ron paul for president

[TheWB18]

How would abstaining from imprisoning (mostly black) people for non-violent exchanges, violently busting into people's homes and shooting their dogs and in some cases kids, stopping peaceful people going about their life and searching them under dodgy pretenses be rough? It seems like it would make people's lives easier in the short term.

We don't have to do it overnight but let's start by picking the low hanging fruit. Those would be the saddening human rights abuses that are tied up in policing the "war on drugs".

You seem to think that the only thing necessary to successfully end prohibition is a pen stroke.

I don't think that at all, though I think Ron Paul could politically get away with vetoing the crap out of everything that crosses his desk. Whereas Obama can't do that politically (despite, supposedly, being forced to sign off on icky legislation to get the, supposed, good legislation through (wasn't that the case on the SOP stuff?)). 

I agreed with your assessment earlier which is why I never replied to it. I'm talking purely hypothetically here as I completely agree with you that the political machinations it would take to make it happen are huge. This being the case, I don't see how it makes sense NOT to elect someone who is for the same things as you. No matter how nonviable they are in the short term.

I guess the question is, is Ron Paul a feasible candidate?

This is why the U.S. system right now is so terrible.  It's a two party state, and it perpetuates itself because people actively wonder 'hmm, if I vote for this 3rd party guy, who is only polling 1% and can't win, or for this underdog candidate who's getting 4% in his primary, then am I wasting my vote?  Within primaries, even, we tend to try to narrow choices to 1 or 2 candidates, the frontrunners, and then pick the lesser of two evils.

We don't really vote for who we want these days, we vote for who we'd rather settle for.

[Frozencat99]

How would abstaining from imprisoning (mostly black) people for non-violent exchanges, violently busting into people's homes and shooting their dogs and in some cases kids, stopping peaceful people going about their life and searching them under dodgy pretenses be rough? It seems like it would make people's lives easier in the short term.

We don't have to do it overnight but let's start by picking the low hanging fruit. Those would be the saddening human rights abuses that are tied up in policing the "war on drugs".

You seem to think that the only thing necessary to successfully end prohibition is a pen stroke.

I don't think that at all, though I think Ron Paul could politically get away with vetoing the crap out of everything that crosses his desk. Whereas Obama can't do that politically (despite, supposedly, being forced to sign off on icky legislation to get the, supposed, good legislation through (wasn't that the case on the SOP stuff?)). 

I agreed with your assessment earlier which is why I never replied to it. I'm talking purely hypothetically here as I completely agree with you that the political machinations it would take to make it happen are huge. This being the case, I don't see how it makes sense NOT to elect someone who is for the same things as you. No matter how nonviable they are in the short term.

Prohibition is one of only a few things I agree with Ron Paul on. Also, while I know he is for the legalization/decriminalization of drugs on principle, I'm not fully informed on whether or not he knows how many systems he'd have to bankroll and support in order for it to work. Not to mention that, since he cannot ex post facto free current prisoners, he'd also have to channel a lot of short-term money into drug rehabilitation plans within the prison system (something I haven't seen mentioned by him personally, nor by many prohibition proponents).

[Keuka]

You can't have your Wikipedia and eat it, too, Frozencat if you continue to try to cop an authoritative air.

South Korea prohibits drugs yet you don't see nor hear of any violent shootings over drugs here.  I'd say that the prohibition of drugs is working for South Korea.  South Korea is quite strict on drugs, much more so than the US and the general numbers of Christians and Catholics is relatively the same.

Interestingly,  there are probably more recreational drug users in the US than at any other time in its history.  I'd say that this dynamic is driving the anti prohibition talk in the US and elsewhere.

[Frozencat99]

Again, Wikipedia is fine for non-academic purposes, so long as articles are sourced. I could equally have gone to the pages, gone to the cited source, and posted that.

However, Wikipedia is blacked out right now, so you seem to have gotten what you wanted for now.

You don't hear about drug violence in Korea? Did you forget about this one?

Once I was home sick from work.  I heard three popping sounds come from the alley behind my apartment building.  At first I thought that they were firecrackers but then I decided they might have been gunshots.  They were gunshots.  I looked out and saw a guy laying face down in the alley.  I yelled, "Are you OK?" He didn't answer nor did he move.  I grabbed the phone and called 911.  It was just like a scene out of a crime drama.  The PD swooped in and more police officers than I have ever seen in one place filled the alley.  It had been a pot deal that had gone bad and one of them had pulled a gun and shot the other in the back as he tried to run away.  The police went door-to-door looking for the gunman.  That was not a good afternoon. When I went down to look at the scene,  the police on the scene told me to stand back, or else I would be on TV, which I did not want, because I had been the first one to call 911.  The police spread out and set up a block or so perimeter but the gunman got away.  A guy, whose living room window was alley level had seen the whole thing, and he looked like he wanted to be sick. 

