T Nation

Why Won't You Vote for Ron Paul?

In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish. He’s a social conservative, despite claiming to be for maximum personal freedom. And, most importantly, he’s already lost.

You haven’t been here very long, have you?

This thread will either be ignored (because we’ve gone through this shit so many times), or it’ll be bombed by the rationale peeps, with HH chiming in occasionally.

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.[/quote]

Uhhh…because I “hate freedom?”

Has anyone seen Scanners?

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Uhhh…because I “hate freedom?”[/quote]

…Do you know what it feels like to have Surge shoot up your nose?

Well, now I do. Not very pleasant.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Uhhh…because I “hate freedom?”[/quote]

Yeah, that’s what I figured.

Damn.

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.[/quote]

  1. he’s crazy – he believes in Constitutional government
  2. he actually understands economics
  3. he supports real money and competing currencies
  4. its too easy to tell what he’s gonna do based on his prior voting record – I prefer politicians who lie and pander
  5. He believes in self reliance – we all know government only functions when it attempts to take care of us with awesome regulations

He speaks truth to power- can’t stand these wiesels.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish. He’s a social conservative, despite claiming to be for maximum personal freedom. And, most importantly, he’s already lost.

You haven’t been here very long, have you?

This thread will either be ignored (because we’ve gone through this shit so many times), or it’ll be bombed by the rationale peeps, with HH chiming in occasionally. [/quote]

If they are ‘rationale’, can I be ‘rational’? Actually, if you believe that the square root of 2 exists, then you are not rational. (LOL!)

Beowolf, its interesting — I deal with 17 year olds all day and you appear to be much more mature and logical than just about any of them. Are you good at math (j/c)?

Anyhoo, De Tocqueville describes why RP can’t win — Americans actually love a dictatorship, provided they get to vote for the dictators. Americans, most anyway, despise freedom and want a nanny state. So, RP had no chance.

He can’t win, and a vote for him is wasted (unless you happened to plan to vote for Obama or Hillary - then by all means vote for Ron Paul).

I dislike too many of his policies and I dislike the people that surround him.

I have don’t actually have a problem with him, but he’s already lost and the stakes are to high with nimrods like osama and shrillary competing for the big seat to waste votes.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish. He’s a social conservative, despite claiming to be for maximum personal freedom. And, most importantly, he’s already lost.

You haven’t been here very long, have you?

This thread will either be ignored (because we’ve gone through this shit so many times), or it’ll be bombed by the rationale peeps, with HH chiming in occasionally.

If they are ‘rationale’, can I be ‘rational’? Actually, if you believe that the square root of 2 exists, then you are not rational. (LOL!)

Beowolf, its interesting — I deal with 17 year olds all day and you appear to be much more mature and logical than just about any of them. Are you good at math (j/c)?

Anyhoo, De Tocqueville describes why RP can’t win — Americans actually love a dictatorship, provided they get to vote for the dictators. Americans, most anyway, despise freedom and want a nanny state. So, RP had no chance.

[/quote]

Ack. Since ‘rationale’ is technically a word, my spell check didn’t recognize the typo.

And yes, I think I’m pretty good at math. I’ve got a low 90 in Calc at least.

I think most Americans don’t want a nanny state in some ways, and want it in others. Some want the government to help people, some to restrict people, some want it do help them specifically. The overall thought, though, is, yes, the people want the government to do SOMETHING. And, as a democratic society, the government is doing a lot of things, because we can’t agree on what it should be doing.

That’s the beauty of democracy. Despite the government trying to do so much, it works so slowly that it doesn’t do nearly as much as it could if it were focusing. And, in the end, almost everything it tries to do ends up busted in some way or another.

This is why I can see where the “federal anarchists” are coming from. I just think that the system that exists now would work better than nothing at all.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish. He’s a social conservative, despite claiming to be for maximum personal freedom. And, most importantly, he’s already lost.

You haven’t been here very long, have you?

This thread will either be ignored (because we’ve gone through this shit so many times), or it’ll be bombed by the rationale peeps, with HH chiming in occasionally.

If they are ‘rationale’, can I be ‘rational’? Actually, if you believe that the square root of 2 exists, then you are not rational. (LOL!)

Beowolf, its interesting — I deal with 17 year olds all day and you appear to be much more mature and logical than just about any of them. Are you good at math (j/c)?

Anyhoo, De Tocqueville describes why RP can’t win — Americans actually love a dictatorship, provided they get to vote for the dictators. Americans, most anyway, despise freedom and want a nanny state. So, RP had no chance.

Ack. Since ‘rationale’ is technically a word, my spell check didn’t recognize the typo.

And yes, I think I’m pretty good at math. I’ve got a low 90 in Calc at least.

I think most Americans don’t want a nanny state in some ways, and want it in others. Some want the government to help people, some to restrict people, some want it do help them specifically. The overall thought, though, is, yes, the people want the government to do SOMETHING. And, as a democratic society, the government is doing a lot of things, because we can’t agree on what it should be doing.

