POLL: What's your #1 reason for not supporting Ron Paul?

[PittsburghPlayer]

Mr Galt, I normally vote along democratic lines. Last Presidential election I was again forced to by the Republicans nomination. Fukking John McCain and Sarah Palin. Are you kidding me, that is the best they could do? Election prior, the war-monger GWB, I could not vote for that piece of shit either.

In any event, a couple things. I love how when some of the posters make comments and you ask them a question, you get no reply. Shallow are so many Americans.

Second. I will vote for Ron Paul if he is nominated.

[WvGambler]

I think that his supporters actually hurt him more than help him. Everyone knows some serious Ron Paul supporters and for the most part they are annoying, uninformed morons.

Unfortunately lots of folks are turned off enough by these yuppies, that they do not consider Mr. Paul a real candidate. It's a shame.

[Glitch]

presidents dont really have as much power as a lot of you think they do.

[JohnGalt2341]

presidents dont really have as much power as a lot of you think they do.

This may be true... but having a good President is a pretty good start.

[Ian]

How so?

To put it as succinctly as possible, Libertarianism takes economic principles (that are only effective under very specific circumstances) and extends them to things that have absolutely nothing to do with economics.

[Ralphie Halves]

Not a single real reason posted yet. Wow.

[Glitch]

he doesnt want the government to give out student loans or grants, he wants to release millions of prisoners onto the streets, he wants to compromise our international safety initiatives and bring home ALL the soldiers and have them guard the border, he doesnt believe its the governments responsibility to help the poor (and thinks that is not what the constitution meant by provide for the general welfare), then theres the race issues:

his racist publications that went on for years (his defense is he didnt write that himself)


the top of his son Rand Paul's slippery slope


........................................ ........................................ ....................................

i probably have twice as many reasons to vote for him than to not vote for him
He is the only honest guy in politics.

But just because hes gonna try to let us smoke weed and have guns and gamble....we gotta not be blinded and think of everything. all that glitters is not gold. i am not anti-ron paul. in '08 i was FOR ron paul. now i am more cautiously neutral in these tough social and economic times worldwide.

[maddogmadden86]

If you don't understand the Ron Paul is the only one that understands the economic debacle that we are in you just aren't in the loop. He knew this was going to happen and has been saying it for years. If there is one person that knows what we need to do and will get it done its Mr Paul. Obama has no idea how to work with people he just blames it on everyone else he has no business experience which is killing him hes a lawyer, all they know how to do is read. Paul knows how to grow our economy and knows what we Americans want and will give it to us to make us the top nation once again, if you don't get that your just ignorant and not intelligent enough to understand that he is the only hope we have.

[DrStale]

Not a single real reason posted yet. Wow.

I posted 2 real reasons.

[icancount2one]

I've seriously thought about voting for Ron Paul despite being a lifelong progressive/liberal/democrat. I like his stances on the wars and drug policy.

However, there are multiple positions that I cannot reconcile with:

Ron Paul wants to eliminate public education. Libertarians see public education as a system of evil government indoctrination. Specifically, Ron Paul thinks it is evil to teach kids about evolution and the merits of birth control, and I couldn't disagree more strongly. I would not want someone dumb enough to believe in creationism in charge of my country again. I find the notion embarrassing.

Ron Paul is opposed to gay marriage. Though he sees the "best case scenario" as government non intervention in marriage, he doesn't want gay marriage legal anywhere because then "other states would be compelled to accept it."

Ron Paul wants to outlaw abortion. I strongly disagree.

I find it very strange that Ron Paul's personal opinions about evolution, abortion, and race (I can't dismiss the newsletter thing) line up so closely with what he wants the government to do about those issues.

I also find it odd that Ron Paul won't let the states legislate on gay marriage because they "might compel other states" to acknowledge the marriages, but has no problem with the reverse on gun laws.

Overall, Ron Paul is another crappy republican with a few good ideas. Since he still would have to deal with congress as President, it is likely only that he would tear down civil rights, reproductive rights, and education, and fail at ending the wars and drug war. I do not see a Ron Paul presidency as an effective solution to the country's liberty problems.

That's all you got crustyme? If you stopped spending money that don't you have you could probably save up enough to become an SBR Pro.

Also this is an "ad hominem" attack and doesn't help your case.

[Iced]

Anyone that doesn't support Ron Paul and supports any of the other candidates (Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, et cetera) is a statist who supports the status quo.

RP2012 or bust.

[neverstoppers23]

I don't believe libertarianism is an effective form of governorship

[Dirty Sanchez]

[Wrigley]

If he ran as a independent id support him

[jarvol]

One of the only things I disagree with Ron Paul about is his views on abortion. In fact... I think there should be more abortions. I don't want crackheads having babys. It almost never turns out well.

Same here but at least Ron Paul is not for the federal government or federal courts dictating laws around abortions. At this point that is about all you can ask from a politician.

