8 ms·

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against bur

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more. He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
against abortion This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level. He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much. I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing. CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.
- tvon 15y ago
  You just said that Ron Paul is not against abortion, but that he is opposed to it.
  - bmelton 15y ago
    More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
    - tvon 15y ago
      What a cop out. Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
      - bmelton 15y ago
        I haven't heard anything from him that sounds anything like that at all, and it definitely isn't how I understand his position to be. In the absence of asking the man directly, can you cite a source?
        azar1 15y ago
        HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1] "Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life." [1] http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of-life-act-update http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of...
        bmelton 15y ago
        Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now. It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty. That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
      - dantheman 15y ago
        this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
  - RickHull 15y ago
    He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
    - tvon 15y ago
      His personal opinion certainly does drive the policy he advocates.
  - sp332 15y ago
    megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
    - tvon 15y ago
      From his campaign page: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including: Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.” Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
      - CWuestefeld 15y ago
        Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception. This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power. Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument). The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway. (I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
- scarmig 15y ago
  Right now, it's illegal to ban abortion in any state. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, as Ron Paul is personally pro-life. This isn't something that is driven by some deeply-held libertarian principles. Many (most?) libertarians are pro-choice.
  - fragsworth 15y ago
    You've missed the point entirely. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion. He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      It's telling that folks can't wrap their head around the idea of someone holding personal beliefs, yet not attempting to press them into federal law.
    - scarmig 15y ago
      Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments. Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.
      - ubernostrum 15y ago
        Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? Actually... Paul's "We the People Act" seeks to expressly place state laws on religion, sexual orientation and abortion outside of any possible constitutional review (essentially it's a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, targeted at the issues that provoke the most frothing at the mouth from social conservatives). So if he gets his way, yes, a state could pass a law banning Islam and there'd be no recourse.
jswinghammer 15y ago
On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.
- scarmig 15y ago
  If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.
  - tempire 15y ago
    I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue. It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality). Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.
    - scarmig 15y ago
      You're still totally ignoring the point. Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable. Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them. If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are. And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary. And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?
pwf 15y ago
His views on flag burning aren't exactly as you seem to think. http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/ http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/ Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.
atarian 15y ago
What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates. They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.
- panaceafatali 15y ago
  Which ban? All I can find is his support of DOMA, and the Marriage Protection Act, which would have prevented Federal judges from ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA.
  - nirvana 15y ago
    I've seen assertions he supported the DOMA, but he didn't vote for it, so he couldn't have supported it very much. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml Further, he supports human rights in virtually every context, including marriage. Paul wants the government out of the marriage business. Obama wants the government in the marriage business, AND he wants to keep gay marriage banned. Thus if support of DOMA is your criteria, then Paul is a better choice than Obama. Of course this has nothing to do with SOPA. It's just the leftist talking points for bashing Paul whenever his name comes up so we have to respond to these insinuations.
    - panaceafatali 15y ago
      Yet he co-sponsored a bill that would make DOMA impossible to get rid of in any way. That doesn't count as much as voting for it? Also: "If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act," So there's why he didn't vote for it or against it, or even abstain. http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.g...
- tempire 15y ago
  True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others. You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.

CWuestefeld 15y ago

against abortion This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level. He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much. I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing. CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.

