Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

[The Romulan Republic]

Ron Paul would be a disaster. Yes, Obama has been a disappointment on civil liberties, and Ron Paul would (provided he remained true to his positions) be less prone to violating people's rights. However he would deregulate everything, likely eliminating protections the federal government provides. The abuses wouldn't be their, but neither would the protections.

That anyone who considers themselves a progressive or liberal would endorse Ron Paul is infuriating and horrifying. Okay, you don't like Obama. I can understand not voting, or voting for some fringe party, as pointless as those actions may be. But running from one bad candidate to another is not much of a solution.

The best you can say about Ron Paul is that he is fairly consistent, and would be the best on a few narrow issues, and utterly catastrophic on a whole bunch of others.

Edit: made a few minor changes to the first paragraph.

[Artemas]

Obama would be a disaster. Yes, Ron Paul has been a disappointment on his civil liberties platform, and Obama would (provided he had remained true to his positions) be less prone to violating people's rights. However he would further entrenth the securitization of domestic policy, and continue the trend of militarization of foreign policy. Economic protections that the federal government provides would likely be eliminated.

That anyone who considers themselves a progressive or liberal would endorse Obama [again] is infuriating and horrifying. Okay, you don't like Ron Paul. I can understand not voting, or voting for some fringe party, as pointless as those actions may be. But running from one bad candidate to another is not much of a solution.

The best you can say about Obama is that he is fairly consistent, and would be the best on a few narrow issues, and utterly catastrophic on a whole bunch of others.

Edit: made a few minor changes to [all of the] paragraph.

[SirNitram]

Let's see. A self-proclaimed and definitely confirmed centrist who carries on the use of imperial power from his predecessor, or a guy who thinks we should switch to a precious-metal exchange, fears getting Teh Gay from toilet seats, cheers an endorsement from a guy who beleives we should execute the gays, virulently anti-woman, virulently racist,(Did you SEE his newsletters? This 'I didn't write them' isn't the answer he gave a few years back), and has returned to his batshit crazy roots in Iowa with some old fashioned Black Helicopter paranoia and Amero conspiracy theories(Link).

Why the fuck would I go with the worst of all outcomes?

[The Romulan Republic]

Obama would be a disaster. Yes, Ron Paul has been a disappointment on his civil liberties platform, and Obama would (provided he had remained true to his positions) be less prone to violating people's rights. However he would further entrenth the securitization of domestic policy, and continue the trend of militarization of foreign policy. Economic protections that the federal government provides would likely be eliminated.

That anyone who considers themselves a progressive or liberal would endorse Obama [again] is infuriating and horrifying. Okay, you don't like Ron Paul. I can understand not voting, or voting for some fringe party, as pointless as those actions may be. But running from one bad candidate to another is not much of a solution.

The best you can say about Obama is that he is fairly consistent, and would be the best on a few narrow issues, and utterly catastrophic on a whole bunch of others.

Edit: made a few minor changes to [all of the] paragraph.

Obama has been eliminating economic protections? Not nearly as much or as quickly as Ron Paul would like to, that's for sure. Blaming Obama for increased militarization of foreign policy is debatable as well. I don't think his foreign policy is nessissarily more militant than Bush, and if that's your contention I'd like to see some credible sources to back it up. And there's a difference between Obama level catastrophy and Ron Paul level catastrophy.

And even if your post were a hundred percent correct (something I am not remotely prepared to concede), it would hardly justify anyone who calls themselves liberal or progressive supporting Ron Paul. It would simply mean both candidates should be avoided.

[Simon_Jester]

Glenn Greenwald discusses this same thing in the context of Ron Paul. Congressman Paul is anti-war, he's anti-murder, and he's anti-tyranny. But no, he's wrong about black people or homosexuals, therefore you can't support him.

That's bullshit too. Maybe he has some personal failings, and maybe you can't agree with all his policies. But, he's the only Presidential candidate out there, from either party, to stand up and fight against America's policies of perpetual war and other very, very serious problems.

The question ought to be: does the good outweigh the bad to make him the lesser evil? This needs to be asked objectively. It's not about red vs blue or crazy vs sane. It's about policy.

