Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

http://torrentfreak.com/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-slams-sopa-111229/

by pawn • 15 years ago

288 297 15 years ago

pawn• 15 years ago

This morning I woke up with an idea to find out what the different presidential hopefuls have said about SOPA. Sadly, this one was the only one I could find...the only one I thought I could guess his stance on.

naz• 15 years ago

This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.

jiggy20117• 15 years ago

As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general.

He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position always seems to basically boil down. "let the free market decide" or "let the individual states decide"

At least he appears consistent in what he says and I'm not necessarily saying he is even wrong about anything in particular. But let's say he was elected president , I can't see him actually doing anything (some might argue this is what the president should be). Let's say there was a national disaster of some kind, what would he do? Just say "we the federal government would help but we would just mess it up , let the free market create a solution"?

j2labs3• 15 years ago

If he became president, you'd likely see him close down many government functions and make strong pushes towards states rights and small federal government.

He is a hero to many because he holds stances that are antiwar and, generally, pro-individual liberty.

I must say that I would be scared of a Paul presidency but I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party.

waffle_ss3• 15 years ago

He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

llambda6• 15 years ago

It's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician should be consistent because they must represent the will of the constituency which elected them, thereby enfranchising those people and validating the institution of democracy." However, that said, consistency can be a burden. Imagine this applied to the startup world. I shudder to think of a founder who is unwavering in their convictions about their business model, i.e. wholly uncompromising. Today things like lean are popular methods that advocate quick iteration as your data changes, nearly the opposite of holding one and only one consistent position. But being dynamic and changing your product as new data are available is arguably a key strategy to avoiding waste and more importantly, producing something people actually want. I suppose then you could argue it really isn't the same as someone like Paul who is advocating for constitutional consistency. But on the other hand the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world. That is to say that the document was written with a certain intent, so long as we respect that essence we should be able to work within that as a framework that isn't wholly limiting to the literal wording; in fact the constitution has already been amended, if that's what it takes to convince purists then maybe that's what should happen. Ron Paul is saying, quite literally, that he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution, i.e. most federal programs should be stopped as they are "illegal".

Duff2• 15 years ago

He says things that politicians don't typically say. The average American politician chants "create jobs" when he orders breakfast.

Paul says things that sound insightful and refreshing on the surface, when heard in terms of a soundbite. Most of his fans don't dig much deeper.

He would be a horrific president, but he's having a positive impact. By speaking his mind and talking about things that don't make it out of the PR machine of the mainstream political parties, he's giving air to important issues.

toyg7• 15 years ago

Among other things, he'd spend his time enacting anti-abortion laws.

ugh• 15 years ago

Part of it is an obsession with being consistent instead of being right.

seanalltogether• 15 years ago

I believe Ron Pauls support comes as a backlash against politicians who have been trained to give certain responses, like for instance Sarah Palin when she was running for Vice President and had absolutely no knowledge of national politics. People don't necessarily agree with every one of Ron Pauls ideals, but at least you believe he has spent a lifetime nurturing those political ideals for himself, rather then having someone coach him.

dkhenry• 15 years ago

What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

makmanalp• 15 years ago

I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this: http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-a...

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

kissickas• 15 years ago

Ron Paul has claimed he didn't write those comments (taken from newsletters a few decades ago) and has renounced them, at least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Inter-congressional_y...

llambda6• 15 years ago

Most worrisome is that while these issues have come to light, in my /very/ limited experience, attempting to broach the issue with Paul supporters has been met with at best dismal and at worst outright irrational anger. In fact I've now been told a number of times that such quotations are falsified, that they've been planted by Paul's detractors. The implication seems to be they're suggesting this is the manifestation of some kind of conspiracy against him. I'm quite honestly baffled that supporters of a purist would allow exceptions... Alternatively, twice I've been told by Paul supporters that they are in fact are not supporters, but rather anarchists (this only comes up in the context of such content as the newsletter debacle).

CWuestefeld11• 15 years ago

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent.

First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context...

But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass, but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it.

It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?) as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers' ideas as guidance.

