By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - No one but Ron Paul (donations)

dany612 on 12 February 2012

What is Ron Paul's stance on regulation, environmental, and health stance?



 

        

Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 12 February 2012
dany612 said:
What is Ron Paul's stance on regulation, environmental, and health stance?



richardhutnik on 12 February 2012

I will consider donating to the Ron Paul campaign, when it returns the hundreds of dollars I donated to it, that it didn't spend, for the 2008 campaign.  As it is now, sorry, my wallet can't afford it.  If I had $40, I would look to pick up the latest version of Marvel vs Capcom 3 actually, or something else.



scottie on 12 February 2012

"get the federal government out of are lives whilst giving state government unlimited power to interfere in the rights of citizens, cut 5 legislative branches of the government including the EPA, which is undoubtedly the most important"

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.



SamuelRSmith on 12 February 2012
scottie said:
"get the federal government out of are lives whilst giving state government unlimited power to interfere in the rights of citizens, cut 5 legislative branches of the government including the EPA, which is undoubtedly the most important"

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.


You've made this claim numerous times. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. The constitution limits the federal government to only dealing with the natural law (protection of rights). The 10th and 14th amendments basically mean that the state governments can do what they want, as long as they, too, don't infringe on the natural rights. Ergo, under President Paul, both the Federal Government and the States will be forced to adhere to the Constitution, and thus be much more libertarian than they currently are.



Around the Network
scottie on 12 February 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
scottie said:
"get the federal government out of are lives whilst giving state government unlimited power to interfere in the rights of citizens, cut 5 legislative branches of the government including the EPA, which is undoubtedly the most important"

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.


You've made this claim numerous times. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. The constitution limits the federal government to only dealing with the natural law (protection of rights). The 10th and 14th amendments basically mean that the state governments can do what they want, as long as they, too, don't infringe on the natural rights. Ergo, under President Paul, both the Federal Government and the States will be forced to adhere to the Constitution, and thus be much more libertarian than they currently are.


Libertarians aren't people that follow the constitution, libertarians are people that want to reduce the power the government has over the people.

 

Ron Paul wants to reduce the powers the federal government has to limit the power of the state governments to limit the rights of the people, which can be simplified as Ron Paul wants to strengthen the states ability to limit the powers of the people. 

 

If he were a libertarian, he would be about reducing the power of state governments, AND federal.



Rath on 12 February 2012

I personally oppose many of the ideals that Ron Paul has, so I don't think I'd ever donate to him.



enrageorange on 12 February 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
enrageorange said:

Plenty of good things with Ron Paul, but also plenty of bad things. For every pointless part of the government he wishes to get rid of, there is a nessessary part of it he wishes to get rid of as well. 

And the one thing alot of his supporters fail to realize is that most of his plans will NEVER go through, even if he is to become president. The president isn't some omnipotent force that can accomplish anything. What he wants to do is greatly limit the power of the government, and that has to be apporoved by the Senate and the House... which are part of the government... Its not going to happen anytime soon especially since the republican and democratic establishment are both still very much for big government. 


His foreign policy (entirely the best reason to vote for him) is entirely at the disposal of the President. He can also play the parties against eachother. Remember, he has no loyalty to the establishment Republicans... he'd happily side with the Democrats to reduce the Government in certain aspects, and side with the Republicans to deal with others.

What's important though, is that a Paul win isn't just about his Presidency. It could effectively change the path that America is taking, after a President Paul, would the people accept an Obama again? I very much doubt it, or, at least, not for a very long time. The Congress would also start to reflect that change, not to mention any judges that Paul appoints.

I agree with Senator Jim DeMint. What Paul represents is a change in the Republican party. At the moment, the Republican party is a combination of conservatives and moderates. What's been changing, though, is that the Libertarian voice in the party is growing - Ron/Rand/Marco/DeMint/Amash, etc. Even if Paul doesn't win the Presidency, it will be another successful night in the Congress for the Libertarian movement. Republicans are slowly changing from a Conservative/Moderate party, to a Libertarian/Conservative party. That will have massive implications going forward.

So, no, Paul won't get everything he wants done. He will get a lot done, though, but more importantly, he'll shift the direction so that it will continue going that way.

I see the coming elections as a choice between trending towards tyranny, or trending towards liberty. At heart, I'm an optimist, so I hope Paul is extremely successful... even if he doesn't win the Presidency, the Congressionals will reflect the change.

Both "conservative" and moderates in the republican party want big government no matter how much they might try to convince the voters so there will always be a big part of the republican party that wants  it. Also I think it is a bad idea to remove all foreign stationed troops. No I don't think we should be occupying unfriendly nations, but people really underestimate the importance of influencing other countries and what would happen otherwise that won't just affect other nations, but America as well. The America Paul wants won't have any "government tyranny" but I think people will begin missing some aspects of big government rather quickly if his vison somehow becomes reality.



SamuelRSmith on 12 February 2012
scottie said:
SamuelRSmith said:
scottie said:
"get the federal government out of are lives whilst giving state government unlimited power to interfere in the rights of citizens, cut 5 legislative branches of the government including the EPA, which is undoubtedly the most important"

Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.


You've made this claim numerous times. Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. The constitution limits the federal government to only dealing with the natural law (protection of rights). The 10th and 14th amendments basically mean that the state governments can do what they want, as long as they, too, don't infringe on the natural rights. Ergo, under President Paul, both the Federal Government and the States will be forced to adhere to the Constitution, and thus be much more libertarian than they currently are.


Libertarians aren't people that follow the constitution, libertarians are people that want to reduce the power the government has over the people.

 

Ron Paul wants to reduce the powers the federal government has to limit the power of the state governments to limit the rights of the people, which can be simplified as Ron Paul wants to strengthen the states ability to limit the powers of the people. 

 

If he were a libertarian, he would be about reducing the power of state governments, AND federal.

Well, he's said that the Constitution isn't perfect at protecting freedoms, although I can only think of a couple of points (removing 16th and 17th amendments, introducing an amendment defining life) that he's specifically indicated at.

No, Libertarians aren't about following the constitution, they are about protecting liberty, you're right. But the constitution is about protecting liberty. And, yes, he wants to increase States rights. It's right there in the Constitution, in the 10th Amendment. However, they are limited by the 14th Amendment to infringe upon the liberties defined in the Constitution (which includes the 9th Amendment... so rights not necessarily enumerated in the Constitution, such as freedom of movement), and the 14th Amendment also gives Congress the ability to enforce this Amendment.

Sure, he wants the States to control education, or welfare, but he won't let the states inflict upon the second amendment, or any other part of the Constitution.



scottie on 12 February 2012
SamuelRSmith said:
scottie said:
SamuelRSmith said:
scottie said:

 

 

Sure, he wants the States to control education, or welfare, but he won't let the states inflict upon the second amendment, or any other part of the Constitution.

 

He supports the right of state governments to ban flag burning. He is pro censorship when enacted by state governments and thus he acts against the spirit of the constitution.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html