tvon 15y ago
You just said that Ron Paul is not against abortion, but that he is opposed to it.
- bmelton 15y ago
  More specifically, Ron Paul doesn't believe that ANY abortion legislation should be passed at the federal level, whether or not it is for or against abortion, and believes that right should be held by the states.
  - tvon 15y ago
    What a cop out. Ron Paul wants to define life as "starting at conception", he wants to do this at the federal level, and he wants states to ban abortion (which they'd frankly have to do if life was defined as starting at conception).
    - bmelton 15y ago
      I haven't heard anything from him that sounds anything like that at all, and it definitely isn't how I understand his position to be. In the absence of asking the man directly, can you cite a source?
      - azar1 15y ago
        HR 2533: Sanctity of Life Act [1] "Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life." [1] http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of-life-act-update http://www.dailypaul.com/122553/ron-paul-hr-2533-sanctity-of...
        bmelton 15y ago
        Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen the text of this before now. It's interesting how interpretations are so easily drawn, because while you cite the "Deems human life" as synopsis, I draw "each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state" as justification that it simply allows states to have more sovereignty. That said, I agree that the language, which I don't personally agree with (or have much opinion on) would likely tie the hands of states trying to enforce or enact pro-choice legislation.
    - dantheman 15y ago
      this is incorrect, the bill you are referencing merely allowed states to ban abortion if they so desired and removed federal funding from abortions; this is very different than trying to force through a federal ban.
- RickHull 15y ago
  He has a personal opinion, but this does not drive the policy he advocates. Likewise, he may not want people to drink alcohol on Sundays, but he would not outlaw such behavior.
  - tvon 15y ago
    His personal opinion certainly does drive the policy he advocates.
- sp332 15y ago
  megablast said he wants laws... against abortion and CWuestefeld pointed out that, although he doesn't like it, he doesn't support federal laws against it.
  - tvon 15y ago
    From his campaign page: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/ And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including: Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.” Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” It's very difficult to interpret that as anything but being anti-abortion at the federal level. Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      Passing a law outright banning it is unnecessary if life is defined at the federal level as beginning at conception. This is false. Such an official definition would probably be only symbolic. The thing is, the federal government does not have any general police power. Even if, by their definition, abortion were murder (and there's a lot more defining to be done before we could arrive at that conclusion), it really wouldn't matter. Consider that today, we would define all living people as "alive" (duh), the federal has no laws forbidding murder! Any murder charge is the result of state laws (other than in national parks and in DC, but those are a different argument). The only way this could affect real life legalities is in the way it interacts with the 13th Amendment. But since that's got the goofy doctrine of incorporation, there would be no net change unless the Supreme Court were to recognize the right with respect to this new/clarified definition. And that just puts the ball right back into the SCOTUS court, which is where it sits today anyway. (I upvoted you because I think it's worthy of discussion, but this is the way the answer is going to fall out in the end)
scarmig 15y ago
Right now, it's illegal to ban abortion in any state. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, as Ron Paul is personally pro-life. This isn't something that is driven by some deeply-held libertarian principles. Many (most?) libertarians are pro-choice.
- fragsworth 15y ago
  You've missed the point entirely. Ron Paul wants to make it legal for states to ban abortions, because Ron Paul generally favors state powers and is against federal powers. It has nothing to do with his personal opinion on abortion. He's made this clear several times, but most people don't seem to understand it.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    It's telling that folks can't wrap their head around the idea of someone holding personal beliefs, yet not attempting to press them into federal law.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    Sigh, there is certainly a point being missed here. Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? If someone argued that it should... they'd rightly be acknowledged as anti-Islam, because freedom of religion is a human right, and rights aren't just rights for the federal government, but for all the state governments. Rights are inviolable. If Ron Paul believes states should be able to violate certain rights, he is opposed to those rights. Which is fine: it's a perfectly coherent position that there is no right to privacy and self-determination. But call it what it is.
    - ubernostrum 15y ago
      Should the federal government give states the right to ban Islam? Actually... Paul's "We the People Act" seeks to expressly place state laws on religion, sexual orientation and abortion outside of any possible constitutional review (essentially it's a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, targeted at the issues that provoke the most frothing at the mouth from social conservatives). So if he gets his way, yes, a state could pass a law banning Islam and there'd be no recourse.

jswinghammer 15y ago

On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.

scarmig 15y ago
If you believe that marriages should be altogether abolished, but before they are abolished you refuse to support efforts to make the discriminatory status quo more equitable... then, yes, you're against gay rights.
- tempire 15y ago
  I think you're missing Paul's philosophy on the matter. His perspective on Federal government is that it's outside their jurisdiction to dictate morality. The constitution already states that all people are made equal; more laws are not necessary to enforce the issue. It's not marriages that he wants to abolish, but government-issued licences for it. The government should have no say whatsoever in defining what a marriage is; it's an inherently personal and religious matter (I use the term religion to refer to a person's understanding of reality). Once you remove the government from the equation, any attempts to force others to believe what you do by law dissipates, and everyone gets to do whatever they want.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    You're still totally ignoring the point. Marriage can be made equitable. It can be done either via abolishing marriage licensing altogether, or via making marriage licenses equitable. Ron Paul believes it's better to keep marriage licensing discriminatory versus equalizing them. If this were a world where government entitlements were available only to white people, and Ron Paul took the position "I'm opposed to doing anything to make government benefits race blind, so I'm going to work against people trying to make government entitlements race blind, because I believe all government entitlements are evil," that would be an effectively racist policy position, whatever his personal beliefs on race are. And Ron Paul goes further: he has gone so far as to sponsor and vote for legislation that prevents the federal government from recognizing state-legislated marriage equality. So in this case, he thinks states rights go too far in allowing them to define marriage, so federal legislation is necessary. And we're talking about a guy who not only is personally opposed to gay marriage. Do you really believe that plays no role whatsoever in his opposition to marriage equality?

pwf 15y ago

His views on flag burning aren't exactly as you seem to think. http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/ http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/ Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.

atarian 15y ago

What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates. They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.

panaceafatali 15y ago
Which ban? All I can find is his support of DOMA, and the Marriage Protection Act, which would have prevented Federal judges from ruling on the constitutionality of DOMA.
- nirvana 15y ago
  I've seen assertions he supported the DOMA, but he didn't vote for it, so he couldn't have supported it very much. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml Further, he supports human rights in virtually every context, including marriage. Paul wants the government out of the marriage business. Obama wants the government in the marriage business, AND he wants to keep gay marriage banned. Thus if support of DOMA is your criteria, then Paul is a better choice than Obama. Of course this has nothing to do with SOPA. It's just the leftist talking points for bashing Paul whenever his name comes up so we have to respond to these insinuations.
  - panaceafatali 15y ago
    Yet he co-sponsored a bill that would make DOMA impossible to get rid of in any way. That doesn't count as much as voting for it? Also: "If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act," So there's why he didn't vote for it or against it, or even abstain. http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20070207225148/http://www.house.g...
tempire 15y ago
True enough. This is the pattern set by other candidates as long as I've been paying attention. It's why people don't get Paul, because he's not trying to push his views on other people by mandating them into law. As such, he's likely the only non-bigoted GOP candidate, because he's not out to force his opinions on others. You can't really blame people - it's just such a foreign concept, so it takes time to really sink in.