• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Shouldn't I Vote for Ron Paul?

ksu_aviator said:
We've been over this. The SCOTUS can only determine if a law fits into the Constitution. They can't interpret the meaning of the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the authority.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court interprets laws based on the Constitution. That's my point. Paul argues many laws are "unconstitutional." That's his opinion. The Supreme Court, the body with the authority to address such issues, has found otherwise.
 
Redress said:
Paul would ruin our economy, our military, our foreign policy, and our standing in the world.
Click to expand...

We've already crashed and burned those.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I think it is sad that abiding by the Constitution is now considered extreme.
Click to expand...

Not many have the balls to do so. They run their mouths about how they want smaller government; but they don't do anything about it. The politicians tend to do the opposite, the people tend to support the politicians doing the opposite. As much as they say "small government", they lack the will, resolve, and testicular fortitude to carry it out.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The Supreme Court interprets laws based on the Constitution. That's my point. Paul argues many laws are "unconstitutional." That's his opinion. The Supreme Court, the body with the authority to address such issues, has found otherwise.
Click to expand...

The final check on the Supreme Court is US citizens - we are able to elect our officials into office to end these programs. The Supreme Court is not sovereign. We are. And if we the people believe that those many laws are indeed unconstitutional, then we have a representative.
 
donsutherland1 said:
1. No modern economy can function without a central bank. If one would like to see a tighter monetary policy to further contain inflation, that's one thing. Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve altogether.
Click to expand...

the executive branch can't abolish the fed.

3. Seeking a more efficient, effective and focused government is a good goal. Seeking to radically slash government by eliminating whole departments is reckless. Let's take the Commerce Department, which Paul seeks to eliminate. In doing so, he would eliminate the National Hurricane Center. Public safety would be compromised. Public safety is a basic function of government.
Click to expand...

the executive branch can't eliminate the commerce department

4. Big policy changes such as entitlement reform (necessary in the long-term) will require a reasonable transition period. Instead, Paul would seek to immediately offload Medicaid entirely onto the states. Many states are already facing fiscal challenges associated with health and pension costs. The Paul approach would, in effect, decimate Medicaid without providing any meaningful alternatives.
Click to expand...

the executive branch can't unload medicaid onto the states.

5. Trade in the modern world is regulated by the WTO, the mechanism sovereign states have established to coordinate and enforce trade rules. Paul would abandon the WTO, NAFTA, and the nation's other trade agreements. He would put the nation in a disadvantageous position where its exports could be subject to higher trade barriers and it would lack legal recourse to challenge those trade barriers.
Click to expand...

the executive branch can't unilaterally end trade agreements.
 
fredmertz said:
The final check on the Supreme Court is US citizens - we are able to elect our officials into office to end these programs. The Supreme Court is not sovereign. We are. And if we the people believe that those many laws are indeed unconstitutional, then we have a representative.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. However, one cannot say, as Ron Paul says, that Social Security is "unconstitutional." The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of its constitutionality. If, Paul wants to be accurate in saying that the program is unconstitutional, he needs to achieve that outcome via the amending process. Prospects for that outcome are remote. The vast majority of the House and Senate would reject such an amendment. It is also highly unlikely that the public would then vote against those Members of the House and Senate, as the public also supports Social Security, even as it differs over some reform ideas.
 
fredmertz said:
So, in order to save our economy, military, foreign policy and standing in the world, you are suggesting we continue along the same path we are on (which is to say, support anyone else but Ron Paul)... Which has ruined our economy, stretched our military far too thin to be adequate in protecting us and cost us hundreds of billions annually (which we cannot afford), a foreign policy that has lost our prestige and respect among foreign nations and overall lost our standing in the world.

Big Government has had its day.
Click to expand...

This is what we call a straw man. I never said any of that, nor do I beleive it. If you want to know what I do support, you should ask, instead of making wild assumptions and arguing against it. Not supporting Pauls bat**** insane positions is not the same as supporting the status quo.
 
