That's all what I'm arguing for: minor changes on the Constitution to fix injustices and reflect today's world.

Principles that structure a society should not change, regardless of the time and place. Individual liberty is such a thing.

However there's not just one way to look on things and how they're defined. Individual liberty, sure, but to what extent? That's the other question.

He's an isolationist in-so far that he believes that the U.S. meddling in the affairs of the Middle East has come back to bite us in the ass.

Ron Paul argues that the USA should leave the World Bank, WTO, UN and every other international organization that limits the decision-making and independence of the USA. That and his willingness to withdraw all American forces from international bases and limit deployment inside the US borders makes him pretty strong isolationist in political and partially economic sense. I see that the USA should conduct multi-lateral & diplomatic foreign policy but the use of force against dangerous "rogue" nations, if all other means fail, isn't out of the question.

A lot of people like the nanny state that exists here in the U.S., no matter how debunk, corrupt, and inefficient it is.

Quite ironicly said about the USA when looking from European perspective. Does it take tearing down all public services before the USA wouldn't be regarded as "nanny state" anymore? Furthermore I doubt that all government programs & services (including state and city level too) are inefficient and/or corrupt, again depending of definition here.

I don't know why RP is not given any coverage on the mainstream media when he has a large following on the internet while canidates such as Hillary Clinton are featured on prime time.

Propably because he's largely unknown Representative from "distant" Texas, he's a "long-shot" and poor electability when comparing to traditional voters. Front-runners always interest the most and get most media attention.

It does take a long time to post responses in certain threads, and this is one of them. This itself took me around 20 minutes to respond and type up to your post.

However this is not what I questioned but your simplistic exaggeration of getting to known with regular pubbers' main political views.

I don't know where your attitude comes from, but the manner in which you have responded when I've tried to easen things up and be more social in this thread is not warranted whatsoever.

Then you don't have much clue about the way you have discussed and continue to discuss with other people, especially when it was you who first took offensive stance in this discussion, the last paragraph in your previous post high-lighting this.

I discuss in constructive & polite manner if the other side does the same, and in most cases I continue to discuss so even when the other side doesn't. If you don't want unpolite comments, then don't make them yourself. It's not like I enjoy nagging people, on the contrary.