0 votes

I need some feedback on a Ron Paul opinion

I had noticed a post from a family member that I haven't seen in years commenting on how he wouldn't vote for anyone one running so I sent a message asking politely what it was he didn't like about Ron Paul.To give you a little background to go off of, He is a 48 year old Gay male that as far as I know works as a,I guess you would call it a career coach/Team Leader for companies. Seeing that he is family I could use a little help on a reply with that in mind. I know there was a lot of things that were knee jerk that I wanted to say back but thought I should wait a bit and let it stew a little. Any advice or opinion would be appreciated. I understand If anyone here obviously gets a little annoyed by it. No worries for it will be kept anonymous. Thanks

(I just don't believe he can win because he appears to be psychologically imbalanced. If he would come across a bit more intelligent and not so much like an old homeless man, I think he could gain more credibility (executive presence). I agree with his stance on government spending and other stances related to government involvement, but I think he is myopic in his view and doesn't consider the unintended impacts of what he proposes (i.e. impact on the public and states in the short term).

I agree there is a need for overhaul of spending, but think that it is something that is going to take a long time and that his 2013 budget proposition shows his being overly optimistic and thinking more highly of his ideology than he should. I know he resonates with a minority of the voting population, but with due respect, don't feel that any significant population of highly educated individuals would vote for him, as it "appears" his ability for critical thinking (versus reactive thinking) is again, myopic.

His position on states rights versus government rights are archaic and steeped in ideology not practicality. We are called the United States, not the Un-united states and a move to provide max power to the states will simply pit states against one another again, as it was in the past.

From a gut reaction perspective, I do not trust him and feel there is more dishonesty behind his racism and other biases/bigotry that is not known yet.

Lastly, I feel he is old school minded (as are most others) in the areas of DOMA, ENDA, Abortion, Same Sex marriage, etc.

Apart from the social issues, I think he has a thread of good ideas, but don't feel his approaches, beliefs, or his abilities make him the man to do it. He is an necessary irritant to raise issues that exist today (in some areas), but he actually will end up, as usual, impacting the real party winner, meaning he will steal votes from legitimate (use that term loosely) party runners and the worst republican candidate could win by a small margin.

Just my thoughts and feelings. I am not happy with ANY of the candidates and from a social perspective Obama hasn't done much for my minority of people, so personally I wouldn't vote for ANY of them. I am not a one issue voter, so I am undecided, but I WILL NEVER vote for someone who is a bible thumping believer who feels they can influence laws based on the fable of a biblical teaching, which is a farce for uneducated people. LOL!)

Comment viewing options

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

my response

I tried to post this about 3 hours after you asked the question but there were problems registering on the site. You may want to cut this down but these are my counterarguments. Some are better than others but the best answers are number 6 and 8.

Q1. I just don't believe he can win because he appears to be psychologically imbalanced.

A1. How do you come to this conclusion? He is the most consistent candidate i have ever seen.

Q2: If he would come across a bit more intelligent and not so much like an old homeless man, I think he could gain more credibility (executive presence).

A2: Why do you think he appears unintelligent? + Are you basing opinion on how he looks?

Q3: I think he is myopic in his view and doesn't consider the unintended impacts ....(i.e...short term).

A3: You believe he is myopic short-term, but he is thinking LONG-TERM. Most politicians try to keep us happy short term, this leads to further problems long-term. Take Dont-ask-dont-tell, This was a poorly thought out short-term solution. The logical answer is Dont-ask, (i.e. sexual preferences are irrelevant), but you have freedom of speech and expression, so you can tell if you want. Take bailouts short-term, they haven't worked. Even if they could continue with bailouts forever, you would end up with a nonsensical system, of ever increasing debt. Taken to its logical extreme money would have no meaning.

Q4:I agree there is a need for overhaul of spending, but think that it is something that is going to take a long time and that his 2013 budget proposition shows his being overly optimistic and thinking more highly of his ideology than he should.

A4: yes he is thinking long-term. I agree is 2013 budget may be optimistic. But if we keep on the path we are on now you have to be psychotically optimistic to think the outcome is going to be happy

Q5: I don't feel that any significant population of highly educated individuals would vote for him, as it "appears" his ability for critical thinking (versus reactive thinking) is again, myopic.

A5: His policies are based on libertarian principles. Supported by highly educated individuals such as Milton Freedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Jefferson, Noam Chomsky to name a few. Chomsky can prove some libertarian points using formal logic (mathematics). "appears" is an important point here. If you delve a little deeper, to
me he seems a visionary perhaps even prophetical. How many other politicians can start talking about fraction-reserve-banking and demonstrate a very deep knowledge of the subject. Secondly why wouldn't a highly educated individual vote for someone who upholds the constitution?

