Forum:Ron Paul is President of Libertarians

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dr. Ron Paul has replaced Noam Chomsky as my "representative" in the Corporatist State of America/Everywhere.

I voted for Obama because Chomsky claimed that he was "Bush Light" but now Chomsky says that instead of torturing suspects as Bush did, Obama simply kills them.[1] Obama is not just for a bigger (corporate) welfare state he is for more spending than Bush to subsidise the types of war crimes the Nazis were "convicted" for.[2] The same was true of John Kerry. Why did I buy this bullshit that the Democratic Party was less malicious than the Republican Party? Because Chomsky said so.

When discussing welfare Chomsky doesn't seem to think the debt is a problem. The main reason I endorse Ron Paul is that his FIRST priority for shirking the debt is to stop subsidising the military as Imperial Corporate Police who have declared social democracies "illegal" throughout the world. "Active-military men and women support Dr. Paul about three times more than Obama, and six times more than combined Republican opponents "[3]

Notice the """"""Democratic"""""" party has decided that Democrats are "united we stand" under Obama's Empire, thus there is "no" opposition in the primary and we have absolutely no reason to be registered as Democrats (or "Independents"). I'm registering "Republican" and I will be voting for Ron Paul with or without the "Republican" Party unless I happen to find some compelling difference between Obama and the imperialists in the Republican Party. So long as the US is occupied by corporate imperialists I want to re-redistribute wealth to the majority and undistribute wealth to the Corporatists. I'm not sure who does this less efficiently, the Obama Carebears or the Republibots. If it is a close race in California I might have to throw my vote away to the "popular" candidate who can help Al-Qaeda bankrupt the "US economy" by stealing more for US. Whose side am I on anyway? ~ Lumenos (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Couple problems with Ron Paul.
  1. Simplifies Afghanistan War. We've spent ten years there, and the government is still unstable. Leaving now would make Bush's mistakes go unfixed.
  2. Would make tax regressive. Elimination of capital gains and estate tax would make people like Mitt Romney pay nothing, while the rest of us still have to pay stuff in taxes.
  3. Wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. I think enough is said here.
  4. Calls evolution and global warming "hoaxes". For a doctor, this is pretty stupid.
  5. Wants to remove pretty much any regulations that exist in the market, turning us into a Coolidge-style laissez-faire state.
As it is most of the stuff you said about Obama is false. Obama ended US use of torture and waterboarding in Gitmo, and he only left it open because none of the state governors would allow prisoners in their courts. Obama has called for a winding down of Afghanistan war, and we are expected to withdraw all troops by 2014. Obama's also called for massive defense cuts, so big some Democrats think they may harm ship-building and ports. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, nothing like fighting corporate power by voting for the party of the 1%, where the explicit policy is to cut taxes for the rich and reduce entitlements.--ADtalkModerator 01:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Martyring Bin Laden vs fighting just wars[edit]

