Ron Paul Campaign Updates

"As the Club for Growth describes here, Ron Paul has opposed virtually all free trade agreements. Few ideas are more fundamental to libertarianism than free trade."

And this is where Ron Paul trumps those libertarians who fail to understand Ron Paul on such issues.

Fact: Ron Paul is against free trade agreements because he doesn't consider them free trade.

(Not because he's not for free trade).

In fact most of the points 'against' Paul that you have linked to here make no sense.

Will, you're getting desperate. Stick to believing that Ron Paul can't win, it's your safest option and you won't catch egg on your face. ..unless he actually wins, of course.

Pete

 

Take some responsibility man. If the articles don't make sense to you, ask someone to explain them to you. Read them again, but this time look up each word you don't understand at M-W.com.

Don't just wallow in self-pity. Bite off one specific point which doesn't make sense to you and start a thread about it. The rest of us will try to explain it to you.

We can go through each point, one by one, until you understand them.

 

Ok then Will - you explain to me why those "Libertarians against Ron Paul" you linked to seem to be all for the free trade agreements Ron Paul opposes on the basis that they aren't real free trade (i.e. they're managed).

Then we can go from there.

Pete

 

"Managed free trade" isn't free trade.

 

Pete:

Free Trade Agreements are an important step towards free trade. They represent a massive improvement over the previous systems. They represent "more freedom" as opposed to "less freedom."

Ron Paul is opposed to "more freedom" and prefers "less freedom" in practice. Although Ron Paul makes big talk about supporting some sort of almost religious perfect freedom in some sort of mystical future, what he is really doing in the here and now is supporting nationalist protectionism. Of all of the candidates, Ron Paul appears to be the most adept at doublespeak.

This is spelled out in much more detail in Presidential White Paper #7: Ron Paul: The Perfect as the Enemy of the Good.

Free Trade

Free trade is a vital policy for maximizing economic growth. In recent decades, America’s commitment to expanding trade has resulted in lower costs for consumers, job growth, and higher levels of productivity and innovation.

Ron Paul has opposed many free trade agreements during his time in Congress:

• Voted against Fast Track Authority
• Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile
• Voted against free trade with Singapore
• Voted against free trade with Australia
• Voted against CAFTA
• Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement
• Voted against the Oman trade agreement
• Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam

While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government’s role in the process, arguing that “We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do.” His philosophical support for free trade is evidenced by his support for legislation lifting overnment-imposed trade barriers, such as the Cuba embargo, and legislation allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs.

Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that “tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,” but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul’s rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress’s worst protectionists.

​

Listen to Paul's own words: “We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do.” -- It is difficult to find a better example of doublespeak. The question is about free trade and he shifts the top in mid-sentence to taxes.

Paul is correct when he says “tariffs are simply taxes on consumers” -- but he then votes against decreasing those taxes!

So Pete, which do you want? Real freedom or theoretical freedom? Do you want words or do you want actions? Ron Paul's words speak for freedom, but his actions speak loudly against freedom.

Words are cheap Pete. You can buy 500 for $5 in the B/S/T section. Actions, those are more important, more expensive, and more trustworthy as a guide to a persons character. Ron's actions clearly show his character as being divorced from his words.

Frankly, Ron Paul has been one of my favorite Congress critters for many years. He's a complete nutter. As a Congressman, that's refreshing and funny.

As a President, on the other hand, that's a recipe for disaster. I remember well the administration of our last completely impractical president, Jimmy Carter. I have no desire to relive the experience of those years.

 

Will, you should read the article I referenced in post #419. It's from the Financial Post, one of Canada's most respected financial newpapers:

The links you posted that were critical of Ron Paul were not very substancial. One argues about his impact on Libertarianism. Another's states up front that the main problem is his "non-electability".

These are not relevant criticisms. What is relevant is that he is head and shoulders a better option than any of the other poseurs on the ballot.

That was really weak stuff Will.

 

I cannot fathom how you could possibly come to that conclusion after reading and understanding the material presented.

Which Ron Paul? The Ron Paul of words or the Ron Paul of actions?

Do you really want to vote for a candidate who is opposed to freedom, while mouthing support for it?

 

well that logic would kind of eliminate ALL the candidates wouldn't it?

 

As an aside note, it's kind of scary how cultish this thread and this whole campaign is becoming.

Even Hillary's Lezbots sound less weird than the Paulina's -- and are more open to reason.

I hope there's not some weird mass suicide event when Grandpa Ron finally admits that the country doesn't want him.

And no I DON'T WANT A FLOWER!

 

Will, the reason you can't "fathom" my conclusion is evident in your questions. You have a clear misunderstanding of the basis/reasoning for Ron Paul's voting record. His voting record is consistent with his words and lifelong political convictions.

 

Will has been replied to here,
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5753238&postcount=47

I recommend everyone respond to Will there, so that he doesn't continue trampling the Update Thread. I'm sure he was just confused about blog posts from months ago being campaign updates and was unsure and lacking confidence about starting a new thread to discuss his issues and worries.

 

I see Grim has replied to Will here,
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5753303&postcount=48

and I have another response for Will there as well,
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5753407&postcount=49

C'mon Will, join the discussion.

 

You mean like Paul's “opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution", which didn't in any way prevent him for voting $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association’s Urban Center; $129,000 for the “perfect Christmas tree project;” $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the South Carolina
Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.30

In 2007, Paul requested more than sixty earmarks from taxpayer funds for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state’s shrimp industry.

All of those are "appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution" -- and all of those are just vote buying like any other dirty politician out there.

In fact, Paul was measurably more corrupt than the average Republican Congress critter. He scored 29% on his RePORK card, as opposed to an average of 43% for his party.

Worse, he was embarrassingly shown up by Jim Cooper (D-TN), who scoredj a 98%.

I'm sure Paul has some flim-flam fast-talk to justify all of this recklessness with your money, but with his record I'm not sure that I'm willing to believe what he has to say.

 

Bernard, are you going to reply to Will's pork comments in the other thread, or would you like me to?

I'll post updates once Will is done trampling this thread.

 

That's the trouble with high ranking DP "crazy gang" members, they will always try and trash threads mate.

 

From your own source Will:

Ron Paul's Record on Economic Issues

This is my last response to you in this thread. If you would like to argue about Ron Paul's character, policy or platform, please start a new thread. This one is supposed to be for campaign updates. Thank you.

 

Ahh... I see that the Moonies... I mean the Paulies have circled their wagons against the threat of truth.

It's good to know just how much fear a little truth can create in the "true believers."

 

Will, plenty of truth has been posted to the other thread. By calling posters "moonies", you've lost the high ground by resorting to name calling.

3 Responses have been posted to you in another thread. We're waiting for you to answer for your positions, and apparently flawed sources.

Thanks, see you there.

 

I respond well to bribery. No other form of coercion has a good history with me.

 

I see you don't seem to respond to calls for your principled integrity either.

Will you stand by your comments and answer them in the other thread? I never thought you would execute a cut and run strategy, but then I have been winning so many debates with you lately, I suppose it is only natural that you have lost your taste for discussion when I am involved in rebutting erroneous remarks.

Waiting for your responses here Will,
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=610070

Take another crack at matching wits with me. You might win, after all, "On any given Sunday...."