Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>Awgee, most of the news I heard last night was talking about how heavy the evangelical turnout was. Basically, once again, they are hijacking the nomination process.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Some clown named Michael Medved pointed out that the demographics show that the majority of "evangelicals" voted against Huckabee, and Romney too. 46% of self-identified "evangelicals" voted for the Huckster, while 54% voted for someone else... Medved spins this as a vote "against" the Huckster, rather than "for" another candidate.</p>

<p>Personally, I think we should toss them all overboard and start with a fresh deal from the deck. This group of candidates just sucks.</p>
 
<p>Awgee, I meant by given that tool Huckabee the win.</p>

<p>Nude, if Huckabee only got 34% of the vote but evangelicals turned out in double force compared to the 2004 election. Polls indicate that 60% of Republican caucus goers in Iowa self identified as evangelical.</p>

<p>Simple algebra time.</p>

<p>.46(.6) + y (.4) = .34 </p>

<p>y = 16%. So of non-evangelicals, Huckabees support is a mere 16%. </p>

<p>Hopefully he gets dusted in NH.</p>

<p>Frankly, I wish California would push our primary up, even further. I also favor weight Electoral college distribution by congressional district with the 2 extra going to the statewide popular vote winner.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>Looks to me like the GOP candidates are all scattered about. Its really a jump ball. Religon has no place in politics. Thats part of what has got us in trouble with the rest of the world. What happened to our seperation of church and state anyway ? Huckelberry is a one hit wonder. And since I am a registered tree hugging liberal. Who also owns a handgun. I think things will shake out a bit more over in New Hampshire on Tuesday. In fact I look forward to tonights debate. It seems that the independents on the fence and a significant group of new young voters are moving towards Obama. The momentum is turning in his direction. Heard a spot when I left for the office today that the crowds and the traffic around where Obama was to speak were "Jammed and long lines of supporters waited". Hillary could get her wings clipped on Tuesday night.</p>

<p> Ron Paul had some interesting ideas. But watching him on CSPAN at work causes serious concern. Nobody takes him seriously in our government. They snicker and roll their eyes when he works with his peers. Just too frindge for me.</p>
 
Ok, I forced myself to watch the Republican debate (for a short while) and I'm voting for Ron Paul because he's the only non-panderer. I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell, but I'm voting for him because I absolutely can't stand the rest of them.
 
<p>Um... not to go off on a tangent, but this "seperation of church and state" meme needs a good beating. The First Amendment doesn't disparage religion nor demand that it be something hidden behind closed doors. It guarantees the free exercise of whatever religion you wish to practice and prohibits the establishment of an "Official" religion such as existed in England at the time.</p>

<p>The phrase itself stems from this passage written by Thomas Jefferson <strong>in 1802</strong>:<em> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."</em> Jefferson isn't advocating the complete abolition of religion from politics, but qualming the concerns of a small group of Baptists in Danbury, CT that they were indeed free to practice their faith without fear of local, state, or federal interference.</p>

<p>Religion has as much of a place in politics as science, economics, healthcare, welfare, international diplomacy, education, and any other aspect of the human experience. The Governement, as an entity, has no right to compel you to worship or profess a belief, but that does not mean that you have the right to demand that no on can consider their religious views when voting or in the exercise of their duties as an elected politician. Politicians make decisions based on their 'beliefs' every day, whether that belief is that the mass transit is better for us than freeways or that Life is a Gift from some Diety. If you don't like the ideas of a politician because they are based in thier faith, then don't vote for them. But you have no right to deny them the right to express those views, nor act in accordance with them once in office, and Jefferson himself would scoff at the idea.</p>
 
I believe that the automobile comparison with gun is a valid point. Why shoudn't gun owners be required to pay an insurance premium to own a gun to pay for 'accidents'? In tandem with regular gun related crime laws, the cost prohibitive nature of insurance premiums could deter some to buy smaller caliber guns, or not even own one as it may not as necessary as owning a car for instance, guess only rich folks can own guns...... let them kill each other....
 
