nitro harley
Well-Known Member
I agree with stumps....
I like alot of what he says....I will have to admit that my vote will go to who ever can beat Obama....if it's ron paul then he gets my vote....
Anyone like ron paul?
- Thread starter redfish727
- Start date
I like alot of what he says....I will have to admit that my vote will go to who ever can beat Obama....if it's ron paul then he gets my vote....
First, being that the laws are unconstitutional, enforcing them would be unconstitutional to start with. Regardless of what the supreme court says about it. The President swears an oath to uphold the constitution. He is the executor of the law, not the arbiter or the legislator, however. That being said, not enforcing the law is not the same as violating the law. The justice department could simply decide not to pay to defend it in court. The law is still in effect and enforceable, it just isn't worth the cost to deal with. Ron Paul would simply strip the funding to investigate most of the drug crimes. A Libertarian DEA chief would agree the funding is being wasted and redirect it. The law would still be the law. There is simply no way for a president NOT to selectively enforce the law given the finite number of assets that he has to deal with all problems. The president and the dea chief would be the ones setting the priority. I don't think moving marijuana down on the priority list would be unconstitutional and would effectively stop enforcement.
Your second point is that you agree with me that Ron Paul or any president could end the wars without congressional approval if they were so inclined.
Your third point is agreed with. However, how much of funding for local drug enforcement come from the DEA? They a lot of money investigating domestic supply and such. What laws demand that the DEA have bases all over the world and work towards destroying marijuana? It would definitely lessen the occurrence of harassment by the government and set the stage for states to decide they don't care anymore. As it is now, you can bet that a state deciding to legalize marijuana would be dealt with harshly by the DEA. I might point out that according to the supreme court the Federal Government has the power to outlaw marijuana based on the commerce clause as the very possession of marijuana is a federal matter, so it must also have the power to charge every person who has marijuana with a federal charge even if they are not crossing state lines or participating in the economy. That means having a dime sack could be a federal charge if the DEA head decided it was based on the current law.
The precedent has been set that the agencies can do whatever they want. Either way Ron Paul would neuter all the agencies. I would not be surprised to see the direction be that funding be returned to the treasury unused.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Ron Paul is (in my opinion) pretty good on social policy, he's basically a Libertarian, and his position on everything is pretty much "the Federal gov't should stay out of it".
He's a fiscal conservative, in the sense that he wants to reduce the size of gov't. . .also a big plus in my opinion.
Unfortunately, as a candidate, he's severely flawed in two ways:
a. He's a foreign policy isolationist. He wants the USA to retreat into its shell and not worry about what happens in Russia, Iran, China, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. IMO, even though on paper it looks good, the reality is that an isolationist policy isn't good for anyone (well, except fascist dictatorships and human rights abusers, like Iran, etc), let alone the USA.
b. Paul has a long history of association with all sorts of political cranks, like Birchers, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Neo-nazis, and the like. He used to publish a newsletter catering to these cranks that included a bunch of questionable anti-gay, anti-Israel, and borderline racist stuff with his byline on it. Now, that doesn't mean he believes everything they believe, or even most of it, not does it even mean he believes what he put into print. Objectively, none of the things in his newsletter are any worse than the racist/Jew-baiting garbage that President Obama's "spirtual mentor" Jeremiah Wright used to preach every single week.
But regardless, to me these last two things are disqualifying. Feeding into all the worst stereotypes of Republicans, I simply can't support this guy for Republican nominee.
I fully expect him to dry up and blow away after Iowa. Last election cycle he capture more than about 5% of the Republican primary vote. This time, due to a variety of factors he'll probably do better, but I can't see him winning New Hampshire let alone SC, and after that its going to be all uphill for him.
He's a fiscal conservative, in the sense that he wants to reduce the size of gov't. . .also a big plus in my opinion.
Unfortunately, as a candidate, he's severely flawed in two ways:
a. He's a foreign policy isolationist. He wants the USA to retreat into its shell and not worry about what happens in Russia, Iran, China, Israel, Afghanistan, etc. IMO, even though on paper it looks good, the reality is that an isolationist policy isn't good for anyone (well, except fascist dictatorships and human rights abusers, like Iran, etc), let alone the USA.
b. Paul has a long history of association with all sorts of political cranks, like Birchers, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, Neo-nazis, and the like. He used to publish a newsletter catering to these cranks that included a bunch of questionable anti-gay, anti-Israel, and borderline racist stuff with his byline on it. Now, that doesn't mean he believes everything they believe, or even most of it, not does it even mean he believes what he put into print. Objectively, none of the things in his newsletter are any worse than the racist/Jew-baiting garbage that President Obama's "spirtual mentor" Jeremiah Wright used to preach every single week.
