Home » Metro » Delusion for president
Delusion for president
Published: 01-17-12
I first heard of Ron Paul during the 2008 election.At the time, he seemed a Ralph Nader-esque candidate, one who ran with no possible chance of actually winning but had the potential to gum up the works for my favored candidate nonetheless.
With a distant second place finish in the New Hampshire primary vote and a third place finish at the Iowa Caucuses, Paul really doesn’t have much to brag about. But you wouldn’t know that if you asked any of his vehement defenders.
The most disturbing thing about the people who revere Paul so highly is how many of them are in my age bracket—18 –25. It’s almost trendy now to think of yourself as one of the brave patriots with enough moral conviction to support Paul.
There’s only one problem. He’s a deranged lunatic who has more legitimacy as a cult leader than a candidate.
He pollutes the minds of Americans with his absurd rhetoric that is not only insane but dangerous. His supporters like to hang their hats on the fact that he foresaw the current economic climate more than two decades ago.That’s all well and good, but it’s not as if he was the only one to do so. Several economists predicted the crisis,yet they aren’t compelled to run for president.
A self-described Constitutionalist and Libertarian,he’s stuck to his guns for years, and that alone is commendable. But stop right there with the high-fives and pats on the back because Paul is a few cards short of a full deck.
He believes that looser gun control leads to less crime. He voted “no” to a bill that would require owners of public Wi-Fi Internet who know of illegal visual media being transmitted on their network— namely child pornography—to report their knowledge to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Thankfully, it still passed.
He’s stated that if elected, he’d cut the federal budget by $1 trillion.That kind of action would throw the country into a depression almost immediately. No, not a recession, but a full-blown 1929-style depression. But it’ll be OK, because there won’t be a Department of Commerce around to meddle with people’s lives.
Paul is a medical doctor with another Ph.D in biology, yet he doesn’t believe in evolution. Oh, and he’d also repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because, as everyone should know, racism is no big deal.
The lack of research on the part of people my age is perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the whole situation.
But the kids like him because he wants to legalize marijuana. Makes sense, right?
2 Responses to “Delusion for president”
Leave a Reply
All comments are moderated before being published. We will not edit comments, but we also will not approve those that are abusive, off-topic, attack another person, include profanity or contain information we know to be libelous or false. Please include a valid e-mail address, as we will not approve comments with invalid or fake e-mail addresses. Most comments will be reviewed within 8 hours during weekdays. Comments posted on weekends may not be approved until Monday. For more information, please visit the "about us" link at the bottom of the page.
In spite the shirt Sam, you are no Daniel Schorr. Being a few score past your age, and a Dr. Paul supporter, it is noted the inability for some to get past their inner consciousness to enable an open mind.
“He’s stated that if elected, he’d cut the federal budget by $1 trillion.That kind of action would throw the country into a depression almost immediately. No, not a recession, but a full-blown 1929-style depression. But it’ll be OK, because there won’t be a Department of Commerce around to meddle with people’s lives.”
What pray tell, do you think is happening now with our Fiat monetary policy? Are we headed in the right direction, following the lead of these two parties? Talk about a lack of research.
You present a very one sided case that mostly involves picking a few ideas of his here and there without taking what he says as a whole into consideration. He is, above all else, a firm believer in liberty. Something he says a lot, which is true, is that you can’t have some freedom, or most freedom; you either have freedom or you don’t. You can either act as you choose and determine your own life, or you have government restrictions and that freedom is taken away. So when you mention things like cutting a trillion dollars out of government spending, or legalizing drugs, etc, you have to consider that these are areas where the government has already become too big and is overextending itself. But let’s go about this in order.
You say that Paul has nothing to brag about for his 3rd and 2nd place showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively. Yet he’s done better than Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry- all people who at some point polled higher than Paul, and who all were expected to do considerably better. That makes him the #2 candidate in the race, which I would say is pretty damn good when you consider where he started from. Also, only something like .3% of the vote is in already, and as it stands Mitt Romney has 13 delegates, Ron Paul has 9, and Rick Santorum has 6. So don’t write off so quickly the idea of Paul getting the nomination when it is in fact still a close race. You also seem to downplay the importance of the youth vote and call it “disturbing” that they support Paul, when the youth vote is an extremely important part of the vote. And it should come as no surprise that he gets the most support from them. He represents ideas that are very appealing to younger voters: honesty, personal freedom, a government that doesn’t try to run your life, not intervening in countries where we don’t belong, etc. And these are all sound ideas, so again it seems odd to call this support “disturbing”.
You say that his plan to cut a trillion dollars from spending in the first year will be disastrous, and that it will throw us in a depression, yet you fail to look at our historical record of doing just that. After World War II we did the same thing- brought 10 million troops home, cut spending by more than 50%, and cut taxes- which was followed by one of the biggest economic booms in our history. Also look at the person talking about it- the person who’s been consistent for 30 years saw all these problems starting to happen by recognizing bad policies (leaving interests rates too low for too long before the housing bubble, abandoning the gold standard). Paul has a clear record of being economically sound and having an understanding of monetary policy.
Now, as far as some of his policy or voting records go, you mention his stance on gun laws. He’s absolutely correct in his assessment because stricter laws in most cases leave people to go through illegal means to get the weapon. This creates an underground market and only contributes to crime and gun related violence. It’s the same principle as his argument for drug legalization. If something is illegal and unavailable to people who want it, they’re going to find a way to get it anyway. This forces them to go through underground markets where it’s even easier to get because there’s no restrictions or regulations. Ask any teenage kid and he’ll tell you that it’s easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol because alcohol is regulated more. A drug dealer doesn’t care how old you are, he just cares how much money you’re going to give him. So you have to consider that stricter laws create more crime and contribute to more violence than is necessary.
I don’t agree with everything that Ron Paul says- I think it’s foolish to deny evolution for example, though to Paul’s credit he has a firm history of separating politics and religion. But on the whole he is without a doubt the most qualified candidate. He’s honest, highly intelligent, principled, the only one serious about bringing the troops home or making serious cuts to spending, and the only one who above all else wants to make sure that YOUR freedom is intact. And that’s a lot more than I can say for Obama, Romney, or anyone else running.