Yes, and I think a lot of people here have weighed that and concluded that he would not be the lesser evil. He's opposed to war; he's only opposed to murder and tyranny if the federal government is doing it. State-level murder and tyranny, he's prepared to tolerate- he doesn't seem to believe that the protections of the US Constitution are binding on the state governments, Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding. On issues of economic policy, he would favor policies that cause chaos, and would merrily rubber-stamp budgets which could cause disastrous harm to parts of the US that the federal government has a hand in.

All in all, yes I think Ron Paul is not the lesser evil when compared to Barack Obama.

I'm happy Ron Paul is running in this election. I'm happy Ron Paul is in Congress. We need voices like this. Whether it's motivated by liberal principles from Dennis Kucinich or by small Federal government principles from Ron Paul, these issues matter.

Here's hoping Ron Paul wins in Iowa.

I think that there is an ideal office for Ron Paul which the US system does not have- I don't think it even exists in any democratic government. Ron Paul would be a good candidate for one of Rome's plebeian tribunes, or preferably a council with collective power equivalent to that of the tribunes. Giving him power to vote on up/down vetoes of government action would play to his strengths (he plainly cares about at least some 'rights issues,' he's relatively non-corruptible, he speaks for a meaningful share of the American population that deserves a voice in government somewhere). And it would do that without letting him screw things up with his weaknesses (lack of administrative experience, impractical policy ideas, and failure to consider or care about other 'rights issues).

But in all honesty I do not think he would make a good president, or a better president than Obama.

[Zinegata]

As I've said before, Paul's fiscal policy disqualifies him from the presidency, no matter how saintly he is in all other aspects (and he ain't that saintly).

Deciding to abolish the central bank and allowing everyone to issue their currencies will result in economic disaster worldwide. You can argue that the rest of the government will stop him from implementing this insanity; but why elect a president with a known insane policy and have the government pointlessly waste time on it?

[Gigaliel]

It's like no one read the article. I'm going to post the important passage for the lazy:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Also Ron Paul's presidential run is a net gain solely based on the fact the media is forced cover his positions which have literally no representation in mainstream political culture.

edit: removed poorly worded sentence

[Simon_Jester]

What, Gigaliel, do you think that if I'd read the article I would suddenly become a Ron Paul supporter?

Let's put it this way.

I do not say that Ron Paul does not have a legitimate place in American politics. And I do say that of several other people running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and of a number of figures who were involved in American politics in the past. The Tea Party is choked with people who would have no place in American politics if American politics weren't deeply perverse. By that standard Paul is one of the better people in the Republican field, simply because he isn't a total lightweight, has the courage of his convictions, and isn't willing to sacrifice those views to make himself slightly more appealing to the far right so as to have a slightly better chance of winning that nomination.

I do not say that Ron Paul should not be running for the nomination, that he should avoid public office, that he is somehow evil or despicable or automatically to be ignored on all issues. He is a man worth a certain amount of respect for his personal qualities if not his opinions, and since he speaks for a small but noticeable share of Americans, I think it is right and proper that he should have a voice in American politics.

But I also think that his exotic, dogmatic, and ill-considered policy agenda makes him unsuitable for a public office of high responsibility. Being a Congressman is not that vital a position- Congress collectively is responsible for many things, but it's bigger than one man; Ron Paul thinking that we should abolish the Department of Education doesn't matter much as long as a majority of his peers disagree. That neutralizes the harm he can do, which is good.

But president? If Ron Paul were president, then assuming he's not just another whore, and that he actually believes the words that come out of his mouth, he'd be an incredibly disruptive president. Our economy would be turned inside out. If he had the backing of the kind of radical Republican congress likely to be elected in an election that Paul could ride to power, he would probably try to dismantle large sectors of the federal government... at which point we must factor in the probable deaths caused in the US by such policies, as well as the loss of many, many billions of dollars of wealth.

Hell yes a domestic policy issue can outweigh a foreign policy issue, even if the foreign policy issue involves getting people blown up.

What I'm not sure you understand is this. I am fully conscious of the potential consequences of things like Obama's civil rights behavior (consequences that have not yet materialized- there has been no roundup of political dissenters), and the actual consequences of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I am also aware of the actual consequences of Republican economic policy (massive unemployment in the US, massive structural deficit, declining standards of education and infrastructure), and the potential consequences of taking those policies and applying them harder, as Ron Paul would do in many cases.

