Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?

[Euclidean]

Fine, I'll get this politics forum going.  I'm not really wanting to argue here, so much as I'm trying to figure out what the devil people are thinking.  But I'm sure we can argue about it anyway.

Seriously, why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?  Part of this is copy/paste, part of it I've edited in my own summary.

- Lower taxes AND lower spending.  That's key. Ron Paul is a fiscally responsible politician.

- Ron Paul will stand for American sovereignty. Did you know the UN wants to tax American citizens? That's right, you will pay a special tax to give your money to foreign powers like Syria, Israel, France, etc. Ron Paul will also oppose the North American Union, which would place an unelected bureaucracy of special interests in control of our country. The other candidates aren't even talking about this issue.

- Ron Paul favors uniform and fair immigration laws, treating everyone who wants to be an American the same way. This, combined with completely eliminating all amnesty provisions, eliminating welfare to illegal immigrants and physically securing our borders, will make for a humane and meaningful border security policy.  This is key to the issue, any effort to secure the border must also include immigration reform.  The current "lottery" system is just bizarre.

- Ron Paul thinks the government doesn't have the right to seize your property willy nilly.

The truth about Ron Paul:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act and wants to increase your privacy.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
He is a consistent candidate who has never veered from his beliefs.

Show me another candidate who meets most of those descriptors and I'll add him or her as a new #1 or my #2 pick.

Now is the man perfect?  No.  Is absolutely everything he proposes going to happen if he gets elected?  Again the answer is no.  Do we have any guarantees that introducing Dr. Paul to the White House will fix anything?  Of course not, but how can he screw it up any worse than King Bush II or Klinton?

He's not a lawyer (no offense attorneys but I do believe the fact that some Congress critters seem to see the legislature as a lawyer's social club does skew their perceptions of day to day life), he's a physician, an OB/GYN to be specific.  He has ideas on how to make health care more affordable without socializing it (such as changing the licensing system).

He's an experienced politician who's not a shill for the RINOs or Demonrats.  How rare is that?

If you're a staunch Democrat, voting for Ron Paul in the primaries will insure that the election will be about the issues, not the war in Iraq.  Otherwise it'll be a No War vs. Pro War argument, and no one will really be talking about the issues.

Same thing if you're a staunch Republican.  Win people over to your side by making the war question a moot point, and make the election about the issues, and your side will probably win.

Folks, the Democrats haven't mustered a decent presidential candidate in my lifetime.  The RINOs one might argue have done only slightly better.  The last president I can remember in my lifetime who might have been something of a real conservative was Reagan, whom I barely even remember in all honesty.  And look at what he gave us: the '86 ban (although to be fair you could argue he was tricked into that one but he still signed it), the useless boondoggle called the War on (Some) Drugs, and Iran Contra.  And that's not even breaching the things he did as governor of CA.  Bloody Thursday anybody?  And this man is probably the overall best president I've seen in office since I've been alive.  The succeeding ones have just gotten worse and worse (at least Reagan had his good moments too).  Don't get me started on the Bush Dynasty or the Klinton era.

And even if you go back before my lifetime, I can see a steady chain of government abuses starting with the Alien and Sedition act.  The "progressive" movement of the 1930s and FDR's subsequent attempt to become the dictator of a socialist empire is probably where it reached a new plateau of government gone wild.  The only difference I see is that most 20th century Republicans historically make some sort of token effort to slow down the inevitable abuse and out of control government, and those efforts are getting to the point of being minuscule or nonexistent.  Democrats actively aggravate the situation.

We can't keep doing this.  We keep electing the same garbage over and over again, and the government is spiraling out of control.  Garbage in, garbage out.  It's time to try something different.  The government takes 1/3 of our paychecks or more and we don't even question it.

Now we have to contend with the reality that in the immediate future, the only people who have a shot at the big office are those who run as a donkey or an elephant; these parties have even gone so far as to vote in policies in some districts that keep candidates from other parties from appearing on the same ballot they have so much money and power.  We need somebody who is in the position to get the backing of one of those parties yet at the same time will at least partially subvert the incompetence that party currently stands for.  It doesn't really matter if it's a Democrat or a Republican dark horse, it just matters that it's one or the other.  Ron Paul may not be the completely perfect candidate in your view, but he is in a unique situation to swing American politics back to a more reasonable spectrum and I quite frankly am not going to take for granted this situation will ever arise again.