More discussion of this here: http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-raci...

jterce• 15 years ago

Frankly, anyone who has paid attention to what Paul has actually said or done in the last 20 years knows this in no way represents his views. In fact, quite the opposite, Paul is by far the most open and tolerant in the GOP field. The fact that some people are willing to focus on these says more about them than about Paul.

vaksel2• 15 years ago

it's bs.

he had a 30 year career in politics, if he was really a racist, there'd be some video proof to support it of him actually saying this...or hell anything else to support that...but there isn't

+ then there is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8...

the bottom line, is that if the worst thing that they'd been able to dig up about him, are some comments from ~20 years ago that weren't even written by him...then he is one of the cleanest politicians in generations.

llambda6• 15 years ago

Also this is worth reading[1]. Paul seems to be directly linked to an anti-gay rhetoric that is leading part of his campaign.

[1] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-ant...

Edit: I'm curious to know why anyone would downvote this? When presented with direct evidence, is it really logical to immediately push it away? Oh well...

To the commenter below, if you had read to the second paragraph of the article you would have found this:

'Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.'

cheez8• 15 years ago

That's definitely not official. Might well be a rival. Come on man, use your brain. RP has been reelected over and over.

nirvana7• 15 years ago

These are not credible at all. These are, when its all said and done, lies used to paint Ron Paul.

The very interesting thing is, why? What is the motivation of such people to bash Paul as a homophobe when there's decades of actions on his part that are anything but? What's the motivation of people to bash Paul as a racist, when he has freely associated with people of every color without any hatred his whole life? When in the 1970s he gave a poor family free medical care because he was a doctor and they couldn't pay? (and it didn't matter to him that they weren't white.)

I'll tell you the motivation. The people attacking paul now do not give a damn about the rights of gay people or about racism... after all, they themselves are racist, and they support a guy-- Obama-- who opposes gay marriage and gay rights and is widely known to be a homophobe, by his actions.

The motivation is that Ron Paul represents a credible threat to change the US federal government to one that protects rights of the people, limits itself from controlling the economy, and lets people be free to pursue their ambitions.

This is very threatening to people whose sole career has been peddling influence.

megablast• 15 years ago

Ron Paul has some great ideas, he was against iraq war, iran invasion and more. But he hates gay rights and is very strong on Religion. He want laws against burning the flag, against abortion, and more.

He has extreme views, that you either hate or love.

CWuestefeld11• 15 years ago

against abortion

This is false. He absolutely opposes anti-abortion (or pro- for that matter) legislation at the federal level.

He is personally opposed to abortion, and he'd like to see states forbid it. But since we're talking about him with respect to a national office, his views of what states should do shouldn't matter too much.

I think you'll find that in almost every way, he wants to get the federal government out of the way. From my perspective, that's a good thing.

CLARIFICATION for the reply. Paul's personal belief is in opposition to abortion. However, in contrast to other politicians, he doesn't believe that his personal beliefs should determine federal policy, and thus as President, his opposition to abortion would be irrelevant. That is, when wearing his president hat, he would advocate that the federal government stay out of the issue altogether. Only wearing his doctor hat does he oppose abortion.

jswinghammer2• 15 years ago

On what basis do you say he's against gay rights? He has the most progressive opinion on marriage of any candidate. Which is to say abolish marriage licenses entirely. It's only very recently (in the history of marriage) that marriage became an issue to the state anyway.

pwf• 15 years ago

His views on flag burning aren't exactly as you seem to think.

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive.

atarian2• 15 years ago

What irks me is that this is how a lot of people I've met approach presidential candidates.

They gloss over important things like how Ron Paul is planning to implement $1 trillion in budget cuts, a reduction in the cabinet, etc and go straight for his personal beliefs which he doesn't allow to dictate his political career. He even voted against the ban on gay marriages.

narag• 15 years ago

Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls.

IIRC Mr. Paul was a minoritary candidate in last elections. Please, people from the USA, Could you tell what has changed? Or is Iowa special?

davidw11• 15 years ago

The Republicans are desperate for 'Anyone but Romney':

http://www.economist.com/node/21542180

yellowbkpk• 15 years ago

When people are asked which republican candidate they'd vote for, most of them say "none of the above". Of the people that have decided on someone, Ron Paul seems to get the majority.

joshuahedlund• 15 years ago

To simplify things, Iowa is basically the first state to start voting for candidates. Four years ago Mr. Paul was generally getting like 5% nationally and with a concentrated effort on Iowa ended up with 10% of the vote. This year he's getting like 10-12% nationally and 20+% in Iowa. Paul actually leading several polls in Iowa is something that was not even fathomable four years ago.