[crustyme]

1 reason? how about 5?

1) Ron Paul admitted that a low flat tax would be "punishing to the poor and middle class"—but supports it anyway. In 2007, when a reporter told Rep. Paul that a flat tax would harm the middle class, he replied, “Well, I know. That's why I don't want it." (NBC, Meet The Press, 12/23/2007) But by 2011, the Congressman had flip-flopped, saying he'd like to offer taxpayers the chance to pay a flat rate of 10 percent if they agree to receive no government services in return. No word on whether or not that means they'd be banned from driving on public roads. (Transcript from Ron Paul’s Speech At 2011 CPAC, RonPaul.com, 2/11/2011)

2) Ron Paul opposed the loan package that is successfully helping the auto industry recover. In a 2008 speech to the House of Representatives, Rep. Paul argued that Congress needed to repeal auto industry regulations rather than issue direct loans: "Congress should act to help that industry. We should be repealing costly regulations we have imposed on domestic auto manufactures." (Ron Paul Speech, House Of Representatives, 110th Congress, 12/10/2008)

3) Ron Paul favored a return to the gold standard, an idea rejected by nearly every economist and fiscal expert. As a matter of routine fact, requiring every U.S. dollar to be backed by gold would dramatically shrink the size of our economy. Such a move would take us back to a 19th-century time when recessions and depressions were more common and more severe than they are today. And yet Rep. Paul has advocated for exactly that—he even says it's what convinced him to run for Congress in the first place. According to the Washington Post, these views turned him into "something of a sideshow—he came to be seen as a crank, a radical, so far outside the mainstream he could be safely ignored." (Washington Post, 2/12/2011)

4) Ron Paul suggested that Social Security was unconstitutional. In a Fox News interview, Rep. Paul flatly said that the Supreme Court was wrong in 1937 when it ruled that Social Security was constitutional, saying that “the Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. And we had to reverse that. So, I'll tell you, just because a court in '37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government—no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea.” Fox News Sunday, 5/11/2011)

5) Ron Paul said it could be a "positive thing" for the U.S. to default on its debt. Although the U.S. has not missed a debt payment once in history, Rep. Paul told Think Progress that the country is already in default, suggesting some confusion about the definition of the term. He went on to say that not raising the debt ceiling—a move that would cause global economic panic—might be good for the country. "I think if you didn’t raise it, people say it would be the end of the whole system, but maybe people will say, '[H]ey, maybe they’re serious!' And maybe it would be a positive. That’s what we should do." (Think Progress, 6/6/2011)

[jarvol]

I don't believe libertarianism is an effective form of governorship

Please give us a detailed explanation as to why not?

The current system has been proven over and over again that it is neither effective nor sustainable.

[crustyme]

[jw]

Stance against universal health care
Stance against Abortion
Pro-Religion

Other than these I mostly like what he has to say - unfortunately .. these are probably the top three things I look to when I make my decision on who I will vote for .. and he takes the exact opposite stance to me on these issues.

[dante1]

He's a crazy person. Anybody that believes business does not need to be regulated should take a trip to China and eat in their restaurants. Very little regulation, if any and a recent article by a well known reporter told how many times he had severe food poisoning, many times. The number of people killed from food borne illness in unregulated countries is appalling.

That is just one reason, you just wanted one. Ron Paul and the libertarians sound sensible until they start elaborating on their beliefs. It is like talking to a crazy person, at first he sounds very sensible and sane but after a longer look you know this guy is just bat nuts crazy.

[Jaug]

Strongly pro life would be a reason not to support him for me.

[Iced]

You people do understand that Ron Paul would do nothing about abortion if he was elected President, right? He believes it's a states rights issue. He's not running for State Senator or Governor so his views on abortion doesn't even matter.

Even if he was going to do something about abortion at the federal level, does it really matter that much to you? The economy is in shambles, the value of the dollar is crumbling, our civil liberties are being eroded, and we are engaged in numerous unwinnable wars that only cause further American resentment. Ron Paul would reverse all of that.

[AribaAriba]

Its not that he doesnt want any regulation but he wants the state to regulates itself in certain area of people's life(people decide what rules works and whats not). Add to that follow whats on the constitution, if people realy wants "change" in washington thats what Paul offers that many are going to the old status quo. Traditional politicians is what seperates him from others.

[crustyme]

You people do understand that Ron Paul would do nothing about abortion if he was elected President, right? He believes it's a states rights issue. He's not running for State Senator or Governor so his views on abortion doesn't even matter.

Even if he was going to do something about abortion at the federal level, does it really matter that much to you? The economy is in shambles, the value of the dollar is crumbling, our civil liberties are being eroded, and we are engaged in numerous unwinnable wars that only cause further American resentment. Ron Paul would reverse all of that.

yeah, he'll wave his magic wand and make it all better.

