What can I tell a Ron Paul supporter to dissuade him?

I know someone who is a Ron Paul supporter, primarily because of his rhetoric. They are pissed at me now for pointing out his racist positions in the past. Now they want me to explain why he's not a good candidate for President. I've tossed in my few nickels worth... got any good anti-Ron Paul quotations or information I could use to nuke these peeps and nip this in the bud?

Ron Paul ain't winning the Republican nomination. Let him support him and when he loses, then try to convince him for the general.

I don't want him to poison the well.

are you worried that people are too stupid to make their own decisions?

Trying to save the world?


Really. Give it up. It won't work.

stress the fact that he doesn't believe the department of education should exist, that he thinks we need to move to a gold standard, and that he is pro-life.

All those positions are indefensible. I would also keep hammering him with Paul's racist past and his involvement with the militia movement in the 90's.

I wish i had a quote for that one!

In February 2007 he introduced H.R. 1094, "{t}o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01094:

Awesome! That one's powerful. :P I posted it and the reaction is great!

and discuss things like against d. of Ed and other similar things about which they might care. I wouldn't bother discussing his past, racist or militia.

The Dept. of Education - tell me, how has educational performance progressed since its institution? It is an excellent example of all that is wrong with federalizing local issues. It's very questionable whether the federal government even has lawful authority on the matter of education at all.

The gold standard - just look at what getting off the gold standard has done for us. Maybe gold is not the correct/only solution, but pure fiat money is the perfect tool for the financial manipulations that led to our current economic crisis. Thanks to the lack of backing to our money, the Fed prints recklessly and the value of your savings and income is constantly eroded by a deliberate policy of inflation. The people who are actually helped by this are those at the very very top, who have first access to new money. Unbacked currency is in effect a HUGE tax on the poorest citizens of the country.

...has long since passed it's usefulness. We are no longer in the middle ages.

Fiat money works quite well in a floating exchange rate environment.

Inflation is not caused by money creation. There have been times of great money creation and falling prices. Explain the lost decade in Japan if inflation is directly tied to money creation.

Explain pushing on a string.

Inflation is tied more to the madness of crowds than anything else.

Money is just an abstraction layer. Concentrate on capital asset and production efficiency. Concentrate on quality of life issues. Concentrate on the effect of economic growth on environmental degradation. This is a much better method of judging economic performance (hedonics).

Looking at inflation is like judging a game by the number of points scored. It effectively tells you nothing. And this is written by a long time (20 plus years) inflation hawk who finally realized how useless such a distraction is.

And before you bemoan the fate of the poor, I am considered a member of the working poor. And I live quite well thank you...

The richie rich team: 90

The other 300 million of us: 10

It's pretty obvious who's winning this game.

The Dept. of Education - Actually, it was doing pretty damn well until Nixon defunded it. That's when it started going downhill. And it didn't control the education system or micromanage it, it just provided a base standard for states to build on. A gold standard, if you will. ;)

And by the way, about that gold standard - I'm against the Fed, because it's against me. It's just a mechanism for moving wealth from my hands into the hands of banking executives. I guess that's what happens when your money supply is run by banking executives. But a gold standard is equally ridiculous. We might as well look into a crystal ball to determine how much money to print. Gold is just a commodity like any other commodity... and setting the value of our currency against a single commodity makes it extremely volatile, and does not reflect the actual economy, in which all kinds of other Stuff is produced, not just gold. Ridiculous.

My friend has realized that the republican shark was jumped... he's looking at Ron Paul as a viable alternative compared to all the other nutcases...

....so he is wasting a vote.....Just let him know Paul is not running to WIN but only to run his MOUTH.

He won't ever run for his true party, the libertarians, because he knows he would get stomped by anyone with an r after his name.....so he "says" he's republican

If you are thinking of voting for Ron Paul yourself but are just embarrassed to admit it, I understand.

But you really should rethink it. Ron Paul is bad news.

If they do, they're probably hopeless.

infallible. Move along.

..by his anti-war and economic policy positions. He's quite the chameleon, and I need to take him down at least in the eyes of my liberal friends. I don't give a crap if they peel off some Republicans with his antics, but I have to take up arms when his word bytes are attracting my fellow liberals.

moves control to corporations.

Explain how government should be an advocate for the people against corporations, and if there is a problem with government, it is not removing it, but getting it to be an advocate for the people.

His position is that free markets solve problems.

He does not realize that without regulation, markets become monopolies, and controlled without supply and demand rules.

Then there is the entire failing of the system in production over demand, although why that has not been discussed anywhere is anyone's guess.



The problem he addresses is to remove 'controlling forces' to increase freedom. He ignores the controlling factors of corporations that setting economic and social situations for many people.

If you can not quit and find another job, then corporations have to much power.

If you can not negotiate a fair wage for work, and that can't be done with surplus labor, then economic forces are controlling society.



Tell your friend that most of the controlling factors of the private sector would be just as happy, or more happy if your friend was in prison, either literal, or economic, to completely control him. And that is against Ron Paul's freedom comments.