Weighing the two sets of consequences against each other, I have to make my decision as an American citizen who wants my country to not collapse or suffer huge recessions, and who is conscious of just how much something like a depression really costs in surplus mortality and lost opportunities for useful labor.

And from that perspective, Ron Paul would make a terrible president and I would never consider voting for him.

[SpaceMarine93]

Is there any passable candidates on the Republican side overall? Or are they are just batshit insane and uncompromising?

[Simon_Jester]

The question is entirely meaningless and without substance if you don't define what "passable" means. Whose standards are we supposed to be using here?

[SpaceMarine93]

The question is entirely meaningless and without substance if you don't define what "passable" means. Whose standards are we supposed to be using here?

Just anyone with policies and ideological standings that are actually acceptable by moderates of both sides. You know, seriously, I really want to find a Republican presidential candidate to vote for this year rather than Obama. Obama had achieved too little and broken too many promises for me to support anymore, other than being a lesser evil than the Republican candidates.

But I just can't find anyone in the Republican side who doesn't sound like a right-wing nut. Where can I find some Republican liberal enough when it comes to Economy, Education, Healthcare, Science, Environment, Abortion, Homosexuality, Media Copyright, Immigration, etc. comparable to moderate Democrats. And willing to compromise.

Maybe it's just me leaning too much to the left and the Democrats in general. I mean, I am 18 years old and absolutely frustrated at how completely screwed up society and the world is in general. I want to see a nation with less economic disparity between rich and poor and a more tolerant and progressive society. All the Republicans seemed to want to make things worse.

If Obama can't start the long process to achieve this, and none of the Republicans doesn't appear to try and make things worse, and none of the Third Parties can do anything about it, I simply can't find hope anymore. Where's the leader we can actually look forward to?

[Alkaloid]

So vote for an independent. I know there is this whole thing in US politics about it being a wasted vote and all that, but that will only be true as long as people think like that. Yes, an independent is unlikely to win even if you do vote for them, but they don't have to win to be effective. A huge chunk of votes falling away from the democrats and a corresponding rise in votes for independents, particularly ones who stand for what the dems claim to but don't deliver on, does actually send a message, or heaven forbid if there's actual effort made you might get third parties controlling the balance of power in congress or the senate, which means they have a disproportionate amount of influence relative to their vote, and can force actual negotiation to take place.

[Crossroads Inc.]

People tried that in 2000 with Ralph Nader and we all know how wonderful THAT ended for America.

Look, has Obama been a disapointment? Yes.
Has he been a spinless pansy on things? God yes.

Am I going to still vote for him?
HELL Yes.

To both SpaceMarine and Alkaloid, I have said this before and I'll say this again, everything bad Obama has done , I will still take him then over anyone in the GOP.

I'm sorry that this will Crush your spirts, but third parties are dead in America. If you want to change things, then vote in people who reflect what you believe in.

Ironically the best example of this is the Tea Party.
With all of the massive energy in that movement, with all of the people who say they are 'Tea Party Members" none of the have actually run as a 'Tea Party' They all still run as Republicans still (if someone can prove me wrong please do so)
At no point did they actually say "Lets NOT vote Republican, lets vote for a third party"
Given how wacky, crazy and energized the movement is, if even THEY didn't go thrid arty, no one will.

The point is they ARE changing the Republicans, they voted out moderates and moved in more and more nutcases. You want to change the way things are? Then do the same. Get active, get angery, vote in the primaries for people who arn't wussy or spinless and you may just begin to change things.

[Vehrec]

The real problem with a large block voting independent is not that it would not count in the face of the big parties but that it would break one of the major parties and allow the other to sweep the elections, effectively nullifying the opposition. This is exactly what happened in 1860 with Abraham Lincoln and his two democratic opponents. When the South split the Democratic vote they killed any chance there ever was to elect a Democratic candidate. By voting for a more extreme pro-slavery candidate they enabled the Republican victory and the subsequent nullification of the entire institution! Similarly, if I convince 25% of the democrats in a formerly secure 60% Blue district to vote Socialist, then I have just handed my district to the republicans! The American system hasn't offered a reward for second place since they changed how the Vice president was elected, and that results in a majorly different political climate from every parlimentary multi-party system that has ever existed.

