Negative issues facing Ron Paul's Candidacy

[lawrnk]

Seconding lockage.

This should not be a forum for political debate unless it has to do with guns. I come here to talk about Texas CHL issues, and gun issues in general, not political issues. That's why I hardly visit Arfcom, TFL as well as THR. If that starts happening here, I'll have to find yet another place to discuss guns locally.

The lock requests seem to be popular with staunch Paul supporters. If you look at the title of this sub-forum...it is federal, what's going on in Washington. The commander in chief (and with primaries 3 days away) is related. Actually, discussion related to the electability of a candidate, and if they support the 2nd is about as spot on topic as one can get.

[yerasimos]

I support Ron Paul, and I hope the moderators keep this thread open as long as we can keep the exchanges civil.

FWIW, near the start of Wikipedia's short bio on George Soros, it claims that Soros endorsed Barack Obama during a BookTV interview on 12 November 2007 (a full week after a major Ron Paul fundraising push), while indicating acceptance of the other top Democrat contenders. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the relevant video on the BookTV website. Trawling Youtube, I saw some videos that claimed that Soros was backing John Edwards. Searching the Open Society Institute's website did not turn up any mention of Ron Paul. I could not find a search feature at georgesoros.com nor moveon.org.

Assuming George Soros is genuine in his opposition to war, I would be only slightly surprised if he cut a check in Ron Paul's direction. That said, Soros would have no more influence on Ron Paul than the neo-Nazi who donated the $500. However, I sense that Soros is reflexively anti-Republican, much as my relatives in DC/Maryland are reflexively anti-Republican and many people here are reflexively anti-Democrat. Soros is surely aware of Paul, but Paul's pro-2A viewpoint and advocacy of a no-frills, Constitution-chained federal government seems to heavily clash with the worldview of the Soros/MoveOn.org crowd. So I am ignoring the McCullough (sp?) blog with the rest of the smear trash that is being posted about Ron Paul.

[KC5AV]

I'd not be shocked to find that many groups/well-connected individuals don't contribute to multiple campaigns just to cover all bases. Soros has probably contributed to just about every campaign in one way or another.

[KBCraig]

Frankly the only things about him I strongly oppose are his views on dealing with Islamic nations, and the death penalty.

You mean you disagree with him calling for the death penalty for terrorists?

[KBCraig]

I did see the reporter and his response on the donation. I don't think he is obligated to return it, but for a few hundred bucks...is it worth it? Hillary gave back almost a million!

The big difference is that Hillary gave back the money because it was illegal.

[lawrnk]

Man, it is such a small world. I was searching for Soros and Paul, and found our very own Liberty's blog discussing it.
I hope that cigar was not a cuban!


Small world.

[KBCraig]

Don't forget, today is the last day of the quarter, and it's time to push the money total above $20 million!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate

[lawrnk]

I did see the reporter and his response on the donation. I don't think he is obligated to return it, but for a few hundred bucks...is it worth it? Hillary gave back almost a million!

The big difference is that Hillary gave back the money because it was illegal.

Much of the money came from many others who were not Hu/Hsu or whatever his name was.

[lawrnk]

Frankly the only things about him I strongly oppose are his views on dealing with Islamic nations, and the death penalty.

You mean you disagree with him calling for the death penalty for terrorists?

No, Actually I would find a way to make them suffer, then burn them at the stake. Are you not aware that Ron Paul is against the death penalty? I think you misunderstood. I am very much FOR the death penalty. I'd like to expand it to include Molesters, Rapists, and Jane Fonda.
http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[lawrnk]

Frankly the only things about him I strongly oppose are his views on dealing with Islamic nations, and the death penalty.

You mean you disagree with him calling for the death penalty for terrorists?

No, Actually I would find a way to make them suffer, then burn them at the stake. Are you not aware that Ron Paul is against the death penalty? I think you misunderstood. I am very much FOR the death penalty. I'd like to expand it to include Molesters, Rapists, and Jane Fonda.
http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I guess you chose not to respond.

Those of you supporting Paul should be aware of his opinion on the death penalty.

[KBCraig]

I guess you chose not to respond.

I wasn't choosing to "not respond", I just haven't had time. But since you brought it up again on my day off, I'm happy to respond.

I had earlier posted a different link from Paul's official site, quoting a 2002 House speech in which he called for enhanced use of the death penalty for terrorists. The link you provided leads to this newer source:
Q: Is the death penalty is carried out justly?

A: Over the years, I've held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor & you're from the inner city, you're more likely to be prosecuted & convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007

It sounds like Paul's view matches my own, exactly. I believe that the death penalty is fitting punishment for certain crimes. I also believe that we must only use it when we know, beyond any doubt, that the accused is guilty; "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't nearly good enough.

And so, I have come to be generally opposed to the death penalty. Not because I oppose the punishment, but because we have overwhelming evidence that innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed. You can set an innocent man free, you can pay him for the years of his life spent in prison, but it's hard to apologize to a grave.

Please note that in this matter, like all others, Paul is restricting his answer to the federal death penalty; he's not going to interfere in state matters. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have only been three federal executions (44 are on federal death row).

I realize the stereotype is that you must favor the death penalty to be tough on crime, and that only pansies oppose it. Truth is, it often takes more courage for a politician to point out that we must not risk executing the innocent.

