Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate

[Jeffro]

dmiessler.com | Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We're Just So in Love With Him That We're Not Paying Attention

* He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war. — Ron Paul, from The War on Religion

* He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
He wants “the community” to provide education to the public. He regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked at least once how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. He has no good answer. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.
* Yeah, That Means No College Loans
He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the government should be involved with education. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used college loans to make it to Google in the first place.
* He’s Not For National Health Care
Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself?
* He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

As an obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 children, I have long been concerned with the rights of unborn people. I believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. The very best of the western intellectual tradition has understood the critical link between moral and political action. Each of these disciplines should strongly inform and support the other.

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration.

Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

* He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing
He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where the thousands of climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with or not understand? It is precisely this type of anti-logic that I find disturbing.

Ron Paul ISN'T the great constitutionalist you think he is. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade, doesn't want education funding, doesn't want college loans...

Well, back to the Obama ticket for me.

[Nemmerle]

As far as the last one goes if you apply the IPCC's climate model to past data you get a result quite different to the actual outcome that we've recorded, they also used a quite limited data set. I'm not sure I can believe the outcomes of their study, it's certainly not something I'd base policy decisions on.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

As far as the last one goes if you apply the IPCC's climate model to past data you get a result quite different to the actual outcome that we've recorded, they also used a quite limited data set. I'm not sure I can believe the outcomes of their study, it's certainly not something I'd base policy decisions on.

Still better than basing decisions on the opinions of politicians who represent the interests of those who'd have to suffer most from a policy against global warming.

[Aeroflot]

You know what? Ron Paul is probably the only candidate I trust. Even though I disagree with most of the stuff Jeffro quotes, I rather him be president then some goof ball that could be another Bush.

[Buddy Jesus]

Originally Posted by Jeffro

Ron Paul ISN'T the great constitutionalist you think he is. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade, doesn't want education funding, doesn't want college loans...

Well, back to the Obama ticket for me.

Just because he wants out of Iraq doesn't mean his a Liberal posing as a conservative. He's libritarian and doesn't want alot of government controll. This should be no big surprise.

[masked_marsoe]

I don't see why this should come as a surprise at all. He's a libertarian.

[Afterburner]

I agree with all of that, so really he is still the perfect candidate for me.

[Tas]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

I agree with all of that, so really he is still the perfect candidate for me.

Really, so children of poor parents, lacking specific gifts should be doomed from birth to perform low income jobs?

The father of these children should walk around with odd lumps untill his body begins to die, he's diagnosed with cancer and dies six months later?

And apart from charity, you don't think there is anything that could possibly surpass your current systems for handling these things?

That's a very "can do" attitude you got there.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Tas

Really, so children of poor parents, lacking specific gifts should be doomed from birth to perform low income jobs?

The father of these children should walk around with odd lumps untill his body begins to die, he's diagnosed with cancer and dies six months later?

And apart from charity, you don't think there is anything that could possibly surpass your current systems for handling these things?

That's a very "can do" attitude you got there.

Yeah, you basically hit all the bases. I don't believe in forced charity, simple as that. I don't think the government should forcibly remove money from me to pay for someone else's bills. I'll gladly do it on my own, willingly. But don't try to force it on me. If you want to pay into the system the go ahead and do it, but you have no right to force me to.

Freedom before equality is my motto.

[Chemix2]

I personally think people ( in general) are stupid, evil, money grabbing bastards who sometimes need a big nudge or in this case, wallop, in the right direction. However, while I support the use of forced taxes for public provisions so everybody at least can live with the illusion that they have a fair chance to come in first at the end of the race, I don't support big government paychecks. If you are there to serve, then you shouldn't need a half a million dollar per year income for doing practically nothing. I do believe they should be paid, but a more reasonable amount, something around 100,000 at most. It doesn't make it a great career choice over some other options, but politics shouldn't be a career. I also believe that there should be a public vote for how their tax income should be spent with a list of options and information on each of them provided by a hopefully non biased collective. It would be limited to non-public necessities of course, but for things like cow research, people better damned well have a say.

[Tas]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Yeah, you basically hit all the bases. I don't believe in forced charity, simple as that. I don't think the government should forcibly remove money from me to pay for someone else's bills. I'll gladly do it on my own, willingly. But don't try to force it on me. If you want to pay into the system the go ahead and do it, but you have no right to force me to.

Freedom before equality is my motto.

That's very cute, however in practice it will turn out to be more like.. Luxury before care.. or... New car over life. You realize this is.. and would be more the case if your friend gets the job.

Does your personal wish to have more money to spread around come before the fact that a lot of people will come to suffer from this change, because this new found freedom will cause people to only look out to #1, maybe even yourself?

Doomed to die from a curable disease with a hospital around the street? Forced to "convert" so your kids can enjoy a basic education? Become a factory drone so one can at least get their kids dental care?

"Suffering before equality" would be a more fitting way of putting your free-for-all motto.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Tas

That's very cute, however in practice it will turn out to be more like.. Luxury before care.. or... New car over life. You realize this is.. and would be more the case of your friend gets the job.

Does your personal wish to have more money to spread around come before the fact that a lot of people will come to suffer from this change, because this new found freedom will cause people to only look out to #1, maybe even yourself?

Doomed to die from a curable disease with a hospital around the street? Forced to "convert" so your kids can enjoy a basic education? Become a factory drone so one can at least get their kids dental care?

"Suffering before equality" would be a more fitting way of putting your free-for-all motto.

And I am(or rather, my family), at best, lower middle class, so I would have to deal with the problems of not having health care or welfare or not being able to get an education. If my ideal system was in place I likely wouldn't have a particularly good education and would probaly only be very lightly covered by insurance... maybe. I'm one of the people that would be disadvantaged by a Libertarian system. But I would still prefer it.

[Chemix2]

Were you actually to experience it, I think you'd feel differently

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Chemix2

Were you actually to experience it, I think you'd feel differently

I can't deny that is a possibility, as I have never experienced it and couldn't tell you how I would actually respond. I can only use my imagination and personal beliefs to think of how I would react.

At any rate, I don't think it's a good idea to switch to a FULLY Libertarian system quite yet anyways. A few Libertarian ideas implemented here and there , while still maintaining some government programs is my preferred approach right now. However I would like to see a focus on loans as opposed to just handing out money and services. They will allow someone to get what they need, while eventually paying for it later anyways. It isn't as "helpful" as a straightforward payout but it doesn't cost everyone else as much and many people only really need a short term monetary boost until they can get on their feet and pay it all back.

For instance, I'm fairly certain I'll be going into 160,000 dollars of debt for college... atleast. That would be from Government loans. But I am confident that after graduating I'll be able to pay it off fairly quickly.(I.E., before I become old and grey )

[Chemix2]

Why should life come down to paying a bill before we die?