[Alkaloid]

Ironically the best example of this is the Tea Party.
With all of the massive energy in that movement, with all of the people who say they are 'Tea Party Members" none of the have actually run as a 'Tea Party' They all still run as Republicans still (if someone can prove me wrong please do so)
At no point did they actually say "Lets NOT vote Republican, lets vote for a third party"
Given how wacky, crazy and energized the movement is, if even THEY didn't go thrid arty, no one will.

The point is they ARE changing the Republicans, they voted out moderates and moved in more and more nutcases. You want to change the way things are? Then do the same. Get active, get angery, vote in the primaries for people who arn't wussy or spinless and you may just begin to change things.

I suspect at this point the dems have moved so far right that tea partying back to the left will be close to impossible. The tea party had to encourage a shift that was already happening, a democrat equivalent will have to halt the slide to the right and then push back against people wanting to push right.

I'm sorry that this will Crush your spirts, but third parties are dead in America. If you want to change things, then vote in people who reflect what you believe in.

I never said not to. (By third party I'm referring to independents as well, not just an organised third party, anyone but the dems or the GOP) Obama is far less bad than any of the republican field, I agree, but just continually voting in a bad candidate on the merits of "well, could be worse" is just walking into the shit rather than running headlong, and it will be far easier to change direction now than it will when you are up to your ears in it. It will be hard as all hell, and the people having to do the work have my sympathies, but at some point it needs to be done, and the way to start is with a fuck off big message to the supposed leaders of the left that this shit will no longer fly. Voting for third parties over the dems, even though it reduces votes to the dems, I know, actually sends that message. You won't get an independent president, what you might get is a democratic party looking for votes thinking, 'hey, why did all these people that used to vote for us stop?"

The real problem with a large block voting independent is not that it would not count in the face of the big parties but that it would break one of the major parties and allow the other to sweep the elections, effectively nullifying the opposition.

I get that, and I appreciate that it is difficult and risky, but do you see another option? None of the major party candidates will lead your country you want it to go, so you're just going to surrender to what they want because doing anything else is too hard? Because that seems to be the stance of the 'I don't like Obama but will still vote for him' crowd.

[Elfdart]

A few things to keep in mind:

Paul could every bit as racist or homophobic as his enemies try to depict him and it shouldn't matter. Lyndon Johnson was far more racist and he did more for the rights of minorities than any president since Lincoln freed the slaves. I find it funny that supporters of Obama, who opposes gay marriage and whose DoJ files court brief after court brief supporting the "Defense of Marriage Act" would recoil from Paul because he supposedly recoiled from using a stranger's bathroom.

I'd like someone to name a candidate running in 2012 who has not been racist or homophobic. Romney? A member of a racist cult that regarded black people as sub-human until the 1970s. Gingrich? A big supporter of the racist porn tract called The Bell Curve, and invited the author as his guest of honor at a banquet to celebrate the GOP takeover in 1995. Bachmann? Said the Founders worked to solve the issue of slavery -if by "solved" you mean "expanded chattel slavery". Santorum? Dan Savage covered that one already.

Paul's economic plans have ZERO chance of being carried out because Congress actually has a say in the matter and can (and more importantly, would) block and override him at every turn. So there's no way in hell he could ever bring back the gold standard or his other nutty schemes.

In the area of personal freedom and imperialism, Paul really could make drastic changes for the better and there's almost nothing Congress or the courts could do to stop him short of impeaching and removing him.

Obama had his chance and not only did he blow it, but in many ways he's worse than the Crawford Caligula. All the pearl-clutching about Ron Paul because he consorted with bigots back in the 80s is shit for the birds.

[Lord Zentei]

See, if Elfdart comes out and supports Ron Paul, then (a) he's worth looking into, and/or (b) it's gotten pretty bad in the Democrat camp.

Though to be fair to Ron Pauls detractors, I probably would have been a lot less supportive/more disappointed with him in the past had I read his newsletters back then and not only recently. They were disappointing to be sure, but on the other hand he has apparently disavowed them and turned a new leaf. Now if only he could be more honest in the way he handles the matter, but he's probably rightly concerned about the media milking it unless he stonewalls the issue (which he did back in 2008 when he was running for re-election for Congress).