Read all about it before you attack the man's platform.  No other candidate has organized his views for us so well or in such detail, and when you put it all together it sounds reasonable enough to me.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

It's very plausible in my mind that if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, odds are he'll might not be able to get in the position to run again, it doesn't matter who does because that candidate will go against the anti war Democrats, who will win the election based on that alone, and lo and behold it'll be eight years of Klinton II (effectively, even if She Who Must Not Be Named isn't on the actual ticket).

Do I sound like a fanatic or a Moonie to you?  I mean honestly, what is so crazy about the idea of supporting a political candidate with a reasonable platform?

Anyway that's my peace.  I beg you to at bare minimum vote for anybody but She Who Must Not Be Named.

[Manedwolf]

Because as the previous debates have shown, it'd be very easy for Hillary to bait him into a desperate-sounding rant of a response while she just smirked, the audience laughed at Paul, and he'd lose. And she'd be president.

[Euclidean]

Because as the previous debates have shown, it'd be very easy for Hillary to bait him into a desperate-sounding rant of a response while she just smirked, the audience laughed at Paul, and he'd lose. And she'd be president.

And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.

Furthermore, a candidate who does nothing but regurgitate Hilldog's stance only a few more degrees right of it is not a solution.

[Antibubba]

In the Primary, sure.  He hasn't a chance in hell, but I want the republicans thinking about him.

[Euclidean]

In the Primary, sure.  He hasn't a chance in hell, but I want the republicans thinking about him.

See I don't get this mindset either.  Sure, if everyone has that attitude, it will be true.

In objective reality, if the candidate is rallied around by enough people, he will win, just like anyone else.  It's like some people (not you Antibubba) seem to think that the laws of physical reality or American elections don't apply to Dr. Paul.

[Michigander]

Some time ago, I said I would never vote for a Democrat or a Republican again.

I am making an exception for Ron Paul who, IMO, is the only "true Republican" in the party.

[Gewehr98]

   
Why vote for anybody but Ron Paul?

Because I watched his Iraq war speech and damn near yakked.  Republican?  No.  Libertarian gadfly?  Yes.

Ron Paul has never had an Iraqi citizen thank him in person.  I have.  So he turns me off like a light switch.

Fred Thompson for me.

[Len Budney]

Ron Paul has never had an Iraqi citizen thank him in person.  I have.  So he turns me off like a light switch.

You mean, one Iraqi thanked you, so the rest can go suck it? Or are you saying that the other 27,499,637 agree with this one that you met?

If China conquered the US tomorrow, at least one American would say, "Thank you!" What exactly would that prove?

--Len.

[Gewehr98]

You don't know how many Iraqis thanked me during my all-expense-paid government vacation, Len. Truthfully, I ain't gonna tell you now that you showed that side of your character.

Nor do you know how many Iraqis thanked my fellow troops in-country.

But that's ok. You may proceed with calling them collaborators, if you wish. 

[Len Budney]

You don't know how many Iraqis thanked me during my all-expense-paid government vacation, Len.

That's correct: I don't. You said AN Iraqi. I realize that you could mean, "AN Iraqi... as a matter of fact 257 Iraqis."

On the other hand, if I were writing your post, I would probably have strengthened my case by using the biggest number I could, so rather than "an Iraqi," I'd have said, "dozens of Iraqis," or "over 200 Iraqis," or "entire villages," or whatever was applicable. From this I infer that the number of Iraqis, while quite possibly more than one, is in fact not large. I realize that that too may not be correct, but it's an educated guess from your post.

Truthfully, I ain't gonna tell you now that you showed that side of your character.

It's a trifle ad hominem to leap straight to character like that. However, you are not required to tell me anything.

But that's ok. You may proceed with calling them collaborators, if you wish. 

