Obama vs. Ron Paul

Obama vs. Ron Paul

Previous Entry Add to Memories Share
August 2011
This seems like a good summary of what it means to pick Obama over Ron Paul:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
- http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

I was wondering what reasons people had to object to Ron Paul being president. I found a couple. They don't terrify me nearly as much as the alternatives. The linked source has lots of references, which I have not checked.
  • i would almost bet a donut (because i'm not much of a betting man), that if ron paul won the presidency, that he would not live out his term, as he would be such a threat to the entire system, that "they" would take him out. the system could never tolerate him as he would dismantle it, as much as possible.

    can you imagine that if he succeeded in even a few small things? paying less than a third of your current taxes? not having to engage in strip searches to ride a plane or a train or a bus? not being detained indefinitely because someone who could took a disliking to you?

  • Ron Paul would make me carry my rapist's baby to term. I can't support that.
    • I can understand and respect that position. I think it's unforgivable that Ron Paul is pro life. But I still think Obama is worse.

      Are you still happy with Obama?

      I'm pretty freaked out about the ever growing size of the federal government, wars over foreign oil, bailouts, disregarding of the constitution, surveillance state, and I think Ron Paul is the only available possibility for improvement.

      And while Ron Paul is pro lfe, 1) he is opposed to federal legislation against abortion, believing it's a state issue, and 2) he isn't running for state legislature. So he isn't actually going to make you carry your rapist's baby to term, although he could allow your state legislature to make you carry your rapist's baby to term.
  • Long story short, Ron Paul is not electable, for all the reasons you describe. If he were, somehow, I'd be more interested. If the Republicans put up Ron Paul, it's Obama in a landslide. Which I think is a shame, in its way, because I think he's nowhere near as bad as the front runners.
    • I still can't vote against him. I believe the slow degradation resulting from people voting for the lesser of the two most electable evils is the worst possible case. People gradually acclimating to the worst possible government. I'd rather things get worse a little quicker and have some people wake up and do something about it. Other candidates really seem worse than more pointless to vote for.
  • i should like to see a similar paragraph for each and every candidate - that is to say - list their deadlies nice and concisely.

    given than obama supposedly only won by 4%? i can't see anyone supporting him now, based on his deadlies.

  • You can turn that around:
    Will you accept severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the destruction of the Education and Energy Departments, gutting environmental regulations, many more Americans dying because of lack of health insurance, loss of reproductive freedom for women (dying from illegal abortion), return of Jim crow racism, a Supreme Court dominated by right wing extremists, and global economic collapse without a safety net.

    But in return you get in a promise to end the war on terrorism from a candidate with no realistic hope of even winning his party's nomination and thus no hope to actually end the war on terror.
Powered by LiveJournal.com