[dj_destroyer]

1 reason? how about 5?

1) Ron Paul admitted that a low flat tax would be "punishing to the poor and middle class"—but supports it anyway. In 2007, when a reporter told Rep. Paul that a flat tax would harm the middle class, he replied, “Well, I know. That's why I don't want it." (NBC, Meet The Press, 12/23/2007) But by 2011, the Congressman had flip-flopped, saying he'd like to offer taxpayers the chance to pay a flat rate of 10 percent if they agree to receive no government services in return. No word on whether or not that means they'd be banned from driving on public roads. (Transcript from Ron Paul’s Speech At 2011 CPAC, RonPaul.com, 2/11/2011)

2) Ron Paul opposed the loan package that is successfully helping the auto industry recover. In a 2008 speech to the House of Representatives, Rep. Paul argued that Congress needed to repeal auto industry regulations rather than issue direct loans: "Congress should act to help that industry. We should be repealing costly regulations we have imposed on domestic auto manufactures." (Ron Paul Speech, House Of Representatives, 110th Congress, 12/10/2008)

3) Ron Paul favored a return to the gold standard, an idea rejected by nearly every economist and fiscal expert. As a matter of routine fact, requiring every U.S. dollar to be backed by gold would dramatically shrink the size of our economy. Such a move would take us back to a 19th-century time when recessions and depressions were more common and more severe than they are today. And yet Rep. Paul has advocated for exactly that—he even says it's what convinced him to run for Congress in the first place. According to the Washington Post, these views turned him into "something of a sideshow—he came to be seen as a crank, a radical, so far outside the mainstream he could be safely ignored." (Washington Post, 2/12/2011)

4) Ron Paul suggested that Social Security was unconstitutional. In a Fox News interview, Rep. Paul flatly said that the Supreme Court was wrong in 1937 when it ruled that Social Security was constitutional, saying that “the Constitution and the court said slavery was legal, too. And we had to reverse that. So, I'll tell you, just because a court in '37 went very liberal on us and expanded the role of government—no, I think the original intent is not a bad idea.” Fox News Sunday, 5/11/2011)

5) Ron Paul said it could be a "positive thing" for the U.S. to default on its debt. Although the U.S. has not missed a debt payment once in history, Rep. Paul told Think Progress that the country is already in default, suggesting some confusion about the definition of the term. He went on to say that not raising the debt ceiling—a move that would cause global economic panic—might be good for the country. "I think if you didn’t raise it, people say it would be the end of the whole system, but maybe people will say, '[H]ey, maybe they’re serious!' And maybe it would be a positive. That’s what we should do." (Think Progress, 6/6/2011)

1. A low flat tax would be the fairest and most sensible way to tax the nation. Let people keep everything that they earn through hard work and tax them when they try to buy stuff. Poor people spend less and thus would be taxed less, rich people buy expensive shit so they would be taxed more. A flat tax is definitely a good thing.

2. He opposed the loan package because the same people who supported it are the people that got the auto-industry into the mess in the first place. If you artificially stake any industry, it's going against free-market principles and reject the invisible hand. Instead of trying to avoid cutting jobs and expenses in the auto sector, the government should have let it happen. There's no place for soft/weak companies in a global environment. By giving them these loans, they are only delaying the inevitable. Furthermore, there are many companies that go bankrupt everyday, where is their reduced-interest loan from the government?

3. Every economist and fiscal expert has lead to the financial state that the US is in now... crazy inflation, a devalued currency, printing money at will, excessive debt, etc. Americans would be rich beyond all means if they had stuck to the gold standard.

4. Social security IS unconstitutional. What's next? Free TVs and interwebs for everyone? What happen to the 'American Dream' where if you wanted something (such as security), you worked for it! Self-accountability and responsibility have gone to the wayside and it's sad.

5. Don't agree with Dr. Paul here... The US government should stop the deficit and start repaying their debts. You talk about how the US hasn't missed one debt repayment but none of that matters when you're creating money out of thin air to pay off that debt.

12on Paul

[crustyme]

1. A low flat tax would be the fairest and most sensible way to tax the nation. Let people keep everything that they earn through hard work and tax them when they try to buy stuff. Poor people spend less and thus would be taxed less, rich people buy expensive shit so they would be taxed more. A flat tax is definitely a good thing.

2. He opposed the loan package because the same people who supported it are the people that got the auto-industry into the mess in the first place. If you artificially stake any industry, it's going against free-market principles and reject the invisible hand. Instead of trying to avoid cutting jobs and expenses in the auto sector, the government should have let it happen. There's no place for soft/weak companies in a global environment. By giving them these loans, they are only delaying the inevitable. Furthermore, there are many companies that go bankrupt everyday, where is their reduced-interest loan from the government?

