4 votes

Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Never Become President - Huff Po

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/five-reasons...

1. Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.

2. Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights

3. Paul would threaten the independence of the federal judiciary.

4. Paul wants to repeal historic legislation that was responsible for curtailing racial and sex discrimination in the workplace and for prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.

5. Paul wants to erode the power of voters by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment

Details in the article. I guess we should get to commenting.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

5 misleasing, unfactual statements

used to bait a person to read propaganda or incite Ron Paul supporters (don't let them get your ire up - it will be used if in writing, I suspect).

If anyone knows an ounce of what Ron Paul stands for they can easily refute these points.

If anyone believes these points they have a socialistic worldview and will never support freedom.

Probably written by a government plant.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Duh...

Yet another babbling idiot gets published at HuffPo...Babbling Idiot Central.

Comments on this article are nearly 100% pro-Paul

When have we ever seen such an outpouring of well thought-out disputations with mainstream political thought?

This is the same nonsense

This is the same nonsense that was started in2007 by neocons. Now tis the liberals who are doing it. They read these lies on a blog and then repeat it.

Knowing NOTHING about Ron Paul.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Bump

“I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version.” - Colonel Oliver North

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Let's deal with this

Let's deal with this propaganda one point at a time.

1: Ron Paul has never said he would restrict abortion at the Federal level. Just like murder isn't outlawed at the Federal level neither should abortion be outlawed at the Federal level. It's a states' rights issue, plain and simple. This is what so many people never think about when they think about things being protected at a Federal level. They don't think what happens when the Feds control something and then restrict it. Where are you going to go then?

2: Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights? Say what? The average person at the HuffPoo has no clue what that means since most of them believe you have a fundamental right to live off of other people. If you can force me to pay for your health care what's to stop you from forcing me to pick your cotton? There isn't any difference other than the plantation is a lot bigger. I'm not interested in debating which Dem or Repub would make a better slavemaster. I am interested in not being a slave.

3: Ron Paul wants to end the independence of the judiciary? No, Ron Paul simply wants to end legislation from the bench like the classic decision by Rehnquist on DUI checkpoints where he literally wrote in his majority opinion that DUI checkpoints "were unconstitutional, but the public safety outweighed any constitutional argument?" What? That's not the job of a SCOTUS justice. His decision should have been made the moment he found it unconstitutional. No other argument matters. You don't like it? Change the Constitution. Hell, even when they wanted to prohibit alcohol, at least they amended the Constitution, yet today we have a war on drugs based on the Commerce Clause! My how times have changed.

4: Ron Paul opposes legislation that ended discrimination? Oh those naive children at the HuffPoo still living in their parents' basements. Here is what those geniuses never thing about; unintended consequences. You see, most businesses aren't very large. Most businesses employ less than 50 people. So while Microsoft has no choice but to make sure their demographics look "right" small businesses don't have the same concern. As a multiple small business owner myself and as a member of multiple business networking groups I can tell you what the real results of the "historic anti-discrimination legislation" is; MORE DISCRIMINATION!

What? How can that be? Easy, protected classes are nothing more than lawsuits waiting to happen to small business owners. And since about 80% of people employed in this nation are employed by small businesses, well, you can see where this is going. You see, if a white guy performs like crap I fire him and never worry about it. If a woman or other minority does the same and I fire them, statistics show I have about an 8 times greater chance of getting sued vs a white male. So what's a small business owner to do? All other things being equal you hire the white male. It's not racist, it's simple pragmatism forced upon you by stupid legislation. Someone really has to present me with a skill set that's pretty great in order for me to take the risk of hiring them if they are in a protected class. Hell, ask anyone in a wheelchair how hard the ADA has made it for them to get a job.

And I am not even going to get into the property rights argument because that is simply way over their heads. The fact that, like most big government interventions, the opposite of what's intended is the result should be enough, but good luck convincing those sub-geniuses that welfare has actually destroyed the black family. They don't want to hear it.

5: Erode the power of the voters? Can someone please explain to the confused HuffPoo writer* we are not a democracy for the very reason that it isn't right for 51% of voters to vote away the rights of the other 49%? The 17th was passed as a direct assault on states' rights to concentrate more power at the Federal level. Hell, I wonder if the writer even realizes there is no right to vote for the President? The bicameral legislature is designed with two houses, one representing the people and one the states to further separate power and give the states a say at the Federal level by allowing state legislatures to pick their representatives. Duh!

Oh these poor fools who slit their own throats and don't even realize it. Wake up!

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Has Ron Paul even ever talked

Has Ron Paul even ever talked on the 17th amendment?

I'm sure he'd be for repeal, but I don't have any speech of him saying that, and it isn't a power of the president.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

"The government has grown

because voters have decided that they need the government to deliver important services that states alone cannot secure." - Darren Hutchinson (writer of the article).

IDIOT!!

'Nuff said.

I'll give as much respect to my elected officials as they give to the Constitution!

the guy is using emotional arguments

He actually said that ron paul didnt understand medical science because Paul is against abortion. Thats right folks the guy with the medical degree that delivered 4000 babies does not understand medical science because he says that babies are (gasp) alive in their mothers wombs. So I must assume this guy is either a doctor or a moron. I will assume the latter

He actually says that the federal courts must remain independent. By independent I must assume he means our oligarchy rulers whom no one can touch. I mean they have so much independence that if congress passes a law they dont like they get rid of it, and if they want a new law passed they let some dimwit come before their court and pass the law irregardless of what anybody else thinks.

Finally this guy thinks that the 17 amendment is a great and wonderful thing. I would wonder how many great and wonderful things have happened since our government rammed this trash through?

but then again he is a liberal so he is for abortion, the courts tend to side with him much better than the congress or states, and a communist senator you can not get rid of like lindsey graham would be things this moron would like. oh well.

reedr3v's picture

He goes beyond emotional arguments

to make false statements. He mixes up his dislike of RP's personal views with actual federal policies he advocates.
Darren is a disgrace to his profession since he is totally muddled about legitimate lawmaking; or perhaps he just assumes it is now a free-for-all once someone is in power, since that is how Bush/Obama play it.

HAHAHA

ie. " Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights"

Seriously, if these are the 'top 5' reasons then RP is sitting pretty because RP is mainstream now. I think this guy is about 5 years too late :)

I have yet to link there but by just going on what is posted here, I am tending to think this is an ONION piece lol

I could not even imagine what are the top 5 reasons for the MSM favorites ;)

I have just linked. This is really ridiculous and cannot believe any so-called credible site would even post such garbage. This guy is a law professor? For what country?

Obviously, this guy has been hired to write this imo. He has tons of irrational replies. I am reminded of that Billy Madison/Adam Sandler response to the high-school question and his grading :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

donvino

Just from reading the post, I

Just from reading the post, I would never link to that site, as the guy is not telling any truths about Ron. That stuff was LIES.

Save your clicks...

Yeah, I'm not even going there. I'll save my web views for more worthy articles.

I did not know...

that the President had the authority to repeal the 17th amendment.

Im glad we have some balanced

Im glad we have some balanced and positive writers over there to back us up, like Robin Koerner.

im not even going to comment on people so sold on propaganda.