That’s the beauty of democracy. Despite the government trying to do so much, it works so slowly that it doesn’t do nearly as much as it could if it were focusing. And, in the end, almost everything it tries to do ends up busted in some way or another.

This is why I can see where the “federal anarchists” are coming from. I just think that the system that exists now would work better than nothing at all.
[/quote]

This is interesting: You originally didn’t put me in the ‘rationale’ group, yet your response assumes that I am rational enough to understand it. Guess I’m on the border somwhere, huh? ;D

If the American people weren’t gung-ho for a nanny-state, they sure didn’t try very hard to avoid one.

I’m a lot (a LOT) older than you and I think the American people would sell their birthright for a set of ‘free’ dentures.

Did you know that 35% of the fed budget is spent on old people? That we spend about $27,000 for each old person in America? You got sold into serfdom becuase some old lady wants you to pay for her little motorized scooter. You’re fucked, dude, and you don’t even know it.

Who!

[quote]pat wrote:
I have don’t actually have a problem with him, but he’s already lost and the stakes are to high with nimrods like osama and shrillary competing for the big seat to waste votes.[/quote]

So, if you vote for someone who is almost certainly going to lose, your vote is… wasted? Could someone please explain this to me? You’re implying that a vote for a candidate who is likely to win is somehow more potent than a vote for a candidate who is certain to lose. 1 vote = 1 vote.

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.[/quote]

He claims there is only one way to interpret the Constitution: His.

He claims to understand history while claiming the Founding Fathers were non-interventionalists.

He makes absurd claims about what Lincoln should have done.

The Gold Standard.

Alienating his party.

Fortress America.

His pedantic psycho-babble.

He takes money from gullible children. He’s going to retire on their parents’ money.

Hope I’ve helped.

JeffR

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
He’s a nut job who thinks eliminating the federal government will make all of our problems vanish. He’s a social conservative, despite claiming to be for maximum personal freedom. And, most importantly, he’s already lost.

You haven’t been here very long, have you?

This thread will either be ignored (because we’ve gone through this shit so many times), or it’ll be bombed by the rationale peeps, with HH chiming in occasionally.

If they are ‘rationale’, can I be ‘rational’? Actually, if you believe that the square root of 2 exists, then you are not rational. (LOL!)

Beowolf, its interesting — I deal with 17 year olds all day and you appear to be much more mature and logical than just about any of them. Are you good at math (j/c)?

Anyhoo, De Tocqueville describes why RP can’t win — Americans actually love a dictatorship, provided they get to vote for the dictators. Americans, most anyway, despise freedom and want a nanny state. So, RP had no chance.

Ack. Since ‘rationale’ is technically a word, my spell check didn’t recognize the typo.

And yes, I think I’m pretty good at math. I’ve got a low 90 in Calc at least.

I think most Americans don’t want a nanny state in some ways, and want it in others. Some want the government to help people, some to restrict people, some want it do help them specifically. The overall thought, though, is, yes, the people want the government to do SOMETHING. And, as a democratic society, the government is doing a lot of things, because we can’t agree on what it should be doing.

That’s the beauty of democracy. Despite the government trying to do so much, it works so slowly that it doesn’t do nearly as much as it could if it were focusing. And, in the end, almost everything it tries to do ends up busted in some way or another.

This is why I can see where the “federal anarchists” are coming from. I just think that the system that exists now would work better than nothing at all.
[/quote]

beowolf,

Note: Calculus isn’t math.

It’s an absurdity.

JeffR

P.S. I still have nightmares about that crap. Sorry, for the rant.

In this case, you’re essentially voting after the election is over for RP - it’s mathematically impossible for him to win the number of delegates necessary to get the GOP nomination. Really, it’s the same argument as against anyone else left in the Republican primaries except McCain - though one or two of the others would have a shot in a brokered convention, which distinguishes them from RP.

If you’re referring to the general election, the idea is you’re wasting your vote if you don’t vote for a candidate with some realistic chance of winning, which means voting for either the Democratic or Republican nominee. This is particularly true if you have any preference whatsoever between the two candidates with realistic chances of winning - you vote for the one you prefer, or you “waste” your chance to affect that contest.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Weasel42 wrote:
In 100 words or less, describe why you didn’t or will not cast your vote for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

He claims there is only one way to interpret the Constitution: His.

He claims to understand history while claiming the Founding Fathers were non-interventionalists.
[/quote]
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” - George Washington’s Farewell Address

Our current foreign policy is NOT SUSTAINABLE. But you know that. Why should the world be our protectorate?

Eh.

He’s not an isolationist. Trade with all, alliance with none. Refusing to intervene in other country’s internal affairs in a military capacity would make us just like every other country in the world.

I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about here. If you’re talking about the congressional pension program, he is not enrolled.