1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Ron Paul for President?

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by AndreJ, May 23, 2007.

  1. AndreJ

    AndreJ New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    36
    0
    0
    I was wondering if You prius owners have heard of a candidate called Ron Paul. If not take a quick tour of Youtube and search for "Ron Paul." . Im 20, and ive always thought there would not be a president in my age that i would like to vote for. I can always see the mask that these politicians wear. Ron Paul Seems like an actual human person looking to make an actual difference without gimmicks or stupid promises. If you guys know about him let me know what you think.

    From what i understand the main streem media is trying to keep the voice of this guy down. From what ive been reading there was were people trying to ban him for the GOP presidential debate until many people came to help him.
     
  2. efusco

    efusco Moderator Emeritus
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    19,891
    1,193
    9
    Location:
    Nixa, MO
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Please remember to post off-topic, non-Prius topics in Fred's House of Pancakes...not the main forum.
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 12:16 PM) [snapback]448270[/snapback]</div>
     
  3. AndreJ

    AndreJ New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    36
    0
    0
    Thanks for moving it for me :D
     
  4. Sufferin' Prius Envy

    Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    3,998
    18
    0
    Location:
    USA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ May 23 2007, 10:18 AM) [snapback]448277[/snapback]</div>
    PROOF that the mods are also "trying to keep the voice of this guy down." :eek: :lol: ;) :rolleyes:
     
  5. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    350
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I thought the title of this topic was, 'Ru Paul for President'...

    Not Ron Paul's stage name, I assume...?
    [smile]

    Honestly, I'm not familiar with the name.

    Ron Paul, I mean...

    ...may I have a take-over?
     
  6. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    Apparently, after Giuliani's outburst against him in SC and an unsuccessful attempt by leaders of the GOP to keep him out of future debates, Ron Paul has getting a lot more support, at least of the netroots variety.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 23 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]448288[/snapback]</div>
    :lol: :lol: :lol:
    I think you have him confused with Giuliani- the only crossdressing Republican candidate that I know of.
     
  7. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    350
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Just took a cursory look at his website...what seems to be missing is anything about his views on:

    *abortion
    *tolerence or --ideally-- support of same sex partnership rights
    *non-descrimination laws supporting the LGBTI folks at work and in other aspects of public and private life.

    He's more concerned about the Patriot Act and a National ID card.

    I suppose that his Libertarian stance might have something to do with that...still, I feel like, not addressing something is a response...and, if it's a problem, then not addressing it actually perpetuates the problem.

    Can the OP tell us more about Mr. Paul?

    -----

    Just back from Wikipedia.

    Paul sounds pretty amazing, actually:

    Texas Monthly, calling Paul "both deeply principled and wholly uncompromised", wrote in 2001 that he does not take money from PACs, is not swayed by Congressional lobbyists, only votes on his "deeply held beliefs" and does not cut "backroom deals." They write, "The phrase 'honest politician' is an oxymoron; yet in the sense that Paul never, ever votes against his stated principles... the phrase describes him." Along with not signing up for a Congressional pension, Paul's Congressional office returns money to the government each year; in 2000, the sum returned was $50,000.[8]

    "Dr. No" can be "maddeningly uncooperative" to his Republican colleagues because he will not give in to pressure to vote for bills that spend taxpayers' money or that he feels violate the Constitution.[8] Once when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich exhorted every Republican to vote the party line, he said that Paul was exempt.[18] Fellow fiscal conservative Jeff Flake said in 2006, "When I'm the only no vote, I can usually rest assured he's on a plane somewhere."

    --------

    Lots of other meaningful, idealistic stuff that makes shallow folks like myself really defensive.
     
  8. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 23 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]448320[/snapback]</div>
    My understanding is that he is regarded as a paleolibertarian- a libertarian with social conservative views. I have read that he does not support legal abortion (he is a OB-GYN). I know that he voted against the constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, but beyond that I don't know where he stands on LGBT rights.
     
  9. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    From what Pinto Girl posted of him, he sounds very deserving of more attention... I'll be sure to read about him when i have a bit more spare time here at work (have a meeting soon).
     
