• Ron Paul Answers questions submitted by Reddit (in person)
    61 replies, posted
Ron Paul answered a load of questions submitted to him by Reddit users [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT7ZSR_AjHc[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucLsqan1qKk[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrYh-5tuWyM[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kTAZamfLfs&[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gSpNn7gSEc[/media] Watch them and stop bitching about what you think or don't think he supports, its all there for you now.
Watching, does he bring up ACTA and legalization? [B]Edited:[/B] Oh and reddit hate bandwagon inbound.
[QUOTE=l l;34556561]Watching, does he bring up ACTA and legalization? [B]Edited:[/B] Oh and reddit hate bandwagon inbound.[/QUOTE] Who cares if random Facepunchers say they hate Reddit
Good that he is reaching out like this, but I still wouldn't vote for him if I could.
Too liberal for republican voters. Too republican for liberal voters. He's fighting a losing battle to be honest. I don't agree with most of his policies anyway.
[QUOTE=l l;34556561]Watching, does he bring up ACTA and legalization? [B]Edited:[/B] Oh and reddit hate bandwagon inbound.[/QUOTE] Lots of FPers go on reddit, even if they don't want to admit it. Ever go to LMAO Pics? Lots of it is from reddit.
To all the people who say they dont support ron paul, what other politician would directly answer internet questions, including controversial ones? (hint obama) Besides, would you prefer Romney, Newt, or Santorum? In before another idiot says obama, worry about that when the nominations are over.
[QUOTE=Pace.;34556662]To all the people who say they dont support ron paul, what other politician would directly answer internet questions, including controversial ones? (hint obama) Besides, would you prefer Romney, Newt, or Santorum? In before another idiot says obama, worry about that when the nominations are over.[/QUOTE] How about we vote for none of them and vote for a third party instead? They do exist you know.
[QUOTE=Pace.;34556662]To all the people who say they dont support ron paul, what other politician would directly answer internet questions, including controversial ones? (hint obama) Besides, would you prefer Romney, Newt, or Santorum? In before another idiot says obama, worry about that when the nominations are over.[/QUOTE] Hey, the crazier the republican, the less likely the swing voters are to vote for them when they go up against obama.
At this point, it's pretty much Romney vs Obama, right? You guys really need a third choice. Obama is pretty good, but maybe it's time for a third party to win the election.
[QUOTE=Pace.;34556662] Besides, would you prefer Romney, Newt, or Santorum? In before another idiot says obama, worry about that when the nominations are over.[/QUOTE] why do i have to prefer any of them? you have to be part of the republican party in order to nominate a candidate for them. [editline]5th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=VistaPOWA;34556758]At this point, it's pretty much Romney vs Obama, right? You guys really need a third choice. Obama is pretty good, but maybe it's time for a third party to win the election.[/QUOTE] most states don't even have third parties on the ballot.
My problem with Ron paul is that either he's right, or else he's totally off in my opinion. Many of his stances works only if it's the ideal - the thing about healthcare for example, there would need to be competition. He's also comparing the US to Mexico in regard to having symbolic money in more stable resources, but I don't think you [I]can[/I] compare Mexico and the US, as they're are enomically pretty different nations. About gay marriage, he's taking it as a economic, very objective issue, while it is rather a case of discrimination. I don't necessarily believe that the church should be able to marry gay couples, if they don't wish to, but if the church can't decide whether they want to do it or not, the state will have to impose an alternative, so that they are at least objectical viewed equal.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;34556815]My problem with Ron paul is that either he's right, or else he's totally off in my opinion. Many of his stances works only if it's the ideal - the thing about healthcare for example, there would need to be competition. He's also comparing the US to Mexico in regard to having symbolic money in more stable resources, but I don't think you [I]can[/I] compare Mexico and the US, as they're are enomically pretty different nations. About gay marriage, he's taking it as a economic, very objective issue, while it is rather a case of discrimination. I don't necessarily believe that the church should be able to marry gay couples, if they don't wish to, but if the church can't decide whether they want to do it or not, the state will have to impose an alternative, so that they are at least objectical viewed equal.[/QUOTE] I like most of his stances except for his bullshit "lets use gold like in 1913" stuff, which spoils his hype for many. The only reason that I like him right now is A. He seems to be more transparent and trustworthy than any mainstream candidate I could name off the top of my head/prefer him to Romney B. The thrill of campaigning for something (until Obama needs the support thanks to the GOP Romney brainwashing)
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34558383]A. He seems to be more transparent and trustworthy than any mainstream candidate I could name off the top of my head/prefer him to Romney[/QUOTE] That's why I like Paul over the other candidates. He's firm in what he believes in and doesn't cater to lobbyists demands. He also tells things like it is, like the real reason terrorists attacked us in the first place. Obviously, because of those characteristics, that's why he's where he is; I'm surprised he's this popular to begin with. All that said, I would never vote for him. His policies are way too radical or just wouldn't work; but as a person, I support him because he's unlike any other politician.
[QUOTE=Biotic;34556675]How about we vote for none of them and vote for a third party instead? They do exist you know.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul ran for president in '88 as a member of the Libertarian party, so how's them cookies?
[QUOTE=Biotic;34556675]How about we vote for none of them and vote for a third party instead? They do exist you know.[/QUOTE] Vote for this guy then [video=youtube;4d_FvgQ1csE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL72E5CB56DD37DDE7[/video] Or Roseanne Barr, shes running too.