Redress said:
Paul would ruin our economy, our military, our foreign policy, and our standing in the world.
Click to expand...

Other than that, though - why wouldn't you vote for him?
 
ARealConservative said:
the executive branch can't abolish the fed.



the executive branch can't eliminate the commerce department



the executive branch can't unload medicaid onto the states.



the executive branch can't unilaterally end trade agreements.
Click to expand...

Of course, it can't. Paul would ask Congress to do so. Congress would reject all of those initiatives. Nonetheless, Paul could do damage by unilaterally pulling troops, refusing to give the order for the U.S. Navy to clear the Strait of Hormuz, refusing to make Cabinet appointments to departments he seeks to eliminate, etc. He could also veto myriad funding bills. He would be a weak figure in the White House and that weakness would likely be exploited by the nation's enemies.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Of course, it can't. Paul would ask Congress to do so. Congress would reject all of those initiatives. Nonetheless, Paul could do damage by unilaterally pulling troops, refusing to give the order for the U.S. Navy to clear the Strait of Hormuz, refusing to make Cabinet appointments to departments he seeks to eliminate, etc. He could also veto myriad funding bills. He would be a weak figure in the White House and that weakness would likely be exploited by the nation's enemies.
Click to expand...

It's also not a good argument to say that well, Paul wouldn't be as bad as his positions suggest because he would be ineffective at getting his initiatives passed.
 
Redress said:
It's also not a good argument to say that well, Paul wouldn't be as bad as his positions suggest because he would be ineffective at getting his initiatives passed.
Click to expand...

It isn't a good argument to remind people that he would actually not abuse the powers of the executive branch?


cookoo
 
ARealConservative said:
It isn't a good argument to remind people that he would actually not abuse the powers of the executive branch?


cookoo
Click to expand...

This is why Paul supporters turn off more people than they convert to their cause.
 
Redress said:
This is why Paul supporters turn off more people than they convert to their cause.
Click to expand...

reminding people that he would not abuse the powers vested in the office of presidency is what turns people off?



cookoo
 
ARealConservative said:
reminding people that he would not abuse the powers vested in the office of presidency is what turns people off?



cookoo
Click to expand...

No, assuming every one else is corrupt and only you have a true view of things.
 
Redress said:
This is what we call a straw man. I never said any of that, nor do I beleive it. If you want to know what I do support, you should ask, instead of making wild assumptions and arguing against it. Not supporting Pauls bat**** insane positions is not the same as supporting the status quo.
Click to expand...

Unless the choices are status quo and crazy; which it often is. It depends on what crazy you want. Santorum's crazy is well more dangerous, IMO, than Paul's crazy. Paul's crazy is on the side of reducing government. Santorum's crazy is the opposite; particularly along military lines. Then there's the status quo in Romney and Obama. Paul's crazy is in the right direction, and while it would be impossible to get some of the more extreme positions passed; I think it will open up at least good debate (like what is the purpose of the Fed, how does it work, does it need to be restrained?) and is a step in the right direction - the reduction of the US federal government.
 
donsutherland1 said:
The Supreme Court interprets laws based on the Constitution. That's my point. Paul argues many laws are "unconstitutional." That's his opinion. The Supreme Court, the body with the authority to address such issues, has found otherwise.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they are correct. The President and the Congress can take actions to override the SCOTUS. Whether it is appointing "right-minded" justices as other justices die or retire or simply repealing unconstitutional laws, there is something that can be done. Paul would argue that he, as President, could make the necessary changes to bring all three branches back in line with the Constitution.
 
ksu_aviator said:
That doesn't mean they are correct. The President and the Congress can take actions to override the SCOTUS. Whether it is appointing "right-minded" justices as other justices die or retire or simply repealing unconstitutional laws, there is something that can be done. Paul would argue that he, as President, could make the necessary changes to bring all three branches back in line with the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Correct meanign what? By definition, if SCOTUS says the Constitution means this, then until another SCOTUS says otherwise, it is treated as the constitution means that. I don't always like what SCOTUS says the constitution means, but that is the system in place in this country and I do think it is a superior system.
 