  10. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    350
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    I'm intrigued as well...but wonder if not addressing certain problems is really just a method of avoiding them/not stirring up controversy.

    In this case, t's cloaked in the guise of Libertarianism.

    I did read about his being an OB-GYN; he was apparently very selfless in making his services available to as many people as possible, even those who couldn't afford it.

    -----

    Okay, so I've done enough work for the OP...I've chatted up Paul a bunch now, haven't I...?
     
  11. AndreJ

    AndreJ New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    36
    0
    0
    I probably thought i would not vote for a president ever. Since i was in high school and started learning about "history" i was completely baffled, shocked, and scared that people actually act the way they do (like droping a bomb on a country), it absolutely terrified me, and the worst thing is my teachers justified it without question and the students didnt have my same reaction. I have always been different like that, i tend to see things for what they are or at least try to, not what people through history like to claim them to be.
    im 20, and i try to see things as clearly as possibly. I dont like posting to often about my personal views in subjects like this because i feel that no one truly understands what im trying to convey, or i think people think im "extreme", and i can never put what i truly mean in words and concepts.

    With that said, when i heard about Ron Paul and then heard him speak on some you tube vids "You tube Ron Paul", i was stunned to hear some one actually talking about things that actualy matter. What i mean by that is things like abortion rights, gay rights and what ever rights just seem to push the real problems aside or act as like a masking for the real problems.
    (real problems? what do you mean andre? What are real problems to you then?)

    The fact that our Constitution is being purposely degraded and our freedoms are being taken away from us. The fact that You will vote for the guy who does or does not support abortion, but dont think of the guy who will or will not stop the killing of innocent people in the world by numerous dictators instead of just the ones that we point out in timely manners like Iraq and Iran (as soon as they are a "terrorist threat" THEN is the time to start blaming them of being dictators and such) even though WE ALL KNOW, Africa has dictators that had 100,000's slaughtered in just recent years. In 1993 we gave chine the most-favored-nation status, i mean common? Is the whole world asleep?

    People are just like a heard of sheep, except worse. Sheep have a dog to keep them in line, people have other people. All you have to do is not be in the Norm, not conform, Or say something that makes people uncomfortable and they will ridicule , taunt, humiliate and laugh at you instead of getting to the heart of the situation or even trying to understand why you / some one else feels the way they do about something.

    if you just look at
    "
    *abortion
    *tolerance or --ideally-- support of same sex partnership rights
    *non-discrimination laws supporting the LGBTI folks at work and in other aspects of public and private life.
    "

    then how will you notice
    * Internet and phone tapping
    * Cameras being integrated on every stop light and street corner that are linked to agencies that can run facial scans and recognitions billions of times per second.
    * The fact that in a few years they will have the power to scan every packet of information on the interet and track every thing you type, probably part of some sort of "national security act" to prevent "terrorism".
    * America spending 428 billion on war. ( just think, 428 billion. Before the war we had "projects" that needed to be developed, homelessness , 2000 kids going missing each year, gangs, school programs being cut. Can you imagine what 428 billion could do for not just the us but the world???)
    * How about the fact that we dont own our own land anymore, our land is not truly private
    * Our constitution being ripped to threads in the name of "anti-terrorism".

    In all honesty, i dont think Ron Paul will win. If he did it would be a new wolrd i can bet on that, but i can bet he would be assassinated. it just seems to be the trend for most of Honest, Human presidents, but it would be nice to have people realize thet there are people like him out there.

    I also don't think voting does much of anything beyond the local level. In 2001 the majority of americans voted for Al gore, but it doesn't matter what the Americans voted for, it matters what the electoral college votes for. I prompted my high school teacher with this question about this issue before my last year - "If the electoral college picks the president, then what is the point of voting for one?", i did not get a good response. Does anyone else realize this?

    wikipidia / Electoral college - "Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. Although the nationwide popular vote is calculated by official and media organizations, it does not determine the winner of the election."

    *This is one of those things that i just dont get. why not just have the people vote for the president?