[Keuka]

Frozencat, I'm not trying to get personal with you.  I'm just disputing some of what you have written.  No, it's not what I want.  You're trying to put words in my mouth.  I don't use Wikipedia to quote things, but I do use it to look up quick general information so I can search for it elsewhere.  If you do that's fine. 

I hear about drug offenses every now and then on the Korean news, or other people tell me about them, like everyone else.  I don't think you've been here very long.  There was a big marijuana scare among some foreign teachers a couple of years ago. 

I'm not trying to preach or change anyone.  Cigarettes, alcohol, recreational drugs and other drugs are not always good for you with the exception of when your physician gets it right and prescribes the right combination you need for whatever medical illness or condition you have.  Even aspirin, which I grew up taking, is dispensed by pharmacists here in Korea unlike buying it over the countery in the US.  Everything you eat or put into your body changes or affects your body chemistry.  I am not for those that do not change things for the better.   I want to live life to the fullest and not to the least.

[Frozencat99]

What are you disputing, though? The Wikipedia citations were for general knowledge examples, or to give general knowledge for the terms I use (I generally toss out a Wikipedia reference to recidivism rather than a dictionary definition because the linked knowledge builds understanding). I'm not taken what you're saying personally, I'm just wondering what you're disputing.

I find Wikipedia as faulty as anyone else whose gone through a degree but using it as a resource base (so long as you confirm the sourced information yourself) is certainly a good thing.

I am entirely against the policing of what people to do themselves. That's about as libertarian as I get, though. As unlikely as it is that someone's opinion will change on here, its always worthwhile to discuss and understand differing viewpoints.

As for the original topic, I am always confused by Ron Paul's drug policy. As terrible as this website is (in format, layout, and content), at least its sourcing seems reasonable: http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Things like "Ban Federal Funding for Needle-Exchange Programs" but supporting the "Distribution of Sterile Syringes to Reduce AIDS and Hepatitis"...

And I thought I enjoyed playing both sides of the fence.

[Frozencat99]

Things like "Ban Federal Funding for Needle-Exchange Programs" but supporting the "Distribution of Sterile Syringes to Reduce AIDS and Hepatitis"...

And I thought I enjoyed playing both sides of the fence.

This is pretty simple to understand. He is for people voluntarily handing out needles, he is against the federal govt funding it. If the feds are funding it, he is probably against it. Easy to remember.

With logic like that, it's pretty simple to understand why he won't be president. I suppose it should be up to the States should each decide if they want to have hepatitis and AIDS prevention.

[Keuka]

Thanks, Frozencat, for that quick link to Ron Paul's proposals. 

You're a slipperycat, though.  Who do you work for politically?  You exhibit way too much polished coaching to be the typical political sidewalk superintendent, criminology major, political junkie, etc.

I'm not a big fan of the NRA in general.  Guns are a privilege and not a right.  Allowing airlines to set their own passenger gun policies could easily end up in chaos and a few airliners limping back to an airport, or going down when shots pierced the cabin walls. 

I also think it would be a good idea to allow convicted felons access to federal financial aid, if they have the will and ability to go to college or university to build up their lives in a  more constructive manner.   They, too, should be able to borrow money, which they may have difficulty paying off later after they graduate. 

[Frozencat99]

Things like "Ban Federal Funding for Needle-Exchange Programs" but supporting the "Distribution of Sterile Syringes to Reduce AIDS and Hepatitis"...

And I thought I enjoyed playing both sides of the fence.

This is pretty simple to understand. He is for people voluntarily handing out needles, he is against the federal govt funding it. If the feds are funding it, he is probably against it. Easy to remember.

With logic like that, it's pretty simple to understand why he won't be president. I suppose it should be up to the States should each decide if they want to have hepatitis and AIDS prevention.

There are other ways of providing hepatitis and AIDS prevention.

On the one hand, yes, there are. The major one being safe-sex education (that's left to the States already)... the problems with that are already visible.

On the other hand, so what? Would it not be more effective to fund as many prevention methods as possible to tackle such drastic problems?

I really wish the US would tackle something like http://supervisedinjection.vch.ca/research/research (linked to the research page for sources and information, but feel free to browse around).

Keuka, my only employer is EPIK. 

[Yu_Bumsuk]

The poll stats keep getting more and more interesting. In a three-way race for president one poll found he'd get 18% of the vote and sink Romney's bid. Head-to-head against Obama he'd lose 49-41%. He's basically polling tied for second nationally in the GOP primaries. And yet today I read a two-page article about the SC primary that didn't mention him once. What are the papers going to write about when the Texas primary comes round, he's the only challenger left, and it looks like he might very well beat Romney? I guess they'll just ignore it and focus on Romney vs Obama?

What the media seems especially keen to overlook is how well he's doing amongst young voters. If this suggests a trend, in ten years Rand Paul might be up significantly across the board and the possibility of Washington and Wall Street getting cleaned up / out could be a real possibility.

