| | Wow...I'm almost sorry that started this thread. I mean, I wanted discussion about the (original) article I'd posted, but I guess I should have known that everyone, on both sides, would bring all of their old arguments into it.
My first post did question Ron Paul's actions (based on the CNN.com report), but it was hardly a "trashing" of the man.
I have never entered into the fray here concerning his presidential run previously.
(For the record: I did not, and do not, support him as President, because as Ted once said, I like him better in Congress, frankly. And I don't hate the Libertarians, either, though I personally disagree with their foreign policy platform.)
What if the wording of statement had been like this, "I encourage everyone to vote for a third party. I do not agree at all with politics of most of the third parties and with the politics of the Libertarian party only to a degree. But I clearly see a grave danger for our republic if we do not restrain the power now exercised by the two major parties and there is no other way."
Had that been his wording, would you have objected? (Steve Wolfer)
No, I would not have objected to that statement at all---provided he'd delivered it right after (or as a preface to) this one: "I have decided that the Republican Party is not where I personally belong, and I am going to rejoin the Libertarian Party, a third party whose ideals most closely align with mine." (Though I'm curious...what part of the Libertarian party platform does he not agree with?)
p.s., Ed's response to Kurt was reasoned and civil. It merited better treatment than Ted gave it. People here at ROR picked up the practice of calling Ron Paul a crackpot from those who want discredit his support of free enterprise. No surprise I guess when the next step is to call anyone that might support Ron Paul a crackpot, even if they are a member of ROR. Next came calling anyone that has a difference of opinion about a post about Ron Paul a crackpot. (Steve Wolfer)
As I said, I haven't really been involved in the other threads of Paul supporters vs. Paul detractors; so I'll have to assume that those other threads are where RoR members called each other crackpots. That is not what happened here.
(And actually the closest it came to that was Ed calling a particular argument that of a "crackpot". And he backed up (pretty well, too) why he felt that way. I had no problem with Ed's information, or even the opinion he gave...just the fact that he was addressing an argument Kurt didn't make...(at least not in this thread, anyway.) Perhaps Ed was addressing opinions given by Kurt somewhere else? I don't know. I believed that was what Ted was addressing as well, but I could be wrong. You'd have to ask him.
I think we should be totally intolerant towards those that do NOT share those basic principles (anarchists, for example) - but this doesn't mean warring with them - it means putting them out and closing the door. (Steve)
I basically agree with this statement...and I love the use of the word intolerant. In fact, that's the reason I couldn't understand why Paul would endorse everybody, including his idealogical enemies. Or why he remains a Republican when he clearly (and publicly) despises them, and the way they help maintain the two-party system. (Or have I misunderstood? Are the guidelines you posted only guidelines for a person's conduct on RoR, and not applicable to Ron Paul and his conduct?)
I watched the video (thanks, Rick.) So now we do know the purpose of his decision. (Remember I asked, is he trying to improve the Republican Party or help create a viable third party system?) It seems he is passionate about creating the third party system. As I said earlier, this is an honorable goal as well. Fine.
So when is his press conference announcing he is officially leaving the Republican Party?
Why should young people go out and vote for third parties when Paul himself won't join one and risk defeat running under their banner?
That was my original question.
I offered the opinion that the degree of a monopoly involved in our two party system justifies running for office on the Republican ticket as long as one is honest about their principles and beliefs with the voters. (Steve)
Steve does not feel that it is hypocritical, and I do understand your position, Steve; I just don't agree with it. I still think Paul is having his cake and eating it, too.
And finally:
I always believed that Ron Paul's supporters (unlike Obama's worshippers) actually do support him because of where he stands (no one can accuse him of being just another pretty face with smooth words, lol.) The people who were excited about him understand and applaud what he's had to say about smaller government, civil liberties, and so on. If he'd come out and said he'd endorse the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr specifically, I would have had much less issue with him. At least it would be in keeping with his own ideals. Though, again---I'd still expect him to publicly rethink remaining a Republican, too.
P.S. I understood Ted's post #28. LOL.
And thanks, Joe, for the kind words.
|
|