Q6: His position on states rights versus government rights are archaic and steeped in ideology not practicality. We are called the United States, not the Un-united states and a move to provide max power to the states will simply pit states against one another again, as it was in the past.

A6: "steeped in ideology", the current system is also an ideology. Archaic perhaps, because we have become used to the status quo. I can see how pitting states against one another can have issues, but there are also advantages. States compete with one another. By shifting power away from the fed, you avoid tyranny at the federal level. Yes you could still get this tyranny at the state level, if the state does not adopt libertarian
principles. BUT, if the tyranny become to much to stand, you can flee easily. Take it in the opposite direction, say there was a world government, 1 country, where would you go if you were persecuted?

Q7: From a gut reaction perspective, I do not trust him and feel there is more dishonesty behind his racism and other biases/bigotry that is not known yet.

A7: The newsletters are a valid concern, and I am not entirely sure what went on there. However he is a libertarian. Even if you hated say people with blue eyes, if you subscribe to the libertarian principal, you can't act on this hate. As a libertarian you believe the state should treat people as an individual not because you are part of a group.

Q8: Lastly, I feel he is old school minded (as are most others) in the areas of DOMA, ENDA, Abortion, Same Sex marriage, etc.

A8: From what I understand DOMA is more complex than "marriage is between a man and woman" which I assume is the part you rightly and logically object to. Ron Paul has publicly stated that the government has no place in marriage. This at first may seem like an attempt to doge the question. But it is far more visionary.

If marriage has no legal recognition you can define it as what it means to you. So if you want to get married on religious or secular grounds you can, it's just not recognized by the fed. As for wills or what happens in a divorce, these are all separate contracts between you and your partner. So this would equal the rights on gay vs. straight marriage. But it does more. At present it has taken decades to get gay marriage even discussed by
politicians. So even if gay marriage were legalized tomorrow, we are measuring social change in decades. What about minorities with more specific marriage requests? Don't they have the right to be happy? Say you want to marry a man and a woman, or two men. Currently this is not popular, so for that group to be happy you have to have decades of campaigning, convincing based on equal rights, bullshit terms like tri-partnerships, massive energy spent for that minority to be happy. What if you are an even tinier minority? You want to marry 4 men 3 women and 12 who identify as a third sex/intersex? Then what? Ultimately the best long term solution is to get the government out of marriage altogether and let groups of people decide for themselves what they want to do.

While I like ENDA, it does force rather than persuade. Would you rather work at a company because they don't care about say the color of your skin or because they are (effectively) forced to employ you. Secondly it hides bigotry in a company. With no discrimination laws a company would reflect that bigotry. And you would know
what kind of people work at that company. Take a real world example say there is an openly homophobic bus company. People now know the company's hysterical position and it will go out of business, because people will be ashamed of using it. Other less deranged companies will take its business. But what about those backward
areas like Assville? Well then these companies will attract idiots, who will setup other bigoted businesses nearby. Soon the whole area will become a magnet for all the idiots, and keep them all in one place, away from us. We then just have to avoid Assville.

In conclusion:
Almost everything Ron Paul states, REQUIRES about half an hours explanation. Please Please look at him in detail. The above reflects my views on libertarianism and Ron Paul. They are not necessarily his beliefs.

There are lots of things to say...

to your gay (BTW not Gay) relative.
For some people, sadly, Ron Paul is not going to be the best choice. Yes, I say that subjectively. Some people 'want' things from government - some of the things he says indicates that he may be one of them. Hell, I'm one of them, it's just that the singular thing I want is them to leave me alone. Protect our borders, and liberties, and that's all. But not all people are this way. Most of my relatives are this way too.
Dr. Paul did support DOMA, because it would give states the right to choose if they recognize other states laws or not. But RP has also sponsored the 'We the People' act in 2005 to remove such matters from Fed jurisdiction. He's clearly not anti-gay, but the clarity is difficult to show people who's only goals are so self-serving. It's like if I want an entire cake, and someone offers me a piece - and I then refuse it because I wanted the whole thing. I think we should take what we can get, even if we feel we deserve it all. Those views are myopic and undemocratic.
I think back to the latest debates' question; 'how would your religion play a role in your presidency' - his answer was obviously the best. He said; "It wouldn't. It plays a role in my character, and the way I treat people. The only thing that would affect my presidency is the oath of office..."
When I speak with these kinds of people, especially liberals, (BTW from which I was converted by RP), I try to emphasize the cost involved, and the fact that the things they want to keep getting from govt' won't be around much longer if the same old kinds of people are still running things. Which is anybody but RP.
I hope this is helpful.