Separation of church and state is almost impossible to avoid as a polarizing issue in this country, as trooper's statement verifies that most individuals, religious or non, cannot separate the two, without a change in social psychology, its a moot topic, just like a lot of social issues we try to legislate in this country (racial/sexual/age/physical/mental discrimination). You can have all the best social programs in the world, the homeless issue will no go away, blacks and whites will not come together, pro-life ppl will still bomb planned parenthood etc... Social issues are a question of tolerance, we are our 'brother's keeper' comes to mind... politicians should be crucified (pardon the pun) for even mentioning thier religion when they are campaigning if the separation of church and state amendment holds true, the minute the word 'enter any religion here' is muttered, it begin to polarize voters who cannot separate politics from religion, and the more important issues that the govt can solve to help the fellow man are out the window, we begin to argue about ridiculous things like abortion and marriage rights for gays, abortion is a woman's right, no woman wants to destroy thier own bodies, I don;t care what you like to claim them be 'murderers' or what not, every woman that I have known who have had an abortion will regret it, but that does not mean we should take that right away from them, rising teenage pregnancy is a breakdown in todays parental responsibility, as with a lot of todays social ills, parents today expect the TV and teachers to teach kids everything, child care to feed and nurse them, disney movies for morality, I see see 'C's in their kids report cards and say 'good job, keep it up, as long as you graduate you'll be in good shape'





Back to Ron Paul, he ultimately stands for things that a govt should do, not polarizing the nation so you can get votes but deal with issues that effect the common good, his views from a pedeatrician's stand point on abortion raises a lot questions on why we should even legislate abortion, if the woman is not in any condition to raise a child, she'll be judge of it, sure put it up for adoption, what would save all the poor kids, but no, its not trendy to adopt 'local' kids, at least that's what madonna and brangelina says....
 
When it comes to government, freedom of religion means freedom from religion.





In their private lives, they can be as devoutly religious as they want.





Just keep it out of laws.
 
I didn't like the way McCain was smirking when Paul was saying something sensible, but not conventional wisdom. Will anyone who does this also ignore anyone who warns of approaching Black Swans, thus cutting off opposing views?
 
Obviously evangelicals have the right to advocate their religion publicly and to advocate politically for positions in harmony with their religious beliefs. However, they don't have to right to disobey laws, impose religious tests for officeholding, or direct money towards associations with particular religious affiliations. Jimmy Carter was a deeply religious evangelical who made no threats whatsoever toward the separation of church and state. My concern with Huckabee is that he crosses over that line. He denied Medicaid funding for a 15-yo girl who had been raped by her stepfather even though the law for that had been repeatedly upheld by the courts.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E5DF113EF933A2575BC0A960958260



Generally Huckabee doesn't distress me much, even though I'm a liberal atheist. He really does sound like a reasonable man. That one thing really does give me pause - but I'd still prefer him to the wardrum bangers.



Fox's attempt to repress Paul doesn't surprise me in the least. Paul threatens the Republican establishment and Fox News is effectively a propaganda arm of the Republican Party. What do you expect when they are run by an ex-Republican Party chairman? My surprise is that they aren't trying to suppress Huckabee, who is a much more substantial threat by virtue of representing a much larger group, and one which is absolutely critical to the current Republican Party.
 
I know people living in Arkansas. They tell me that they were also concerned about his religion, but like Jimmy Carter, he resisted the temptation to put his religious beliefs into law while governor.
 
FE, are you suggesting Rupert Murdoch is bowing to political pressure while his purchase of the Wall Street Journal awaits government approval?
 
Here's a good Ron Paul Video:


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8">www.youtube.com/watch</a>





Also I agree with the comments above regarding candidates: religion should not be an issue, just like sex, race, etc. Writing this reminds me of sexual harassment training at my work!
 
Murdoch isn't bowing to political pressure. He made the decision to support the Republican party because they support policies that help him. It's a long term policy, at least 10 years old, and not directed at a specific and minor issue like the WSJ approval. He's very pragmatic and in England switched from supporting the Tories to Labor once Labor became amenable to media consolidation and looked likely to win. In the US, he's made contributions to and done fundraisers for Hillary, who is publicly supportive of media consolidation. (I do wonder whether she's carrying some grudges from the 90's, though). If Hillary wins, expect a wrenching change at Fox to conservative Democrat (they still need to be conservative because that's their market). If Paul or Huckabee win, they will rearrange the Republican coalition and Fox might change for that, depending on how the coalitions shake out. Particularly with Huckabee, who's pretty populist, I could see Fox switching to the corporate wing of the Democratic party. Paul is odd because Fox HATES him, but he'd support the policies they want. I assume they're afraid of his effect on the Republican coalition, and don't think he can actually win. If he could somehow win and govern I think Fox would kiss and make up.



I'm encouraged to hear Arkansans are comfortable with Huckabee's use of religion. If nothing else, it's nice to see a conservative Christian who's read the nice parts of the Bible too. Feed the poor and cure the sick? Who'da thunk it?
 
Huckabee makes it an issue when he throws it in everyone's faces at every opportunity he gets (mentioning Christ in a political ad? whooooooa there partner).





Like I said, he can be as faithful and church going as he wants in his personal life, but it has no business in the political spectrum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top