ARealConservative said:
response ~ crickets
Click to expand...

Hint: just because some one does not answer right away does not mean they are avoiding a question. In point of fact, I was on the phone. Your posts did exactly what I said. Making obnoxious posts is not a good debate strategy.
 
Redress said:
Hint: just because some one does not answer right away does not mean they are avoiding a question. In point of fact, I was on the phone. Your posts did exactly what I said. Making obnoxious posts is not a good debate strategy.
Click to expand...

a debate would require you to bring something factual to argue over.

you do the same thing in every one of these threads. you post about how he is bat **** insane, while offering nothing of substance.
 
Ikari said:
Unless the choices are status quo and crazy; which it often is. It depends on what crazy you want. Santorum's crazy is well more dangerous, IMO, than Paul's crazy. Paul's crazy is on the side of reducing government. Santorum's crazy is the opposite; particularly along military lines. Then there's the status quo in Romney and Obama. Paul's crazy is in the right direction, and while it would be impossible to get some of the more extreme positions passed; I think it will open up at least good debate (like what is the purpose of the Fed, how does it work, does it need to be restrained?) and is a step in the right direction - the reduction of the US federal government.
Click to expand...

Santorum is much more in line with what most people in this country believe than Paul is. It is still far enough from the mainstream he is not going to be president any time soon, but it is much less extreme compared to the norms of the country and than Paul. The reason you see Romney and Obama as status quo is because your positions are way far out on the fringe. Viewed from a distance, everything else looks close together. Both are significantly different from each other, and from the last president.
 
ARealConservative said:
a debate would require you to bring something factual to argue over.

you do the same thing in every one of these threads. you post about how he is bat **** insane, while offering nothing of substance.
Click to expand...

You have brought nothin in other than your opinions, which you state as facts.

Reasons Paul is bat**** insane:

1) The fed is an important part of the government and it is probably virtually impossible for a large country to function without a central bank.

2) A gold standard would limit the power of the government to control the flow of money and limit the effects of economic bad times.

3) Cutting 1 trillion from the government in one year would devestate the US economy, certainly driving us back into recession and quite possibly into depression. This would of course further reduce government revenue, putting us into a cycle of cutting government to reduce the deficit, causing less revenue, requiring more cutting...

4) In a global economy where military threats can come from anywhere in the world means that we need a forward deployed military and we need the power of federal aid to foriegn countries to influence them and we need things like GAT and NAFTA.
 
Redress said:
You have brought nothin in other than your opinions, which you state as facts.

Reasons Paul is bat**** insane:

1) The fed is an important part of the government and it is probably virtually impossible for a large country to function without a central bank.

2) A gold standard would limit the power of the government to control the flow of money and limit the effects of economic bad times.

3) Cutting 1 trillion from the government in one year would devestate the US economy, certainly driving us back into recession and quite possibly into depression. This would of course further reduce government revenue, putting us into a cycle of cutting government to reduce the deficit, causing less revenue, requiring more cutting...

4) In a global economy where military threats can come from anywhere in the world means that we need a forward deployed military and we need the power of federal aid to foriegn countries to influence them and we need things like GAT and NAFTA.
Click to expand...

post #30 by me contains nothing but facts.

now how about you back up your claims, show where I acted in the manner you accused me of.
 
Redress said:
Santorum is much more in line with what most people in this country believe than Paul is. It is still far enough from the mainstream he is not going to be president any time soon, but it is much less extreme compared to the norms of the country and than Paul. The reason you see Romney and Obama as status quo is because your positions are way far out on the fringe. Viewed from a distance, everything else looks close together. Both are significantly different from each other, and from the last president.
Click to expand...

I don't think that his aggressive military policies are "less extreme".

And how do you know Romney is "significantly different" from Obama; we don't even really know what Romney is about. It changes as the wind blows. Which is rather standard. Obama too tried to bill himself as something he later could not live up to (or did not care to).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom