17 ms·

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters.

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. But none of that really matters. He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution. Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for the GOP nomination. Ron Paul is wrong on some things I care about, but so is Obama, and certainly so is Newt or Romney. I think I'll vote for the lesser of a dozen evils, and go with Paul.

maratd 15y ago
I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  I think his foreign policy is one of his strongest policies for which he gets a lot of support. What's funny is that Bush got elected in 2000 for having almost exactly the same foreign policy that Ron Paul has now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
- roguecoder 15y ago
  He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.
  - abstractionupon 15y ago
    You have to understand that he hasn't shifted his positions in 30 or so years, except on DADT and the death penalty. So to say he isn't a straight-shooter is absurd. As for the newsletters, they dealt with economics primarily. Could he have done a better job of overseeing the newsletters? Sure. But they were released over the span of a decade or more and as a whole contained only a few articles with questionable content. I mean, is someone making noise about Gingrich's or Romney's questionable ethics and corruption? Is someone asking why Romney's people bought all the HDD's from Mass. state computers before leaving office? Is someone calling other GOP candidates racist for supporting racial profiling and the drug war? Of course not. But a 20-year old ghostwritten dead horse has been re-re-exhumed and is being paraded on every network "news" show. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
  - fl3tch 15y ago
    > He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.
    - maratd 15y ago
      > He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.
      - dreamdu5t 15y ago
- ericingram 15y ago
  If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.
  - zavulon 15y ago
    I agree with Ron Paul on economy more than any other candidate, but he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe, or at least pretended to be one in order to get rich, which I find highly unlikely[1][2]. In my opinion, no matter how right on economy he is, we can't have someone like that as a president. [1] http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-5... [2] http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter Edit: sorry if it was tongue-in-cheek! FWIW, I didn't downvote you.
    - white_devil 15y ago
      Why yes, for example this quote from the Ron Paul Newsletter proves that's he's a filthy racist: But outside of a minuscule band of KKK members, there are few whose racism is the defining fact of their lives. Case closed! Ron Paul is a racist!
    - rjbond3rd 15y ago
      Zavulon, why did you think he was rich? He's not. Why do you think he's pretending anything? He's not. Do you know the man, or are you just taking the easy path of buying into the hysteria? He's flawed but you certainly didn't mention his actual flaws, which means you don't know him, you've simply read about him. His worst crime is that he's homophobic on a personal level. But he's not one bit anti-gay on a philosophical level and he has gotten big endorsements from Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage. So you've lost the anti-gay argument. And ditto for the other accusations. Please don't just be a part of the echo chamber. If you do, you're being rather easily manipulated, sorry.
    - CWuestefeld 15y ago
      he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe I don't believe that's true. But even if he were, the elegance of his philosophy is such that it renders him powerless to do anything about it. He wants to take power away from the presidency and the rest of the federal government. He's not looking for power to oppress somebody he doesn't like (or favor the corporations he does like). He wants to make it so that it's impossible to curry favor or harm on groups according to a politician's whim.
spindritf 15y ago
> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment? Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often? [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html
- espeed 15y ago
  He's saying he prefers an authentic candidate with principles over candidates whom pander to the media to get votes, even if his views differ in some areas.
- gruseom 15y ago
  It's just you. This is a rhetorical device that's been around for centuries.
- stfu 15y ago
  HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning, especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases" upfront. Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite - but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".
  - adbge 15y ago
    I'd hesitate to describe HN as non-political. The majority of HNer's are very pro-capitalist and pro-business from what I've observed, which makes sense given the community's focus on start-ups. The popular political sentiments that you'll find on Reddit are very different from those you'll find on HN.
roguecoder 15y ago
I can't vote for anyone who, when reality conflicts with his mental model of the world, believes reality is wrong. Paul's not just wrong; he works from false assumptions to come to consistently illogical conclusions. I don't care if my politicians disagree with me, but I certainly care that they live in a world of evidence-based decision making.
- dataminer 15y ago
  Can you please cite some of his false assumptions and the illogical conclusions. I believe his argument against SOPA and regulation/censorship of internet is quite sound. His arguments for a sound fiscal policy is based on evidence that governments (or individuals or corporations) spending beyond their means usually lead to their downfall. Results of Vietnam war, Iraq war provide alot evidence that much more diplomacy is needed before going to war, and once you go to war, fight it win it and get out, don't go into nation building.
adabsurdo 15y ago
>> But none of that really matters. I would bet that you are neither a woman, black, jewish, poor, or gay. So the fact, for example, that ron paul is a huge racist is something that you can discount at no cost to you. edit: wow, i see the ron paul brigade is out in force, as usual. thank you all! never been so proud of being downvoted.
- dantheman 15y ago
  Ron Paul is not a racist, and in fact sees racism as the lowest form of collectivism.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    I'd like to make a note on "collectivism". If there isn't a single person in the western political discourse who proudly adheres to a given characterization, it's a strawman. That's all. Meanwhile, on Ron Paul / race, that newsletter is a bit of a problem. Maybe you're too young to remember the conflation between states' rights and segregation. I'm really interested to see what happens if he wins Iowa and comes in 2nd in New Hampshire. I do think it would be good for the Republican party.
  - jules 15y ago
    Perhaps, but he did have a company that earned a lot of money from publishing newsletters containing racist and anti-gay passages under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Survival Report): > The newsletters, attributed to Paul, made statements such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be", and referring to Martin Luther King as a "pro-communist philanderer" and to Martin Luther King Day as "hate Whitey day."[72][73] An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."[74] In an article title "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that " "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[73] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,... Of course, he distances himself from these newsletters now. Would somebody who is truly not racist and not anti-gay have such words published in their name by accident?
eftpotrm 15y ago
Personally, I believe that Ron Paul will do what he says and that's a problem. I've read the articles, I've looked into things as much as I can and I very firmly disagree with him on his general monetary policies. The Federal Reserve being wound up and the USA returned to a Gold standard would not be A Good Thing for the USA or the world (me not being American); there's a reason why countries don't do that any more and it's not so politicians can lie, cheat and steal. We tried it his way before and it caused more problems than it solved. Newt Gingritch, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann et al may well be unprincipled and deliberately lying about all sorts of things. But I don't think any are proposing anything quite as reckless as Ron Paul's economic policies. Frankly though, that this lot are the best the Republicans can produce is an abysmal failure.
- BarkMore 15y ago
  Ron Paul wants to allow gold and silver to be used as legal tender. This is not the same thing as returning to the gold standard.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    OK, sorry, my wording was loose there; nonetheless, as he is looking for gold and silver to be admissable as payment, I think there's three possible scenarios. One, the market ignores this and everyone continues paying in the dollars the president thinks are just another means of exchange. Sounds risky to me; it's pretty much a public statement that the gvernment won't at all seek to defend the value of the dollar so I'm not sure why anyone would want to accept such a risky asset. Two, each merchant has to manage things in multiple currencies in parallel, along with the tax offices having to do the same and keep track of relative values and when the payment came in to establish the correct rates of tax. Won't happen. Three, the market sees an unsupported national currency with little or no base backing and no national reserve bank backing it up. That's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for hyperinflation and flight to assets (remember, the historic result of not having the Federal Reserve was high inflation - it's been tried). It won't be orderly; the price of gold will rise fast due to demand against a basket of currencies, let alone against the dollar that'll be collapsing even faster. The banks aren't set up to handle physical deposits of gold, the merchants aren't set up to handle transactions in them so we'd end up with multiple, incompatible, payment systems based off private gold-measured currencies. Meanwhile industrial use of gold becomes prohibitively expensive putting brakes on the economy, while the fixed money supply inherent in a commodity-based currency puts us deliberately back into the situation that crashed the markets in 07-08 - no-one can get any credit to work with, so the economy ground to a halt. That was able to be mitigated by quantitative easing temporarily creating new money and injecting it into the economy, but under a commodity-backed economy that becomes impossible. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard if you want; I'm not alone in holding these views. There's a reason why the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and why the US ended convertibility with gold in 1971. Ron Paul seems to appreciate the lessons of neither, and I don't wish to live through him reminding the world of them again. Which is why, reluctantly, I think even Michelle Bachman would be a better candidate than Ron Paul.

maratd 15y ago

I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive. You know what? I will still be voting for him. I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way. I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.

nextparadigms 15y ago
I think his foreign policy is one of his strongest policies for which he gets a lot of support. What's funny is that Bush got elected in 2000 for having almost exactly the same foreign policy that Ron Paul has now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo
roguecoder 15y ago
He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies. I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.
- abstractionupon 15y ago
  You have to understand that he hasn't shifted his positions in 30 or so years, except on DADT and the death penalty. So to say he isn't a straight-shooter is absurd. As for the newsletters, they dealt with economics primarily. Could he have done a better job of overseeing the newsletters? Sure. But they were released over the span of a decade or more and as a whole contained only a few articles with questionable content. I mean, is someone making noise about Gingrich's or Romney's questionable ethics and corruption? Is someone asking why Romney's people bought all the HDD's from Mass. state computers before leaving office? Is someone calling other GOP candidates racist for supporting racial profiling and the drug war? Of course not. But a 20-year old ghostwritten dead horse has been re-re-exhumed and is being paraded on every network "news" show. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?
- fl3tch 15y ago
  > He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. Exactly this. He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. I think he has a very regressive political philosophy, that would empower local governments to discriminate against minorities, women, the disenfranchised, etc. People talk about how he wants to legalize drugs, but he would be perfectly fine with state governments creating even more draconian drug laws.
  - maratd 15y ago
    > He's not a libertarian, he's a states rights guy because he wants the power to do things like ban abortion in Texas. This is not inconsistent with libertarian thought. Protecting life from violence is a primary responsibility of government. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a life at any point between conception and birth, you would be against abortion. Simple as that. If you want to fault him for believing a fetus qualifies as a life, fine, but that belief in itself has nothing to do with politics.
    - dreamdu5t 15y ago
ericingram 15y ago
If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.
- zavulon 15y ago
  I agree with Ron Paul on economy more than any other candidate, but he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe, or at least pretended to be one in order to get rich, which I find highly unlikely[1][2]. In my opinion, no matter how right on economy he is, we can't have someone like that as a president. [1] http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-5... [2] http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter http://twitter.com/#!/RP_Newsletter Edit: sorry if it was tongue-in-cheek! FWIW, I didn't downvote you.
  - white_devil 15y ago
    Why yes, for example this quote from the Ron Paul Newsletter proves that's he's a filthy racist: But outside of a minuscule band of KKK members, there are few whose racism is the defining fact of their lives. Case closed! Ron Paul is a racist!
  - rjbond3rd 15y ago
    Zavulon, why did you think he was rich? He's not. Why do you think he's pretending anything? He's not. Do you know the man, or are you just taking the easy path of buying into the hysteria? He's flawed but you certainly didn't mention his actual flaws, which means you don't know him, you've simply read about him. His worst crime is that he's homophobic on a personal level. But he's not one bit anti-gay on a philosophical level and he has gotten big endorsements from Andrew Sullivan and Dan Savage. So you've lost the anti-gay argument. And ditto for the other accusations. Please don't just be a part of the echo chamber. If you do, you're being rather easily manipulated, sorry.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    he's racist, anti-semite and a homophobe I don't believe that's true. But even if he were, the elegance of his philosophy is such that it renders him powerless to do anything about it. He wants to take power away from the presidency and the rest of the federal government. He's not looking for power to oppress somebody he doesn't like (or favor the corporations he does like). He wants to make it so that it's impossible to curry favor or harm on groups according to a politician's whim.

spindritf 15y ago

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically. That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment? Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often? [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

espeed 15y ago
He's saying he prefers an authentic candidate with principles over candidates whom pander to the media to get votes, even if his views differ in some areas.
gruseom 15y ago
It's just you. This is a rhetorical device that's been around for centuries.
stfu 15y ago
HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning, especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases" upfront. Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite - but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".
- adbge 15y ago
  I'd hesitate to describe HN as non-political. The majority of HNer's are very pro-capitalist and pro-business from what I've observed, which makes sense given the community's focus on start-ups. The popular political sentiments that you'll find on Reddit are very different from those you'll find on HN.

roguecoder 15y ago

I can't vote for anyone who, when reality conflicts with his mental model of the world, believes reality is wrong. Paul's not just wrong; he works from false assumptions to come to consistently illogical conclusions. I don't care if my politicians disagree with me, but I certainly care that they live in a world of evidence-based decision making.