This was made in 2009, by the way. Check the date. [video=youtube;iKAaps6mFYk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKAaps6mFYk[/video]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;34556815]About gay marriage, he's taking it as a economic, very objective issue, while it is rather a case of discrimination. I don't necessarily believe that the church should be able to marry gay couples, if they don't wish to, but if the church can't decide whether they want to do it or not, the state will have to impose an alternative, so that they are at least objectical viewed equal.[/QUOTE] Are you sure? Because he's against marriage being a legal institution anyway.
[QUOTE=Biotic;34556675]How about we vote for none of them and vote for a third party instead? They do exist you know.[/QUOTE] That's even more of a losing battle from how I see it.
[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;34559431]This was made in 2009, by the way. Check the date.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul's stances have always been the same -- he doesn't flip-flop. He probably entertained running again for the 2012 election by that time.
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34559513]Ron Paul's stances have always been the same -- he doesn't flip-flop. He probably entertained running again for the 2012 election by that time.[/QUOTE] His stance on things hasn't/never changed for a very long time now for example: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCxDrfs4GtM[/media]
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;34559567]His stance on things hasn't/never changed for a very long time now for example: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCxDrfs4GtM[/media][/QUOTE] the host died of lung cancer in 2001
[QUOTE=Stick it in her pooper;34559619]the host died of lung cancer in 2001[/QUOTE] As much as the host angered me, that's pretty sad.
[QUOTE=The golden;34559754] The only middle-ground stance he has is that he says he doesn't want the government involved in marriages. While a somewhat noble thing to say, that just means marriage is going to be left to be dictated by communities, many of which are hyper-conservative and are just going to ban it anyway.[/QUOTE] The thing is that [I]marriage[/I] shouldn't have any effect in government. Civil unions should. We've had this idea thrown around for ages that gay [i]marriage[/i] is what's necessary, but it shouldn't be. The marriage aspect is purely religious- the part that's important is the state 'marriage' (or marriage of state), the civil union. Yes it's discriminatory to deny marriage, but that's a religious concept (even though it started out otherwise, but that's irrelevant). What people like Paul are saying is that it's not his place to decide marriage. It is his place to decide who has access to the benefits and recognition of a civil union, and if those benefits are equal. "If two people want to call themselves married, they can do that...and that's okay as long as they don't impose their relationship on others.." The real issue isn't gay marriage, it's that the state recognizes the civil union equally. And again we come to a problem, and that is that Paul would not support the civil union of homosexuals, because he would not support benefits of union at all, more or less- and putting that up to the states, we all know how many states have legal and equal homosexual civil unions/marriages of state. And that's the real issue, and how it differs from what Paul is saying. Paul is talking about marriage in the religious sense, recognized by government. What the real issue needs to be is a marriage of state, that starts at the state. Either way he has an incorrect stance, but this is the libertarian separation of marriage and partnership. Equal ability for relationship for everyone, with no government regulation on that- no benefits from any relationship, is basically the common stance- but then there's people like Paul who would decide to let states determine their own policies on both marriage and state marriage/civil union. And that's the problem. [editline]5th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=The golden;34559915]I have a feeling the people that are all over Ron Paul like this haven't actually read his policies.[/QUOTE] As much as I hate his policies, (and I do), I would like to see him be a major influence in a presidential election at least once, in part because we do need honest politicians, but mostly because it's highly important, in my mind, that we int he states begin to move away from the moderates and centrists that we always support, who act as all-encompassing watered-down version of the left and the right, promoting the constant vagueness and lack of actual progress on either side. Because both parties are expected to cater to everyone on their side of the political spectrum, save the extremes, they are always vague, can hardly get anything through, even in their own party, and can't seem to get a coherent worldview worth shit. Case in point: This year's Republican candidates. You had 2 strict conservatives (Bachmann and Santorum), 2 moderates (Romney and Perry), a neocon (Gingrich), and a libertarian (Paul), all in the same race, all in the same party.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34556766] most states don't even have third parties on the ballot.[/QUOTE] One of the biggest shortcomings of the American political system. Being independent is pretty much dooming yourself to irrelevancy.
Look, I like Ron Paul as a person and a politician. He's a rare person to have running for office. He has a wonderfully intelligent view on forign policy and deficit spending But sadly, it's really REALLY hard for me to want to vote for someone as crazy as he is. I like liberatarianism in certain cases and areas - but Ron Paul is a die-hard. The fact that he thinks it would have been a good idea to never do the Interstate highway system, or have government funded roads at all is insanely batshit crazy. The fact that he thinks global warming is pretty much a non-issue is pretty crazy too (though I can appreciate how he is honest with him not liking to mix that type of political issue with ACTUAL politics). He is against 100% all government spending - not just a trimmed down government or a government that has all the bullshit bloat cut away (which I can appreciate)- BUT a government that is 100% against ALL spending. That is fucking retarded. Under his ideal system, we'd basically be back to basically be industrial revolution conditions, one of the lowest points in a capitalist society. Oh sure you could say the government wasn't very bad then - but the living conditions were. He puts too much trust into the private sector to the point that I bet he supports essential public works like roads, firemen, police, etc to never be government involved (basically everywhere would be wild west all over again). Which is just insane. I admit, I'd like to see him elected if only to see what he'd do, but I can't say I'd vote for him. I don't think he'd be able to get away with privitizing education and police and such, but he'd probably be able to get away with his better and more publically supported ideas.
What other possible candidate in the WORLD would do a full blown Q and A with reddit.
[QUOTE=Laferio;34561353]What other possible candidate in the WORLD would do a full blown Q and A with reddit.[/QUOTE] Any candidate that desperately needs votes, probably.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;34559447]Are you sure? Because he's against marriage being a legal institution anyway.[/QUOTE] I might have misunderstood something, but isn't there legal and economic repercussions regarding marriage in the US? Like sharing money and such?
WILL HE CREATE JOBS THO?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.