[Crossroads Inc.]

I'll be hounest, I don't really care about some 20 or 30yo paper that he didn't even write.
No, I'll be against Paul to the end because of the following (quoted fully from bobalot in another thread)

Ron Paul:

• does not believe the First Amendment applies to states, and that they should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, gender, race or religion if the local populace agrees
• does not believe in church-state separation
• claims he would not let his religious beliefs influence his public policy. But he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder and says, "life begins at conception" which is clearly based on his evangelical christian ideology.
• rejects the theory of evolution as being valid.
• also does not accept global climate change.
• wants to get rid of the EPA. There would be no federal oversight of pollution and environmental protection.
• wants to sell off National Parks, Wildlife refuges, National Forests, Nature preserves, etc. The Grand Canyon would be privately owned.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Education. No more student loans or grants. No improved educational opportunities for non-rich people. No standards for equal-educational-access enforced. No national educational standards set.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Agriculture. No more national standards for food safety or regulation of pesticides. RP claims the DOA is "unconstitutional."
• and believe it or not, there is actually more (His imbecilic economic policies for example)

Why the fuck would any real 'progressive' vote for this?

This isn't just about one or two wacko ideas.
Virtually everything the man believes in is self-destructive to America. And saying "he would never actually do it if President" do you think that matters?
This is a man who says he would want to destroy the EPA, the NEA, and many others. Do you hounestly think anyone in the GOP would stop him?

Click those links, many of the above are Pauls OWN WORDS. Not fabrications, or exaggeration's, but the mans OWN words.

So what many of you are saying, is that because you are issed off at Obama, you would support a man who would happily destroy much of the federal government

[Patrick Degan]

I'll be hounest, I don't really care about some 20 or 30yo paper that he didn't even write.
No, I'll be against Paul to the end because of the following (quoted fully from bobalot in another thread)

Ron Paul:

• does not believe the First Amendment applies to states, and that they should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, gender, race or religion if the local populace agrees
• does not believe in church-state separation
• claims he would not let his religious beliefs influence his public policy. But he has twice introduced "The Sanctity of Life Act" which federalizes abortion as murder and says, "life begins at conception" which is clearly based on his evangelical christian ideology.
• rejects the theory of evolution as being valid.
• also does not accept global climate change.
• wants to get rid of the EPA. There would be no federal oversight of pollution and environmental protection.
• wants to sell off National Parks, Wildlife refuges, National Forests, Nature preserves, etc. The Grand Canyon would be privately owned.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Education. No more student loans or grants. No improved educational opportunities for non-rich people. No standards for equal-educational-access enforced. No national educational standards set.
• wants to get rid of the Dept of Agriculture. No more national standards for food safety or regulation of pesticides. RP claims the DOA is "unconstitutional."
• and believe it or not, there is actually more (His imbecilic economic policies for example)

Why the fuck would any real 'progressive' vote for this?

This isn't just about one or two wacko ideas.
Virtually everything the man believes in is self-destructive to America. And saying "he would never actually do it if President" do you think that matters?
This is a man who says he would want to destroy the EPA, the NEA, and many others. Do you hounestly think anyone in the GOP would stop him?

Click those links, many of the above are Pauls OWN WORDS. Not fabrications, or exaggeration's, but the mans OWN words.

So what many of you are saying, is that because you are pissed off at Obama, you would support a man who would happily destroy much of the federal government

There's also his mystical belief in gold-backed currency, but that's merely the sewer-sludge icing on a ten-layer dogshit cake. Ron Paul's ideology essentially confuses the Constitution for the Articles of Confederation, cherry-picks Adam Smith to justify a totally predatory capitalism, and would leave Americans wholly at the mercy of anyone with both financial power and zero scruples to do anything they pleased.

[Simon_Jester]

What we are seeing here, what makes this conversation about someone like Ron Paul even possible, is the deep embitterment of the left- or the slice of it represented on SDN N&P, at any rate.

In 2008, there was a very real expectation that "the nightmare was over," that getting rid of Bush would get rid of all that Bush represented and all that Bush had done. Obama exploited that expectation very adroitly- some on the right who pointed out that "someone is going to be disappointed" about him proved right.