dataminer 15y ago
Can you please cite some of his false assumptions and the illogical conclusions. I believe his argument against SOPA and regulation/censorship of internet is quite sound. His arguments for a sound fiscal policy is based on evidence that governments (or individuals or corporations) spending beyond their means usually lead to their downfall. Results of Vietnam war, Iraq war provide alot evidence that much more diplomacy is needed before going to war, and once you go to war, fight it win it and get out, don't go into nation building.

adabsurdo 15y ago

>> But none of that really matters. I would bet that you are neither a woman, black, jewish, poor, or gay. So the fact, for example, that ron paul is a huge racist is something that you can discount at no cost to you. edit: wow, i see the ron paul brigade is out in force, as usual. thank you all! never been so proud of being downvoted.

dantheman 15y ago
Ron Paul is not a racist, and in fact sees racism as the lowest form of collectivism.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I'd like to make a note on "collectivism". If there isn't a single person in the western political discourse who proudly adheres to a given characterization, it's a strawman. That's all. Meanwhile, on Ron Paul / race, that newsletter is a bit of a problem. Maybe you're too young to remember the conflation between states' rights and segregation. I'm really interested to see what happens if he wins Iowa and comes in 2nd in New Hampshire. I do think it would be good for the Republican party.
- jules 15y ago
  Perhaps, but he did have a company that earned a lot of money from publishing newsletters containing racist and anti-gay passages under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Survival Report): > The newsletters, attributed to Paul, made statements such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be", and referring to Martin Luther King as a "pro-communist philanderer" and to Martin Luther King Day as "hate Whitey day."[72][73] An issue from 1992 refers to carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."[74] In an article title "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that " "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[73] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008#Ron_Paul_newsletter_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,... Of course, he distances himself from these newsletters now. Would somebody who is truly not racist and not anti-gay have such words published in their name by accident?

eftpotrm 15y ago

Personally, I believe that Ron Paul will do what he says and that's a problem. I've read the articles, I've looked into things as much as I can and I very firmly disagree with him on his general monetary policies. The Federal Reserve being wound up and the USA returned to a Gold standard would not be A Good Thing for the USA or the world (me not being American); there's a reason why countries don't do that any more and it's not so politicians can lie, cheat and steal. We tried it his way before and it caused more problems than it solved. Newt Gingritch, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann et al may well be unprincipled and deliberately lying about all sorts of things. But I don't think any are proposing anything quite as reckless as Ron Paul's economic policies. Frankly though, that this lot are the best the Republicans can produce is an abysmal failure.

BarkMore 15y ago
Ron Paul wants to allow gold and silver to be used as legal tender. This is not the same thing as returning to the gold standard.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  OK, sorry, my wording was loose there; nonetheless, as he is looking for gold and silver to be admissable as payment, I think there's three possible scenarios. One, the market ignores this and everyone continues paying in the dollars the president thinks are just another means of exchange. Sounds risky to me; it's pretty much a public statement that the gvernment won't at all seek to defend the value of the dollar so I'm not sure why anyone would want to accept such a risky asset. Two, each merchant has to manage things in multiple currencies in parallel, along with the tax offices having to do the same and keep track of relative values and when the payment came in to establish the correct rates of tax. Won't happen. Three, the market sees an unsupported national currency with little or no base backing and no national reserve bank backing it up. That's pretty much a guaranteed recipe for hyperinflation and flight to assets (remember, the historic result of not having the Federal Reserve was high inflation - it's been tried). It won't be orderly; the price of gold will rise fast due to demand against a basket of currencies, let alone against the dollar that'll be collapsing even faster. The banks aren't set up to handle physical deposits of gold, the merchants aren't set up to handle transactions in them so we'd end up with multiple, incompatible, payment systems based off private gold-measured currencies. Meanwhile industrial use of gold becomes prohibitively expensive putting brakes on the economy, while the fixed money supply inherent in a commodity-based currency puts us deliberately back into the situation that crashed the markets in 07-08 - no-one can get any credit to work with, so the economy ground to a halt. That was able to be mitigated by quantitative easing temporarily creating new money and injecting it into the economy, but under a commodity-backed economy that becomes impossible. Have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard if you want; I'm not alone in holding these views. There's a reason why the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 and why the US ended convertibility with gold in 1971. Ron Paul seems to appreciate the lessons of neither, and I don't wish to live through him reminding the world of them again. Which is why, reluctantly, I think even Michelle Bachman would be a better candidate than Ron Paul.