Ron Paul wants to give power to people that do not care what happens to your friend at all.

Side note, his comments on freedom are not wrong, but he should do that by regulating problems, breaking up companies, and removing governmental corruption. Not just letting companies do anything.


His actual position is anarchy, where freedom is no rules. Although many rules are currently wrong, so I understand how people get that position, but there needs to be removal of bad rules that are backwards, and instigating rules that correct things.

Free trade rules are backwards, anti union laws are backwards, slashing social safety net is backwards until production is below demand. Many other systems are backwards.

There is a kind of derangement about Paul supporters; they are impervious to logic and reason. Kind of like LaRouche.

It's not worth the effort.

And I'm getting traction with it. It's a great, provable point and it poisons him with almost all women.

Of course, I'm not going for his supporters, just the people who are being swayed by some of his most recent talking points on individual freedom, which, after all, everyone wants and supports.

Bookmarked! Thanks!

:D

that "our President" cares as much about constitutional rights as Ron Paul does? Don't you wish you could point to Obama's record of promises kept on Habeas Corpus, warrantless wiretapping, whistleblower protection, etc. etc. etc?-- instead of shamefully admitting that Obama is as bad as or worse than Bush on all of these?

Believe me, I think Paul's ideas about government participation in the economy are wrong, and his ideas about government intervention for civil rights are poisonous. But it is absolutely pathetic that no major Democrats, and especially not Obama, will defend our constitutional rights against the police and military powers of the State. Without habeas corpus, what other rights do we really have? Why have almost all Democrats ceded the moral high ground on constitutional rights to a Republican dinosaur?

Besides, Obama is the one putting medicare, social security, and public education on the block, so what will be left of the social programs that we are supposed to be protecting against Ron Paul? Did Ron Paul put Arne Duncan in charge of education, or Alan Simpson in charge of deficit cutting?

I wish I could say I'm disappointed in Obama, but his cowardly Senate votes on constitutional issues (e.g. warrantless wiretapping) told me what was to come. I still voted for him, but without much hope for change.

'Did Ron Paul put Arne Duncan in charge of education, or Alan Simpson in charge of deficit cutting?'

He was not in any position (fortunately) to put anyone in charge of anything! He would have abolished the education department altogether, and would have cut ALL public services, so that is worse than any of Obama's choices. ALL American and most British politicians of the left and centre collaborate too much with the Right, and we've had plenty of our own 'Arne Duncans'. But I would take Maggie Thatcher over a fanatical right-'libertarian' like Ron Paul, and I couldn't say stronger than that.

Obama aggressively promotes the worst aspects of government intervention (warrantless wiretapping, torturing whistleblowers, warfare, presidential powers to detain and even to kill without due process). He is against, or at best indifferent to, the best aspects of government intervention (public health care, public education).

So why is someone who is against all government intervention so much worse?

My point is that Democrats have ceded the high ground.

and you'll see why 'someone who is against government intervention is so much worse'.

Ron Paul's philosophy in three words: 'Fuck the poor!'

to take a look around

This is what the market has decided for us

Then when he stops hearing the other voices maybe he will listen to you. :-)

nt

You cannot. If someone is committed to a candidate they are not amenable to proof (short of certain things like seeing the candidate shoot his wife or something).

You don't persuade people, you just find ones that have not made up their mind yet.

Not the Randbots themselves. I am looking for counter arguments for the unwashed masses who have no position on him as yet.

...because the New World Order will release the alien robot army to take over the US if he is elected, and there will be nothing he can do about it.

Why don't you start on a simpler project, like de-programming a few Scientologists?

why bother?

If someone is that hung up on a potential candidate who is so unsavory, then there's probably nothing you...or anyone...can say to dissuade him.

He'll only dig in more.


One doesn't have to go far to see that in action. How many people here at DU hold opinions on people and issues that are absolutely unshakable...

I would think very carefully about this before taking this on. You'd basically be pitting Ron Paul's rhetoric vs Obama's actual record.

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/04/ill-take-reactionary-over-murderer.html

http://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/05/over-at-rolling-stone-matt-taibbi.html

There is probably no need to argue with Ron Paul supporters. The Ron Paul campaign is merely a intra-Republican fight, that will take place at the GOP primary stage. Given his anti-war, anti-Empire stance, the guy has basically declared war on the entire Military Industrial Complex. Basically the most (or 2nd most, if you think Big Finance/Wall Street is more powerful) powerful special interest group that there is in the country. So there is no way the GOP leadership can allow him to become the Republican nominee. They will do whatever they can to sabotage and undermine his campaign. Talk to someone who supported Kucinich, or Gravel, or even Edwards in 2008 if you want to understand how that is done.

So it's really not Ron Paul vs Democratic party (or Obama). It's Ron Paul vs Big Business/pro-war/neocon Repubs, and Obama vs whoever the GOP nominee will be. And that GOP nominee will be from the Big Business/Empire/Neocon mainstream wing of the Republican party.