But regardless, to me these last two things are disqualifying. Feeding into all the worst stereotypes of Republicans, I simply can't support this guy for Republican nominee.
I fully expect him to dry up and blow away after Iowa. Last election cycle he capture more than about 5% of the Republican primary vote. This time, due to a variety of factors he'll probably do better, but I can't see him winning New Hampshire let alone SC, and after that its going to be all uphill for him.
Thehermaphroditemaker
Well-Known Member
Everything seems like smoke and mirrors in politics; everything happens for a reason so to speak, but that reason isn't available for the general public most of the time. I believe there's certainly a shift in power going on on a global scale, but the POTUS is just the figurehead below the real power we can't see. Two-party system? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but the one-party system masquerading around as a divided house is just for show. They're all in it together, whether they like it or not. Manchurian Candidate comes to mind. Ron Paul may sound nice, but so did Obama IMHO. I won't fall for the circus anymore. (Disclaimer: I'm no expert, but intuition and common sense serve me well. The fact is, our government lies to us, steals from us, and controls our lives in ways it should not. Where does the slippery slope end? Anyone read the allegory of the cave by Plato? Look at television and the media. "Programming" indeed.)
Still, I think my vote will go to Ron Paul if he makes it, because he's more radical and interesting. Assuming my conspiracy is BS perpetuated by the fear mongers and shills, we could use an older, radical mind like that in office. I think he's just as unhappy with where the country is going as many of us are - I think that's a start. We may not agree with everyone and everything he's said, but at least he has the balls to say it. No candidate is perfect; flaws make a man real.
Still, I think my vote will go to Ron Paul if he makes it, because he's more radical and interesting. Assuming my conspiracy is BS perpetuated by the fear mongers and shills, we could use an older, radical mind like that in office. I think he's just as unhappy with where the country is going as many of us are - I think that's a start. We may not agree with everyone and everything he's said, but at least he has the balls to say it. No candidate is perfect; flaws make a man real.
a) You realize our interactions with other countries have caused as many dictatorships and human rights abuses as it has stopped, right? We could accomplish the same thing(nothing, haha) while spending no money as we have spending trillions. All the while, we just make everyone hate us. What is our ROI on the trillions we spend?
b) It didn't disqualify Obama. Senator Byrd was outright in the KKK and he won election after election as a democrat with even the black people voting for him. I don't see how this is a disqualifies him any more than them quoting Obama in a communist newsletter.
I love Ron Paul like some people love the Pope. We all have worries about how things end up that we support though. I really have never had the feeling that Ron Paul wouldn't follow through with his promises. He has 30 years of uncompromising principle as his proof of that.
Thehermaphroditemaker
Well-Known Member
But that's what I'm saying, it's not about one person and their promises, it's about a bigger picture and a control scheme outside the public's knowledge or capacity to understand. Ron Paul won't be elected if he doesn't fall into line and sell out like the rest of them. Just my conspiracy speaking, I hope it's all legit and there's no corruption in politics, but history paints a different picture.
Weedasaurus
Well-Known Member
from what I gather, he seems like the most reasonable Rep. candidate, but I'm not that much into politics to understand it all
Agreed. However, win or lose, he is gaining a lot of support. He is growing understanding and the following of the classic liberal ideology. Just the fact that the movement is growing makes the future a little brighter. I hope his son picks up the torch after and continues the push. We may be look at Rand going after the nomination next time around.
Most reasonable candidate who even stands a chance of winning on either side of the political spectrum. Everyone else is pretty much the same and ensures the next few decades will involve occupying Iran and other countries of the Middle East. Which will lead to a total and complete collapse of the country.
libertylover2
Active Member
Ron Paul 2012
InCognition
Active Member
It's easier to destroy than it is to build. Dismantling legislation is the same in this regard.
InCognition
Active Member
People who don't like Ron Paul:
1. Pro war enthusiasts who don't understand war - those with no connected or heartfelt understanding of war and it's atrocities
2. People on subsidized income
3. People who want more subsidized income
4. People who think that being rich isn't "fair"
5. People who have kids, then go into foreclosure, and then blame others
6. People who think it's their right to have children, even if someone else has to to ultimately pay for it
7. Irresponsible people
8. People of no principle - mainly those who disregard the constitution
9. Because of point #8, this would classify those people as generally ignorant
I'm sure the list could go on a bit more than that.
Well personally I dislike to this. I don't know what the trait in it that many of mine fellow love to this.
Anyhow its depend on the taste...
personalized cups
Anyhow its depend on the taste...
personalized cups