I was there at his inauguration, and the atmosphere was tremendously optimistic. Sure, the economy was practically in free-fall, slowed only by the early waves of bailouts. Sure, we were still in Iraq and Afghanistan and there was no obvious, honorable way out. Sure, there was still an entrenched Republican rear guard in Congress. Sure, there were plenty of Bush appointees still in office and due to remain so. But a Democrat was in the White House. Now, things were going to be different.

I felt the same way; any misgivings I might have had were far too faint for me to point to and say "HAH! I saw it coming!" I didn't see it coming.

And to expect a drastic reformation like that to happen was not entirely unreasonable- to expect some of that to happen was very reasonable. But to be quite honest, comparing the results many people thought Obama would deliver to the post-2008 political realities, I don't think Obama could have delivered what was expected of him by the people who voted him into office even if he'd wanted to. There seemed to be an implicit expectation that the Republican Party and the ideas and interests that drive it would just dry up and blow away, like orcs after the fall of Sauron. And that was never realistic.

Does this mean Obama is not culpable for some of the things he failed to do, or did wrong? I do not say that. But I think that just as the left's expectations for what would happen after 2008 were puffed up beyond reason, the left's disappointment when it failed to happen as planned is puffed up beyond reason. So now they're looking in horrible, absurd places for the man on the white horse to save them from Obama the way Obama was supposed to save them from Bush.



The possible light at the end of the tunnel, in my opinion, is the demographic shift.

The generations born before 1950 or so are on their way out. The voter bloc expanding fastest (not just new people turning 18, but adults actually starting to participate in politics) is of people who came of age during the Bush years and the recession that followed them. These are people who have little or no memory of the Cold War and the stark "communism versus capitalism" mindset of those times. Therefore they have no psychological stake in the permanent, all-consuming triumph of laissez-faire capitalism, as much of the older generations do.

So when they are called upon to vote for corporate whores, given a choice, they will say "no." And the longer we wait, the bigger this bloc will become- the people who are disillusioned and exiled from the lifestyles of the Wall Street wheeler-dealers, who demand solutions in good faith.

The danger is that these people will abandon politics entirely, feeling too pushed down, immiserized and embittered to do anything about the cause of their own misery and bitterness. But I don't think this is likely, not over ten-year timescales.

This upcoming election will resolve, I think, into Obama (by default) versus a Republican candidate who is not particularly strong and not particularly credible to anyone outside the far right. The result of that election will probably not change much, because Obama will be almost sure to win over a radical Republican, while a less extreme Republican will not be very successful at effecting drastic change over the objections of trench warfare in the Senate. After 2012, present trends will continue, slightly faster or slower than they have to date, barring disaster.

What's really going to be interesting is 2016 and on, when I think both parties will have seriously competitive primaries rather often, when disillusionment has proceeded farther and the extreme right has continued its dissolution into a froth of conspiracy theorists and blithering reactionary dunderheads. Then we can see the beginning of a real struggle to redefine America's soul- whether the politicians of the 2020s and 2030s will be more of the same empty suits we've gotten since shortly after the Cold War ended, or whether a genuine current of reform and rebuilding can begin.

[open_sketchbook]

I think, at least, Republican obstruction will lose a bit of focus after the 2012 elections, if Obama wins; they'll have failed in their agenda to make Obama a one-term president, and obstructionism will no longer have the same power to sway people against the democrats when failures cannot be tied to the face of the person running.

[SirNitram]

Let's see. A self-proclaimed and definitely confirmed centrist who carries on the use of imperial power from his predecessor, or a guy who thinks we should switch to a precious-metal exchange, fears getting Teh Gay from toilet seats, cheers an endorsement from a guy who beleives we should execute the gays, virulently anti-woman, virulently racist

Let's try this again, but with a little more objective honesty?

On one hand, we have a guy with some personal beliefs that you dislike, and an economic policy that isn't ideal, but at least wants to end wars and end domestic spying.

On the other hand, we have someone who ACTIVELY TORTURES AND MURDERS PEOPLE.



You guys talk about the 14th amendment, but what about the 4th amendment? Or the 5th? Or the 6th? Or the 8th?