And as far as how Democrats ought to view Ron Paul's campaign? Well, it seems to me if you're happy with mainstream Clintonite/Obamaite branch of the Democratic party, then Ron Paul does make your party look bad, as he clearly gives the lie to the idea that the Democrats are an anti-war party. If you aren't happy with "mainstream" Dems and wish they were more radical, like Dennis Kucinich and the like, then Ron Paul doing well could be a good thing, as it might change people's perceptions of what constitutes viable platforms. I.e. next time Dennis Kucinich runs and argues for closing all our bases and bringing all our troops home, he might not be considered as much of a kook as back in 2008.

own name on the masthead was publishing racist screeds and never bothered to check what they were printing. Not only do I not believe that stuff, I'm willing to bet he DID knwo what was being published.

Seriously, is that someone we want picking up the phone at 3AM (pardon the cliche)?

I don't know about this friend of yours, but for many folks, Paul's stand on those two issues is mighty attractive..

What are you supposed to do...tell them US imperialism and the war on drugs is just great?

Anyone who says that just because people need medical care does not mean they are entitled to it is a MONSTER OF PURE EVIL, and in comparison his views of the drug wars are not as important. (And I am completely against the drug wars.)

Opposing the Iraq war is a good thing, but so do the BNP, LePen, David Duke and Pat Buchanan. People who are far right on civil rights and on economic issues should NEVER be tolerated, even if they are right on one or two other issues.

And also that he supports the right of corporations to poison the water supply with complete impunity, among other things.

before they hurt someone.

Which leads to crushing the middle class and ultimately war.

I was looking for mo bettah quotations!

Alan Greenspan, close friend of Ayn Rand and an unabashed Objectivist, admitted in Congress that his Libertarian ideology doesn't work and is responsible for the current economic meltdown. Video;

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/24/639940/-Alan-Greenspan-admits-free-market-ideology-doesnt-work

when Teddy Roosevelt was President?

That his bleak, Randian view of the world is completely impossible and impractical to implement?

If Ron Paul were President this place would degenerate into Somalia-like anarchy within a year.

That would split the vote. It's the Democratics that I don't want to be poisoned.

Can we NOT have an 80yr old president.

...that Obama stands just as strong for constitutional rights and government accountability, against war, secrecy, and arbitrary presidential power--- wait, forget that...

...or maybe that Obama's strong defense of working Americans' health care and education makes up for his expansion of executive power and the national security state-- wait, forget that...

...or maybe that Obama stands up for Social Security, rights to collective bargaining, and Medicare against corporate influence--- wait, forget that...

Just tell them that we're all screwed, and that it's better to be screwed by a hip modern, black Democrat than an old white guy from Texas.

Seriously, it's an embarrassment to all Democrats to have to be schooled on constitutional rights by an Ayn Rand-loving fossil like Ron Paul.

Must be breeding season.

I just think it's pretty obvious, that if Obama had kept his campaign promises, he would have co-opted every decent impulse a Paul supporter could possibly have. (When I say "every," I mean "both": the anti-war impulse, and the pro-constitutional rights impulse. The rest is just vicious Ayn Rand nonsense as far as I can tell. But I have to admit, I hope Paul runs again: I think it's great for the Republican mainstream to have to argue against someone who actually believes in smaller government.)

Similarly, it wouldn't have taken all that much for Gore to co-opt the Nader vote in 2000. Democrats should stop enabling our politicians' relentless move to the right.

Of course Paul's strict interpretation the US constitution (ironically, given the Republican rhetoric) makes him a fringe member of the Republican party.

But why do Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold have to be fringe members of our party, instead of, say, Diane Feinstein?

If you're going to be flying the Ron Paul flag here, name-calling is really necessary.

Troll.

If I'm wrong on this one, it will be a first.

:shrug:

However, nothing in the content of his posts so far is anything but true.

:eyes:

Has Obama stood for constitutional rights and governmental accountability, against war and secrecy and arbitrary presidential power? The only thing you can argue with here is the "just as strong", implying that Paul supports these things when in fact he may not. Obama sure "supported" all these things before he became president, and then that was the end of that. Paul could just as easily break such promises.

How about championing the good parts of government, thus putting the lie to Paul's politics? Health care, education, SS, collective bargaining, medicare? ...nope.

Every inch of ground that Paul could make against Obama has been willfully ceded.

Health care, education, SS, collective bargaining, medicare? Have you been asleep for the last two and a half years?

My kids have health insurance that they didn't have two and a half years ago. Why? Affordable Care Act.
My daughter is in the Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
The largest Labor Unions in the country are behind Obama in 2012. He spoke out against what was happening in Wisconsin and didn't interfere to make it about HIM.
SS and Medicare are the programs that Republicans want to eliminate. He took the Ryan plan and slapped the faces of the Republicans with it and saddled them with a record of wanting to cut or eliminate medicare. I've yet to see any actual plan to cut Social Security and have in fact heard emphatically exactly the opposite from him.

Next?

and Medicare, and saying I will actively and openly work to destroy all government programs except the military.

Yea, trolling is fucking trolling.... duh.

:shrug:

And let him know that Ron Paul will end that thing, whatever it is. Because that's pretty much what Ron Paul would do, if he had his way.