I don't recall having done any such thing, so what are you talking about? I only pointed out that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data." The way that I picked for pointing it out was to ask how you get from "an Iraqi citizen," in your own words, to "all twenty-seven million Iraqis." Are you using some standard method of extrapolation? Have you estimated the margin of error using statistical methods? In short, do you have any data, or do you only have some anecdotes?

--Len.

[MechAg94]

Ron is a good idea man and I don't mind having him as my Congresscritter, but I don't think I want him as my President. 

[auschip]

Ron is a good idea man and I don't mind having him as my Congresscritter, but I don't think I want him as my President. 

Kinda my feelings on it.  I see him as the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. 

[Euclidean]

You guys also have to realize something: the issue of whether or not our troops do good work over there is not in question in the minds of any Ron Paul supporter I've ever met.  They are doing amazing things over there and the media does everything they can to make US troops look bad.

The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.

We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay.  Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.

[Len Budney]

We can't just let Bush do this and say it's okay.  Just because the armed forces are amazingly talented and can make something good out of something bad doesn't mean there's no reason to be critical.

Well put.

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.

Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew? 

[Euclidean]

And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.

Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew? 

Kind of like how the majority of Texas residents "skewed" the 2000 election by voting for Bush?  I'm sorry I thought a poll of whatever kind worked by counting the votes.

Voting in a poll is not "skewing" it when the poll is open to everyone.

That's the other sentiment I don't understand.  Since I've looked at the platform and found it to be reasonable and logical, I'm an unthinking fanboy as are all the others who support Dr. Paul, apparently.

[StopTheGrays]

And yet in at least one online poll, Dr. Paul has been regarded as the winner or at least as placing high in various debates.

Y'mean the polls that the Ron Zombies all pile on and tell each other to pile on and skew? 

Kind of like how the majority of Texas residents "skewed" the 2000 election by voting for Bush?  I'm sorry I thought a poll of whatever kind worked by counting the votes.

Voting in a poll is not "skewing" it when the poll is open to everyone.

An online poll is way different then voting in an election. During an election you are not supposed to be able to vote more than once*. For the online poll there are ways to vote more than once.




*Unless you live in Chicago or Milwaukee.

[Euclidean]

Haha.

Who votes more than once on those things anyway?  Don't most of those sites use cookies to keep that from happening?

I understand you can disable and clear the cookies and theoretically stuff the ballot box, so I'll acquiesce the point there's probably people who do exactly that.

However, why would such activity be the exclusive domain of Ron Paul supporters?  If anything it's safer to assume that such behavior would be uniform across the spectrum.

[K Frame]

I can't think of a single reason why the results of internet polls could be considered to be even remotely reliable or a viable method of deriving data.

They're far too prone to manipulation and not even remotely scientifically constructed.

Anyone who tries to infer a nationwide trend from an internet poll is deluding himself.


Oh, and word of warning.

Keep it civil.

Attacking an individual is not keeping it civil. Attacking the individual's information/contention is a lot farther on the way towards keeping it civil.

[Standing Wolf]

No more Republicrats and Democans for me, thanks.

[Euclidean]

Well the issue of hypothetical debate performance is pretty moot when it comes to discussing who would win an election anyway.  Discussing an online poll is valid if discussing hypothetical debate performance is valid. 

Furthermore I submit the good Doctor can rally as well as anybody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXkVJtz0bNI

Random speech.  While not a masterpiece of oratory, I found it sufficiently motivating.

W got elected and the man is a poor public speaker indeed.

[K Frame]

"However, why would such activity be the exclusive domain of Ron Paul supporters?"

It's certainly not.

If you've been around gun boards long enough you'll see calls to "HIT THIS POLL!"

In fact, a number of news organizations have shut down polls on their websites after such exhortations on THR and TFL led to substantial double voting.

A 3-year-old can clear these days a computer's cookies, so that's certainly not a deterrent.

However, it simply can't be assumed that "it's level across the spectrum." Not all candidates have the same number/level of internet supporters/hawks who mobilize the internet troops.

That's what random polling does -- filters out variables such as that.

If anyone thought for a second that net polling was a valid indicator of a candidate's or an issue's traction among the public, laborious and EXPENSIVE phone polling would have been abandoned years ago.

[Len Budney]

Random speech.  While not a masterpiece of oratory, I found it sufficiently motivating.
W got elected and the man is a poor public speaker indeed.

I'd say it's a bit silly to assert flatly that he "cannot win." Of course he can. Longer shots have come in before. On the other hand, I agree that it's unlikely he'll win, for a simple reason: pretty much everyone who gets his paycheck from Uncle Sam can be expected to vote against Ron Paul. And that's almost half the country right there.

I humbly submit that anyone who takes in more government money than he pays out in taxes should be prohibited from voting. That would include most defense contractors, almost all government employees, and everyone on the dole. Their bread is buttered on the wrong side.

--Len.

[Euclidean]

"However, why would such activity be the exclusive domain of Ron Paul supporters?"

It's certainly not.

If you've been around gun boards long enough you'll see calls to "HIT THIS POLL!"

In fact, a number of news organizations have shut down polls on their websites after such exhortations on THR and TFL led to substantial double voting.

A 3-year-old can clear these days a computer's cookies, so that's certainly not a deterrent.

However, it simply can't be assumed that "it's level across the spectrum." Not all candidates have the same number/level of internet supporters/hawks who mobilize the internet troops.

That's what random polling does -- filters out variables such as that.

If anyone thought for a second that net polling was a valid indicator of a candidate's or an issue's traction among the public, laborious and EXPENSIVE phone polling would have been abandoned years ago.

Fair enough.

Reminds me of the Penn and Teller bit on polls anyway... "Why the hell should you care what other people think?"

I just wanted to make the point that it's equally flawed to say what would happen in a theoretical debate and consider that a good argument if the online polling isn't considered a good argument.  I don't see either argument as being any stronger than the other.

[roo_ster]

Euclidian:

You might want to research how online polls can be slammed by one and only one person with the right skill set or mere access to msdos/linux shell scripts.

Ron Paul, though I am sympathetic to him, won those online polls in a manner similar to how JFK won the state of Illinois in 1960.  "Fair & square" was not the means.

IOW, online polls are worthless and more easily manipulable than even meat-space polls.  They put the "less' in "worthless."

The issue is that the war was started under illegal and dishonest pretenses, and was a political ploy and not motivated by any desire to fight terrorism or any noble cause at all.

Opinon not supported by the facts, for the most part.  Another part is merely wrong. 

Wrong: Illegal? Not so much.
Not according to the COTUS or precedent as early as Pres. T Jefferson.  We never declared war on the Barbary Pirates, yet TJ sent our boys over there to do their best:

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

Naval and land forces sent to tame unruly, threatening Mohammedians by an American president.  TJ, no less.

As much as I would prefer a Declaration of War whenever our boys are deliberately sent out to kill our enemies & break their stuff, I am under no illusion that doing so without a formal declaration is illegal.  TJ had Congress bless his excursion to N Africa with something less than a declaration of war in a manner similar to how GWB had Congress bless his excursion to Iraq.

"Illegal" won't fly since at least TJ.

Opinion: Dishonest, Ploy, Not Motivated by Desire to Fight Terrorism?  At Worst/Best Unknowable
As a conscious, adult, and connected human being from 11SEP2001 to the start of GW2, I can attest to the many statements by leaders, both foreign & domestic, that believed Saddam had WMD.  Their statements decrying Saddam's WMDs and the likely consequences if the US confronted him are found on the net for any to see.  This reason, pretense, or whatever, was one of several given by GWB.  GWB very well might have been dishonest, but without a Vulcan mind meld, we can not prove that his motivation was other than what his words described.  At best, his motivations are unknowable.  It is not like he wrote the the Bushie version of Mein Kampf, telling us what he'd do once in power.

The internet is a lovely thing.  It captures politicians', LEOs', and other folks' words and archives them for all to research later.  That way those who care to do so (and value fact over bullshinola) can look them up to see what Sen Bedfellow said about Issue X, 4 years in the past.  It can also be used to dismantle claims of illegality and dishonesty.