Which should I sacrifice then? The world economy, the LGBT crew, women, everyone not white, all on the altar of 'NOT OBAMA'? For all your screaming of 'objective honesty', you're writing off everyone but white males under 'personal beliefs I dislike'. Well no shit. I may not be your brand of Liberal, sorry, but my political beleifs is that humans are PEOPLE. An economic policy that isn't ideal is what we've got NOW.. Paul would like it on fire and kick it into the Marinara's trench. I dislike his beliefs because he is a hatefilled little conservative asshole, for all that he's conned some people into thinking he gives a shit about personal liberties: Spoilers, the only ones he cares about are white men.

[Simon_Jester]

Let's try this again, but with a little more objective honesty.

On one hand, we have a guy with some personal beliefs that you dislike, and an economic policy that isn't ideal, but at least wants to end wars and end domestic spying.

On the other hand, we have someone who ACTIVELY TORTURES AND MURDERS PEOPLE.

I say again: the consequences of domestic policy can equal or exceed the consequences of civil rights breakdowns. They don't always, to head off that strawman.

Please try to understand this. To pretend that "some policies you don't like" is the sum total of the issue with Ron Paul entirely misses the point. It is also not what the Glenn Greenwald article is about- the point of that article is that an intellectually honest assessment is needed: are drone strikes which fall willy-nilly on American citizens in Yemen worse than abolishing the Department of Education, or the other way round?

By trying to dismiss the entirety of Ron Paul's domestic policy stance, and the numerous areas on which he is worse than Obama on civil rights, while highlighting only the relative handful of areas where is is superior to Obama on civil rights and foreign policy, you are being at best foolish.

You guys talk about the 14th amendment, but what about the 4th amendment? Or the 5th? Or the 6th? Or the 8th?

Put it this way: you know Sheriff Joe Arpaio? He violates people's civil rights on a fairly regular basis- he tries to run his prisons, writ small, as everything that Guantanamo is, writ large. He pisses on due process, he supports laws that do the same, and the only thing that has ever acted as a check on his one-man war against Hispanics in Maricopa County is the federal government.

Realistically, Ron Paul would leave him the hell alone because "state's rights." I'm sorry, D-XIII, but the man is simply not clean on civil rights, however hard you try to pretend he is. He is, at best, differently dirty, with less flash and boom and more quiet tolerance of filthy little murders in the dark.

The difference we'd get on that set of issues over Ron Paul is not enough to singlehandedly make up for all the other ways in which Ron Paul is one of the worst men we could possibly put in the Oval Office.

[bobalot]

Let's see. A self-proclaimed and definitely confirmed centrist who carries on the use of imperial power from his predecessor, or a guy who thinks we should switch to a precious-metal exchange, fears getting Teh Gay from toilet seats, cheers an endorsement from a guy who beleives we should execute the gays, virulently anti-woman, virulently racist

Let's try this again, but with a little more objective honesty.

On one hand, we have a guy with some personal beliefs that you dislike, and an economic policy that isn't ideal, but at least wants to end wars and end domestic spying.

On the other hand, we have someone who ACTIVELY TORTURES AND MURDERS PEOPLE.



You guys talk about the 14th amendment, but what about the 4th amendment? Or the 5th? Or the 6th? Or the 8th?

Instead of downplaying MAJOR failings that Ron Paul has, perhaps you could actually address them?

He has a economy policy that could quite possibly start a massive depression. He also would have a Republican party insane enough to push through these policies. What happens if the debt ceiling needs to be raised? Would Ron Paul default on America's debts? I suspect so judging by his rhetoric. Do you realise literally how many tens of millions of people would suffer as a result of this? The scale of suffering would be unimaginable.

Multiple currencies? A gold standard? No Central Bank? It's economic insanity. Ron Paul would crash the entire world economy.

Removing the EPA or FDA would literally kill people (and don't claim it wont happen, this would have significant support within the Republican party).

Devolving people's Civil Rights back down to the State level? We all know what would happen to homosexuals if that were to happen.

[Simon_Jester]

Thinking back, I think he's just deliberately strawmanning because he wants to point and laugh at us predictable, baitable people who give a shit about politics.