[TheWB18]

What the media seems especially keen to overlook is how well he's doing amongst young voters. If this suggests a trend, in ten years Rand Paul might be up significantly across the board and the possibility of Washington and Wall Street getting cleaned up / out could be a real possibility.

Interesting point.  I had never really considered where all of this would put Rand.  If Ron Paul does well and his son uses the momentum in another 4 years, that'd be the most meteoric rise in politics since...I dunno, Barack Obama?

[Yu_Bumsuk]

What the media seems especially keen to overlook is how well he's doing amongst young voters. If this suggests a trend, in ten years Rand Paul might be up significantly across the board and the possibility of Washington and Wall Street getting cleaned up / out could be a real possibility.

Interesting point.  I had never really considered where all of this would put Rand.  If Ron Paul does well and his son uses the momentum in another 4 years, that'd be the most meteoric rise in politics since...I dunno, Barack Obama?

Except 'change' would have some meaning, and not be a cliche for fools 'to believe in'.

[woman-king]

The poll stats keep getting more and more interesting. In a three-way race for president one poll found he'd get 18% of the vote and sink Romney's bid. Head-to-head against Obama he'd lose 49-41%. He's basically polling tied for second nationally in the GOP primaries. And yet today I read a two-page article about the SC primary that didn't mention him once. What are the papers going to write about when the Texas primary comes round, he's the only challenger left, and it looks like he might very well beat Romney? I guess they'll just ignore it and focus on Romney vs Obama?

What the media seems especially keen to overlook is how well he's doing amongst young voters. If this suggests a trend, in ten years Rand Paul might be up significantly across the board and the possibility of Washington and Wall Street getting cleaned up / out could be a real possibility.

I'm not a fan or supporter, but what I think gets overlooked about him--and what I find most interesting--is how I believe he's managed to pull not only from the very hard right, but also, from what I can tell, from the very hard left with his anti-war or at least anti-interventionist stance.  (And him criticizing the war on drugs, I think, is another popular-across-the-board stance).  I feel like Rand is seen a bit more mainstream and could get the actual GOP base support (and the donations that come with that) to be an electable candidate.  We shall see.

If Ron Paul does run as an Independent, he'll leave a dent on the race and could pull as many percentage points from Obama as he does from the Republican nominee, if you want to look at it in those terms.  While I won't be voting for him, I think more attention should be given to the way he's been able to attract a demographic of Americans who, despite differing political views with one another, feel disenfranchised or marginalized in some way and believe Paul is paying attention to their concerns and speaking for them.

[w4z]

You can't have your Wikipedia and eat it, too, Frozencat if you continue to try to cop an authoritative air.

South Korea prohibits drugs yet you don't see nor hear of any violent shootings over drugs here.  I'd say that the prohibition of drugs is working for South Korea.  South Korea is quite strict on drugs, much more so than the US and the general numbers of Christians and Catholics is relatively the same.

Interestingly,  there are probably more recreational drug users in the US than at any other time in its history.  I'd say that this dynamic is driving the anti prohibition talk in the US and elsewhere.

Korea also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.  It also has an extremely stagnant, somewhat xenophobic culture.  This doesn't equate to a lack of drug use, but I have yet to see a large counter-culture/ sub-culture here.  Also, alcohol is a drug, and EVERYONE drinks here.  Prohibition isn't working in Korea.  Drug abuse is rampant in the form of alcoholism. 

[Jrong]

How is there 8 pages on a "Ron Paul" thread?

Ron Paul's (or was) a constant source of amusement for late night tv b/c of his arbitrary principled stances that are divorced from human joy and suffering. "Let the puppies burn" sketch, did a great job of getting to the core of what many people intuitively feel is wrong with him and showing how foolish a black/white purist looks in a rainbow-coloured world.

[Conorfdb]

if this man is prevented from running fairly then america is lost..no wonder many of its citizens are choosing/forced to work elsewhere..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1FaLdABFM&feature=related

prevented from running fairly?  o_0

[Hoosier_Jedi]

Why would anyone need to prevent Ron Paul from "running fairly"?  As much as you might like to believe otherwise, he's not going to win, even in a fair contest.  The majority of both American and Republican voters don't actually support what he stands for.  Not when they have to put their money where their mouth is and actually check a name on a ballot (which is the only thing that matters), no matter how many phone surveys anyone conducts.  Ron Paul on the right is like Howard Dean was on the left; just never going to happen in a million years.  You might wish that people did support Paul's policies, or even argue that the world would be a better place if they did, but the majority simply don't want him as president and never will.   And that's that.

Which is not to say that supporting him is futile or anything.  Just his being there in the race gives his opinions a much greater voice than they would otherwise have.  But actually winning?  Not a chance.

In November 2012, you and all of the anti-paulites apologists for the establishment are going to eat your words. I guarantee it. Keep laughing....

Still offering that guarantee?