3. Every economist and fiscal expert has lead to the financial state that the US is in now... crazy inflation, a devalued currency, printing money at will, excessive debt, etc. Americans would be rich beyond all means if they had stuck to the gold standard.

4. Social security IS unconstitutional. What's next? Free TVs and interwebs for everyone? What happen to the 'American Dream' where if you wanted something (such as security), you worked for it! Self-accountability and responsibility have gone to the wayside and it's sad.

5. Don't agree with Dr. Paul here... The US government should stop the deficit and start repaying their debts. You talk about how the US hasn't missed one debt repayment but none of that matters when you're creating money out of thin air to pay off that debt.

12on Paul

1. who is going to pay for cops, firemen, teachers, garbage pickup, sewage cleanup, mail delivery, roads, bridges, street lights, lawyers, judges, courts, dmv, government workers, etc.? the tax fairy? maybe pay per use? like you can afford all these services on your measly income?

2. delaying the inevitable? so we should let millions of people lose their jobs because the system becomes sluggish? so you're prepared to ride your bike everywhere without an auto industry? and forget about getting mortgages or loans since there would be no banks considering they would no longer exist without bailouts. so what you're saying is you basically want another great depression with 70% unemployment because you have nostagia for the 30s.



3. deregulation of banking laws by idiot neocons led to this mess not economists. they're the ones who tried to warn dumbya.

4. us supreme court disagrees with you.

5. so you disagree with his #1 view and yet you still want to elect him?



ron paul is a whackjob and so are his followers apparently.

[Iced]

Crustyme, some rebuttals other than calling Ron Paul and his followers neocons and/or whackjobs would be much appreciated. Your reply to dj_destroyer was filled with straw men and ad hominems. Stay classy pal.

[Glitch]

he doesnt want the government to give out student loans or grants, he wants to release millions of prisoners onto the streets, he wants to compromise our international safety initiatives and bring home ALL the soldiers and have them guard the border, he doesnt believe its the governments responsibility to help the poor (and thinks that is not what the constitution meant by provide for the general welfare), then theres the race issues:

his racist publications that went on for years (his defense is he didnt write that himself)


the top of his son Rand Paul's slippery slope


........................................ ........................................ ....................................

i probably have twice as many reasons to vote for him than to not vote for him
He is the only honest guy in politics.

But just because hes gonna try to let us smoke weed and have guns and gamble....we gotta not be blinded and think of everything. all that glitters is not gold. i am not anti-ron paul. in '08 i was FOR ron paul. now i am more cautiously neutral in these tough social and economic times worldwide.

reasons...

[jarvol]

1. who is going to pay for cops, firemen, teachers, garbage pickup, sewage cleanup, mail delivery, roads, bridges, street lights, lawyers, judges, courts, dmv, government workers, etc.? the tax fairy? maybe pay per use? like you can afford all these services on your measly income?

Most of those items you listed are currently or should be paid via local taxes by the people who consume those services.

And it isn't my or other taxpayer's responsibility to provide student loans. Students can go get them from private lenders.

[PAI]

I am a "registered" Democrat. Voted for Obama in 08'. Don't regret it but the country could be doing better. My views are however "center right" especially when comes to the country's finances. Ron Paul is a Republican I can vote for. He says things that others are afraid to say. Iran is surrounded by countries with nukes, but we won't allow them to have one. Name a Democrat or Republican that has the balls to say that. We need to mind our own business. Again who's going to say that. I will i n all likelihood still vote for Obama. However, as stated earlier, I wouldn't mind it at all if Paul was president. I am relatively young and Black so no one gives me credit for knowing anything about anything. Everybody assumes I voted for Obama because he's Black. He was a better option at the time and ran a better campaign. Even pundits from the right admit his campaign was well run. I would be ok with Romney also. Backman, Palin, Huntsman, Cain, Perry? No, No, No.

[superwerewolf6]

im not going to vote for him, the guys gonna get whacked if elected. seems like a good guy so far,dont want that to happen to him.

[Iced]

im not going to vote for him, the guys gonna get whacked if elected. seems like a good guy so far,dont want that to happen to him.

I wouldn't be too surprised if that happened. He's campaigning on ending the Fed, ending entitlements, ending the military industrial complex, and curtailing the powers of the CIA and NSA. Basically everything the power elite love. There will definitely be assassination attempts on Ron Paul if he gets elected.

[FuzzyDunlop]

There is no logical reason not to support Ron Paul!

He's a hardcore creationist.

[DwightShrute]

I don't trust someone with 2 first names

[JohnGalt2341]

He's a hardcore creationist.

This is probably one of the best reasons yet. Although, I wouldn't describe him as a "hardcore creationist." I could be wrong about this but I think what he actually said was "Evolution is just a theory" or some shit like that. That being said... virtually everyone that has ever run for President in the last 150 years believes "Evolution is just a theory."