A vote for Paul can be taken to mean many different thing; I wish that - regardless of what one thinks about his electability or desirability as president - such votes would be interpreted as a measure of support for basic civil liberties that no other candidates (including Obama) seem to care about. But that's probably hoping for too much!

cheez8• 15 years ago

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what a vote for Paul means these days.

nhebb• 15 years ago

It has a pretty good track record of picking the eventual Democratic nominee, but Iowa is not special for the Republican party. It has a poor record of voting for the eventual Republican party nominee in races where there is not an incumbent - 2/5 races since 1972. In fact, it has a better track record of picking the GOP outlier.

cbs5• 15 years ago

Current conventional wisdom is that after Iowa, Paul will leave the "top tier" of the Republican race. He has always been ignored by traditional media and this is the highest hes ever risen, so there is a possibility he may find the staying power.

To get to the meat of your question: why Paul now. Paul has always been a solid choice for people dissatisfied with the traditional Republican party. Many of his libertarian views speak to often ignored American ideals, and he is willing to tell it how he sees it, not the political-speak whitewash heard from everyone else. His supporters even include voters who don't normally support the GOP (hes the Republican with the most significant youth following and I've met many people who would vote Democrat-or-Ron-Paul). Hes showing strong now because the electorate has started to feel (like Paul supporters do) that the rest of the GOP field right now is in pretty bad shape.

There has been a sense of inevitability to Romney picking up the nomination, hes been near the top of all the polls since he entered the race, but it seems voters don't want to be stuck with him. They've been scrambling around and sending a long line of candidates to the front of the polls, and inevitably once they get the spotlight they make an ass of themselves. Then the voters send someone else to the top of the polls. Right now is Paul's turn there (at least in Iowa). It remains to be seen if he can stay there and defeat Romney, or if once voters get to know him better his numbers will start falling.

edit: Or is Iowa special? It is to Iowans, and any pundits who want to act like Iowa will be a bellweather of the country. Really, they just go first. The next races will be in different states, and after more time, and more news cycles so Iowa is not necessarily indicative of anything but the current opinions in Iowa.

shibboleth4• 15 years ago

Winning Iowa, or at least winning expectations, correlates with additional fundraising and additional support leading into the following states: NH, SC, FL, NV. A winner is able to build up momentum into those states and have the chance to continue a successful campaign (Obama for America 2006-2008). And to be honest, Iowa and New Hampshire both are special. I've been to both states countless times and the people are fervent in understanding today's issues and the candidates' stances on those issues, more so than any other state in the country. But you are partially correct with your final assessment, winning Iowa does not guarantee a successful campaign run.

patrickgzill• 15 years ago

Ron Paul hasn't changed his views. But what has changed are the views of many Americans as to the importance of RP's views.

Before, talking about the Federal Reserve and Wall Street was boring.

Now, people are looking at the criminal behavior of those on Wall Street, and looking at the behavior of the Fed with a more critical eye.

And the only politician who was talking about this before things went askew, was Ron Paul.

rosariom4• 15 years ago

Ron Paul message resonates with people because he is talking about something none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity to America. It would be hard to rollback all the damage done by the likes of Obama and his predecessors but I think it can be achieved gradually and with some culture changes in America. This is a great country and I hope to see its freedoms preserved and reinstated otherwise we will head down the road to god knows what and never come back. Freedom begets greatness and innovation.

The media needs to stop its blackout of Paul and the smear campaign and cover the issues he is highlighting which are of the utmost importance.

davidw11• 15 years ago

"sanity" being "what you agree with".

That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.

microarchitect• 15 years ago

I don't understand why davidw has been downvoted. Ron Paul maybe a principled politician, but his views/past actions on the issues of racism, homosexuality and science and technology policy don't stand up to scrutiny. While some of his policies may be laudable, he also has plenty of stuff that can be categorized as insane.

I don't want to start a political flamewar on HN, so all I'm trying to say is that there are valid reasons to believe what davidw believes and he shouldn't at least be downvoted for it.

x3c3• 15 years ago

(Disclaimer: I'm not from US).

  That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.

Except that at other sites, politics equals name callings and rhetoric. I understand that that is the primary reason you want politics to stay out of HN.

But if all scientists, techies and reasonable people stay out of politics and common people are distracted by media, how can we expect things to change? If readers of HN cannot discuss political beliefs in a rational manner, I wonder who can.