Please check out the Innocence Project. Did you know that since Craig Watkins took over as Dallas DA, 15 people from that district alone have been exonerated and freed from prison, based on DNA testing that proved their innocence? What would you do if you'd been a juror who condemned a man to death, only to find out later that he was innocent?

Those of you supporting Paul should be aware of his opinion on the death penalty.

Of course we should. I wouldn't want to support a man who believed in killing innocent people.

Kevin

[lawrnk]

I typed a long response, and my browser crudded out on me. A truncated version follows.


The mere fact that Paul is opposed to the death penalty, federal or not is a deal breaker. I am familiar with the very left wing "innocence project" that is no better than the morons at Amnesty International who hug criminals and plant a tree for tommorow. I'll bite my tongue about that as we are delving into neo-lib territory. Yes, innocent people are likely in prison in the US, and an innocent person has probably been wrongfully executed in this country. Of course, God kills mothers and puppies every day for reasons known only to him. The US does not apply the penalty of death often enough. I can think of about 20 crimes that should be automatic death penalty punishments. Red China does one thing right. If convicted of a death penalty offense, you will be executed in 48 hours and your family will be sent a bill for the cost of the bullet. Justice served.


I will not be supporting Paul unless he is the only option against a liberal. The fact that he plans to "pull out" of areas that we police (IE Israel, the Korean DMZ, etc..) is a second deal breaker. The united states "polices" the world because no one else will. When Kuwait was invaded, I imagine the UN would have sent a strongly worded letter. I'm sure it would have prompted a quick retreat. I lived in a home in Safat, Kuwait that was squatted by Iraqi soldiers during the invasion. Ron Paul doesn't know squat about Islam, and it will destroy him in the end. He will never be POTUS. I laugh when he calls the terrorists thugs, and brushes off the fact that state sponsored terrorism is very real. After going to nearly a dozen muslim nations, I found a book called "Preachers of Hate." If you want to know why Paul will never be POTUS, it is a good read.

[KBCraig]

The mere fact that Paul is opposed to the death penalty, federal or not is a deal breaker. I am familiar with the very left wing "innocence project" that is no better than the morons at Amnesty International who hug criminals and plant a tree for tommorow.

So justice is irrelevant? It doesn't bother you in the least that we execute innocent people?

Of course, God kills mothers and puppies every day for reasons known only to him.

I'll leave that to God. I don't pretend to be Him, and I don't presume the omniscience necessary to apply the death penalty without error.

Red China does one thing right. If convicted of a death penalty offense, you will be executed in 48 hours and your family will be sent a bill for the cost of the bullet. Justice served.

Red China is also notoriously relaxed about standards of evidence. They often don't bother with the trial, and just execute people on the spot.

I'm not quite sure what it says, that you prefer the system in a communist dictatorship over the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that he plans to "pull out" of areas that we police (IE Israel, the Korean DMZ, etc..) is a second deal breaker. The united states "polices" the world because no one else will.

It's sad that you believe anyone must "police" other nations, or that what goes on within them is any of our business. The more traditional (and accurate) term for "police action" is "invasion by foreign troops".

Ron Paul doesn't know squat about Islam, and it will destroy him in the end. He will never be POTUS. I laugh when he calls the terrorists thugs, and brushes off the fact that state sponsored terrorism is very real.

Ron Paul has never denied that state sponsored terrorism is real. He points out that it is very real, and made far worse by three things:
- Foreign aid
- Political meddling in other nations' internal affairs
- Initiating military action against other nations

Islam can preach hate all they want, but it only becomes effective when they have very real examples to point to. The hatemongers would have little luck stirring up the group that attacked on 9/11 if they hadn't been able to point to U.S. bases in Saudia Arabia, their holiest of lands.

Ignoring that fact is the true head-in-the-sand approach. "They hate us because we're free" is just ignorant.

[Liberty]

Ignoring that fact is the true head-in-the-sand approach. "They hate us because we're free" is just ignorant.

True, The real reason they hate us is because they consider us a Christian Nation, that gives sanctuary to Jewish peoples.

[KBCraig]

Ignoring that fact is the true head-in-the-sand approach. "They hate us because we're free" is just ignorant.

True, The real reason they hate us is because they consider us a Christian Nation, that gives sanctuary to Jewish peoples.

They might hate us for that reason, but they attacked us because our forces are stationed in the land of Mecca, and occupying neighboring Arab lands.

Rudy Giuliani said he'd "never heard anything so preposterous", which meant he's never read the 9/11 Commission Report, nor the writings of the Michael Scheuer, the former Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden desk.

There are certain neighborhoods where they might hate me because of the color of my skin, but they're unlikely to attack me for that reason alone. But if I should move in, evict some former residents, kill some others, and blare "Dixie" while flying rebels flags, then... yeah, I should expect some repercussions.

International relations are not fundamentally different from personal relationships. If you kick down your neighbor's door, set up camp in their living room, and announce you're there to solve their domestic problems, you should expect some resistance.

Too many Americans are so abysmally ignorant of history, that they have no idea that we've been camped out in other people's living rooms for over a century. And those "other people" are not ignorant of history; history is the basis of their culture and their religion, and the most ignorant goatherd among them can recite his bloodline, and all offenses against his ancestors, going back 600+ years.

<rant>
Ron Paul "doesn't know squat about Islam"? Please. The "just kill 'em all before they kill us!" contingent are those who truly don't know anything about Islam.
</rant>

Kevin