I'm not sure that martyring Bin Laden helps anything. They have not justified most of the violence they are doing throughout the Empire. Putting Bin Laden on trial might have been a way to do this but I don't see how they could "convict" him without exposing more hypocrisy. Netanyahu maybe has the best argument; that Islamists are more insane than civilized religious folk. But most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia most likely because it is part of the US/Zionist empire. Obama is just the latest Magic Daddy who promises you everything any carries on business as usual. Leave Iraq, attack Iran. Ron Paul has an extremely consistent and unusual record of doing what he says. He says he will end imperialism and military personnel overwhelmingly support this policy (70% of campaign contributions from active duty military went to Ron Paul). This is something the President can and should do. The executive can't and shouldn't be fulfilling all the roles of Congress or the States. As they concentrate more and more power in the executive and we become more of a totalitarian police empire. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama has delivered on many of his promises, and dealt with a huge amount that came up unexpectedly. Health care reform is an example of the former, and saving the economy is an example of the latter. This is among many such things, although naturally he hasn't been perfect and has (as you accurately describe) continued much of the trend of executive over-reach and civil rights abuses.--ADtalkModerator 04:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
"Ron Paul has an extremely consistent and unusual record of doing what he says."
This is a ridiculous lie. Paul has never gotten anything passed in the House, and he likely never will. What makes you think he'll do better as President? As for consistency, how can a man claim to be strongly in favor of the protection of life and at the same time be cool with hospitals letting patients die? How can a man claim to be in favor of personal liberty at the same time as being OK with states regulating your sex life? How can a man claim to be for fair business when he voted against the bipartisan Dodd-Frank bill (which btw contained his own Fed oversight policies that he advocated for), and be in favor of repealing anti-trust laws. Paul would turn this country into a corporate tyranny, with most of his policies benefiting the rich (such as his removal of taxes) and hurting the poor (such as his wish to end Social Security and Medicare).
I agree the US has too much power around the world, but that doesn't mean we should let countries like Iran do whatever they want. Paul has gone as far as advocating withdrawal from the UN and NATO, which would end up letting China and Russia control much of Asia and let them be the world's military empires. Btw, there is a real chance that Iran may attack us, given that they may have been conducting surveillance on US soil. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Redistributing wealth vs ending subsidies to rich, ending tax on the middle class, ending drug war and imperialism[edit]

Does it ever make you wonder why it is that all these politicians who promise to redistribute the wealth are so heavily funded by the wealthy? Why are people always talking about raising taxes? Does this always increase revenue? Does raising prices always increase profits? Why don't you suggest ending the subsidizing and bailing out of big business? Entitlements, oh boy! When minorities lose in the drug war they are getting their entitlements (prison) whether they want them or not. Entitlements are just a petty bribe to pacify you when all your liberties are being taken. You sell us real cheap.

The advertising agencies run the elections and the rich always win. The people have to make their demands on their own and find someone who will meet these demands. Occupy claims to represent 99% and they have no candidate, fucking brilliant! There is only one person with even a remote hope of winning the presidency who is much less funded by the status quo. The rich will probably kick our ass anyway because we are more retarded then they are. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"The rich" is pretty subjective. Someone like Romney is absolutely part of that group, whereas Santorum has "only" a couple of million, and Obama had less than a million before his book sales took off.
If you want someone who rose from the grassroots and the "people," then you should vote for Obama. Before he became a politician, he and his wife were hard-working professionals. They were both high achievers and accordingly did very well, but that's something for which I think we'd be happy in a candidate. They're rich now, but you would find it literally impossible to find any prominent politician or candidate who did not become rich very easily.--ADtalkModerator 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about who is funding their campaigns. Obama set records in terms of money raised and according to Chomsky, Obama was completely vague about what he was planning to do. A candidate of the people would be promoted by the volunteers through the internet or word of mouth, rather than by the old media and advertising agencies bribed by big business. We are far from that.
Did the banksters lose as a result of the subprime loans they were required to make so people could afford housing? Some got bailed out and used it for bonuses. Maybe some went out of business. Those who were majorly screwed were the taxpayers, the public dept, the "homeowners" who still lost their homes and maybe money they would have had if they had rented, and responsible homeowners who happen to need to sell their homes during this crash. If Obama doesn't bail the banksters out, probably would lose major funding for reelection. ~ Lumenos (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, Obama set new records in the percentage of small donors, as opposed to wealthy backers who wrote big checks. 50% of his donations in 2008 were $200 or less, with 25% of the donors contributing a total of $200 or less (i.e. about half the small donors gave multiple times).
Obama laid out a very specific plan for damn near everything, so I don't know why Chomsky says he was "vague." Health care, national security, educations, etc.: all had detailed promises and plans.
It's very naive to think that a candidate could win without money. There are many reasons why, but here's two:
  • Advertising is important, even though it costs money. Most people have to actually work hard for a living, and many people don't pay attention to politics very much. Advertising allows a candidate to reach everyone, not just those with the leisure and erudition to follow obscure candidates. No advertising means abandoning 90% of voters or more, even assuming the most optimistic "word of mouth" campaign. And besides, wouldn't you donate to your favored candidate?
  • Primary campaigns are a combination of primaries and caucuses. For the former, a dedicated campaign staff is important, but it's even more important for the latter, since caucuses reward organization and feet on the ground. Those things cost money for experienced managers and pollsters, even with a plethora of volunteers.
Moreover, you seem completely uninformed about what actually occurred. As an example, you attack Obama for the bank bailout - but TARP passed under Bush! I beg of you, read some serious journalism about these things before you lash out in an ignorant "pox on all their houses" indictment.--ADtalkModerator 10:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Advertising is bullshit. People who are making decisions based on advertising propaganda are part of the reason you think of Ron Paul as "obscure".[4] He predicted the economic collapse for the very reasons it happened.[5] Did any of the other Republican or Democratic candidates predict the economic collapse? Obama put the same people in control of the economy according to Chomsky. They are propping it up by borrowing more "money". How well is the Chinese credit card gonna work when Obama is threatening war with China because they are allied with Iran?