    WIKIPEDIA.ORG / Electoral votes / Main article: <strike>Faithless elector</strike>

    "A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than whom they have pledged to elect. On 158 occasions, electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president to whom they were pledged. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. In that year, Martin Van Buren's Vice Presidential running mate, Richard Johnson, did not receive the minimum votes to become the Vice President but ultimately won the office on the first ballot by the United States Senate in 1837.

    There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. While no faithless elector has ever been punished...."
     
  12. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    350
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]448432[/snapback]</div>
    I don't appreciate your implication that, politically, I'm somehow myopic...or, that the concerns I mentioned are less "important" than yours.

    Frankly, you're coming across as a bit paranoid, my friend.
     
  13. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,201
    1,073
    0
    Location:
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2022 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Plug-in Base
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ May 23 2007, 01:09 PM) [snapback]448333[/snapback]</div>
    They have a name for libertarians with socially conservative views. They're called Conservatives. I mean, real conservatives, not neo-conservatives like George W. and his fanclub.
     
  14. eagle33199

    eagle33199 Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    5,122
    268
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Vehicle:
    2015 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    A few points for you to consider, Andre:

    All of those points you mentioned have been heavily debated on this board (i know, i've been right in the middle of most of them), and are a concern for many people. However, you have to realize that different people value different things. One person may be up in arms over internet and phone tapping, while another is up in arms about abortion and not care about internet or phone tapping. It's a good thing to bring up different values and different items that are important, but you really should try not to do so in a manor that seems to demean or marginalize one set of values.

    As far as the electoral college goes, I think you're right - it's an outdated system that deserves reform. Remember, back when the country was first created the situation was very much different than what it is today. While the country may have more land mass and states right now, it's also, in some ways, smaller. Back then, individual states had agendas they were following, laws they wanted passed because it would benefit those states. today, we have political parties that have agendas, and laws that politicians want passed because it lines their pockets. The country tends to move with one voice - and where it doesn't, you can't separate it out by state, or even by city most of the time. If you lined up everyone on the street, you'd likely get dozens of different answers to the same national problem or proposed law. Back when the constitution was created, you would get one answer, and that answer would entirely depend on what region you were in.

    The task of counting all the votes, and organizing the counting on a national scale is huge. As we saw during several different elections, we can't even be sure we got it right today. By establishing the electoral college, the founding fathers put the burden of this task on the individual states, and simplified things at a national level. due to the stuff i talked about in the last paragraph, this worked out pretty well back then. Now a days, though, we don't align by state or regional values, which makes such a system antiquated and full of problems, as we've seen.
     
  15. RonH

    RonH Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    556
    7
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]448432[/snapback]</div>
    An interesting side-note given Paul's libertarian leanings is that the last faithless elector, also from Va, was Roger McBride who was so pissed at Nixon, he voted for the libertarian candidate, a philosophy professor, and defected to the libertarian party to become their presidential candidate in 1976.

    edit: whoops, it wasn't the last!!!
     
  16. formerVWdriver

    formerVWdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    258
    0
    0
    I had not heard of him until I saw him on the debate in S.C.

    He came across as a lunatic.

    If you have not heard of him, be grateful.
     
  17. AndreJ

    AndreJ New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    36
    0
    0
    Sorry pinto girl. I didnt mean to be like that. and i didnt mean to come off like that either.

    I do see how there are many different concerns that govern our decisions on voting and what not. Desicions like abortion are hard and its a very personal thing. But a decision on world hunger / or world privacy / or world domination seems more of a pressing situation and are topics that everyone seems to have a general consensus for. For example how many people will be effected by an abortion VS how many people will be affected by bomb dropping on them? How many "gay people" will have there rights taken away vs How many people have already had there rights taken away, i mean everyone in America has had there rights taken away since 9/11 but no one seems to care or notice. If you think about it, those rights are "gay people's" rights too are they not? What im trying to get at is we should focus on problems that effect us as a WHOLE first. Because the whole will always effect the few as well.

    Pinto girl i never said that your concerns are "less important" than mine. Dont be so offended im just stating my opinion. I was trying to point out that the certain points you had, determining who should be president of our country dont even reflect or do not relate to the vast majority of the citizens of this country.

    I just think we should focus on things as a WHOLE. A country devided cannot stand, and it seems that we keep deviding and compartmentalizing things so much that we are not going to see the bigger picture. Our country has so many view points and words for every type of person and what they believe in, its just ridiculous i think. In a much grander scale i would like to apply this viewpoint as worldwide.

    I dont know nor do i want to know the political terms. I can tell if i like a person by hearing / seeing / there actions. Labeling is just ignorant and a waste of time (IMH0).

    Because i point out issues that im concerned with that deal with topics you may be unfamiliar with or unconcerned with does not make me paranoid. I point out things that the average person does not know but effects EVERYONE one a large scale.

    There are simple concrete things that i believe we as a human population should work on. Food / Water / Shelter / Freedom / Respect/ . Everything else is just a blur, Does it not seem a waste of your time, or our time doing what we do everyday? what is different about today than 1,000 years ago? I stated Very obvious faults in our current system but honestly it was just to reach a wider audience, people who may be concerned with there privacy or being truly free.

    My issue is that i cannot operate on a scale where im trying to think about problems that reside in MUCH bigger problems. I think the fact that the situation the world is in, with countries going with out food and water, governments bombing other countries because of the actions of A few. Weapons being bought and sold from each side. Our media playing these events out like they should be part of everyday lives.

    The things i mentioned are slight concerns of mine because i see there implementations as having a much wider negative affect than other topics discussed. How ever, my concerns that i listed can be obviously dwarfed by the concerns just mentioned in the paragraph above.

    A friend of mine once said that this all has to end before there will ever be a new beggining. Meaning the wolrd situation must get very bad before people wake up and realize what is actualy going on.
    Yes it may sound paranoid, or scary, or dark, but we are already living in scary, paranoid and dark times, all you have to do is turn on a tv or look at a newspaper.

    Its hard for me to discuss certain topics because my views are shared by a very small percentage.

    When i see people like ron paul actualy going for presidency its exciting to me, like a glimmer of hope or something :rolleyes: . I dont know a thing about politics, and i dont realy want to either, but i do know that ron paul seems much different than most or every canidate that is running.

    Im sorry if i affend anyone btw :unsure:

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ May 23 2007, 05:54 PM) [snapback]448512[/snapback]</div>
    I geuss some one who does not conform to the norm would come across as a lunatic right? Its interesting that you dont state why he came across as a lunatic, i would really like to understand your viewpoint this.
     
  18. formerVWdriver

    formerVWdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    258
    0
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]448527[/snapback]</div>
    The norm is a pretty big tent, and Ron Paul is off in his own teepee. During the debate he showed an ignorance of history and a callous disregard for innocent human life when he blamed America for 9/11. He seems to have forgotten about Khobar Towers, the first WTC bombing, the attacks on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, etc. This is a 1,200-year-old conflict not started by America, which did not even exist when it began (read Bernard Lewis to learn more).

    Ron Paul came across as somebody's ill-informed, crazy uncle. The one invited to Thanksgiving dinner out of politeness and who then immediately makes himself unwelcome.

    I doubt this informs or convinces you, but I am certain that he will not be a presidential candidate so you may as well start taking a look at some of the others.
     
  19. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Sorry, will NOT be voting for Ron Paul.
     
  20. Pinto Girl

    Pinto Girl New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    3,093
    350
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AndreJ @ May 23 2007, 05:14 PM) [snapback]448527[/snapback]</div>
    Well, here's where we disagree. Most people in the US favored slavery. Most people in the US favored segregation. Most people in the US favored keeping interracial marriages illegal.

    Are you suggesting that we should still allow slavery? That separate but equal...is? That a black person and a white person who have children might have 'zebras' and dilute the purity of the Northern European race?

    Thank GOODNESS that we don't cave to mob rule in this country (or, haven't yet).

    Also...I'm not sure I like this idea of issue triage, where we decide what's "most serious" and then act only on those problems.

    Mr. Paul is sounding more and more weird, the more research I do on him.

    You're funny; you start out apologizing to me (thank you) and then launch into this tome about why you believe what you do so strongly, and why it's right.

    I'm not offended, I just think you're wrong and the guy's a bit of a kook. It's really that simple.