Obama top contributers [6]:

University of California $1,648,685 Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 Harvard University $878,164 Microsoft Corp $852,167 Google Inc $814,540 JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 Citigroup Inc $736,771 Time Warner $624,618 Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 Stanford University $595,716 National Amusements Inc $563,798 WilmerHale LLP $550,668 Columbia University $547,852 Skadden, Arps et al $543,539 UBS AG $532,674 IBM Corp $532,372 General Electric $529,855 US Government $513,308 Morgan Stanley $512,232 Latham & Watkins $503,295

Ron Paul[7]

US Army $78,056 US Navy $56,769 US Air Force $55,405 Google Inc $52,801 Microsoft Corp $47,923 US Postal Service $26,591 Hewlett-Packard $25,318 Lockheed Martin $23,425 Cisco Systems $23,007 Boeing Co $22,434 Verizon Communications $19,944 Wachovia Corp $19,629 US Dept of Defense $19,198 General Dynamics $18,506 AT&T Inc $17,946 Northrop Grumman $16,907 JPMorgan Chase & Co $16,072 Apple Inc $15,903 Raytheon Co $15,830 General Electric $15,000

Notice the top three Paul supporters are military. They know better than idiots who are making decisions about Afghanistan, etc based on some well funded propaganda. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Many military people support Paul because he wants to get them out immediately. The problem is Obama wants to do a similar thing, except he chose to wait until 2014 so that Afghanistan wasn't left in a state of ruin. I think these lists are outdated though...
For non-military issues, see my essay about Ron Paul. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't even know how to respond to this crazy. Lumenos, do you ever even read the news? There's absolutely no reason to think that we are going to threaten war with China because they support Iran - that's so silly it's barely even coherent. Even if you weren't mistaken about debt (only a small proportion of U.S. total debt is held by China) that bears almost no resemblance to anything that's likely to happen. The U.S. is treading so carefully that we're afraid of entering even a trade war with China, much less threaten actual action.
As to your point about fundraising, I think it's silly to say that the candidate who gets the most military contributions must automatically have the best military judgment. Is that really your reasoning?--ADtalkModerator 04:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't vote in the primaries without registering Republican anyway[edit]

Why not register Republican when the "Democrats" are not permitting any voting in their primary? You get one vote if you register Independent or Democrat (at least here). You get two votes if you register Republican. The first vote/question is, "Who is a better Republican candidate?" Romulany? (Needs mo gold to trick out his rims yo :D) ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Some states have open primaries, actually.--ADtalkModerator 04:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Ssh! Don't disturb the crazy person  :-) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul is conservative.[edit]

According to conservatives, Ron Paul is conservative. But, he was never president. He's a libertarian. — Unsigned, by: Anastronomer / talk / contribs