No wonder legislation like SOPA has reached to the doorsteps of congress in US.

rosariom4• 15 years ago

when I said sanity maybe I should have been more clear: political sanity against tyrannical crap like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_... .. this bill silently passed without any substantial media coverage and grants the president unprecedented powers the kings of old would envy.. I know no politician or anyone for that matter is "perfect" (really no such thing exists) but I like a lot of what he is saying not everything. I would leave it at that to avoid any diatribe that may arise on HN over political discussions.

Maybe this should be a tech-only forum to avoid getting people charged up and polarized.

danenania3• 15 years ago

"sanity" being "what you agree with" is generally a truism in any context.

HN is in a unique position to offer high quality discussion on topics that have become extremely important to hackers, much more important than some nostalgic ideas on what HN is 'supposed' to be. This is no time to stick our heads in the sand. We have a powerful platform and a powerful community here and it would be very foolish to waste them given the seriousness of what we face.

knz2• 15 years ago

My understanding is that Ron Paul's idea of freedom is to limit the role of the Federal Government by moving the legislative burden to each State. I can relate to the frustration that most Americans seem to have towards “Washington”, but would this really be in the best interest of the country?

It's 2011, not 1787. The US is a vastly different country than it was when the idea of States Rights was created. Would the level of innovation that you describe be possible in a country that does not have a strong central government? Could an individual State put someone on the moon? Would sectors of the economy that are closely associated with a specific area (Technology – CA etc) still be as prosperous without a central government? I am skeptical.

Abandoning the Federal Government because it is dysfunctional seems short sighted. Personally I do not see how the US can prosper in the modern world without a central government. We need more political compromise and a more consistent government agenda, not a shift towards one political agenda. Government should represent everyone, not just the 51% of constituents that elected them this term.

Also, suggesting that human rights should be legislated at a State level is absurd. It astounds me that a Libertarian such as Paul can so proudly proclaim that government intrusion is wrong, but then defer to the State on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Legislating religious views at a State level is no different than doing it at the Federal level. Rob Paul style libertarianism only brings “freedom” for some.

rosariom4• 15 years ago

I do not think people or Ron Paul are talking about dismantling the federal government just limiting its powers. As the old saying goes, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is extremely dangerous to give power over to a few in central government and not distribute the power evenly to all of its participants as history has shown us. I fear governments that want more power in the name of providing for my welfare and giving me security. I will do most of that on my own no thank you.

Innovation coming from a strong central government? What happened to the Soviet Union's innovation? They had a strong central government and collapsed... almost zero innovation came from them. What about China? Largely a beneficiary of treaties like NAFTA and GATT which gives them a great opportunity to ship in products made with substandard wages or as some would argue, slave labor wages. They also appear to be manipulating their currency and have a copy-and-paste business model. I see little innovation here as well.

I do agree that states and the fed can collaborate on issues of national interest that apply to all parties but I am totally against shredding the constitution or increasing the size of the fed because we are not in 1787. This country got to where it got because of freedom and allowing the people, like hackers, to tinker, fail, experiment, succeed, and do whatever they wanted as long as they did not infringe on the rights of others. SOPA and the NDAA are acts of central government that are appalling. Centralize government did not get us here, free people did.

brentashley• 15 years ago

I have to say it's jarring to hear Ron Paul referring to "6000 years of human history" as though that is the totality of human history. While I still support him fully because everything he has to say wrt government and foreign policy is sound and principled, it's really difficult for me to reconcile this one thing.

jaysonelliot2• 15 years ago

Isn't that about how much written history we have?

I don't think he's being a creationist here, at least, that's not how I read it.

dubfan3• 15 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw - In this video he claims he does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo - A reading from his book expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campaign. He also attacks public schools and evolution with rather weak and banal rhetoric.

Ron Paul lacks the perspective to be commander-in-chief of this country.

j2labs3• 15 years ago

The economist has a great write-up of Ron Paul: http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/

aik• 15 years ago

Thanks for posting. A question about this statement from the article:

>> But [Ron Paul] coming this far tells you something about the mood of Republican voters.

Don't you think it's a bit limiting to single out republican voters? I am fairly convinced that there are a significant amount of voters on all sides that support Ron Paul. I have also come to believe that specifically many republicans are against him, largely due to the anti-Ron Paul right-wing media influence. Thoughts?

gahahaha3• 15 years ago

There is a huge amount of ignorance about what Ron Paul really stands for - when he becomes a serious candidate (not very likely) and is given the scrutiny and attention that other candidates are given, then he will implode like Perry and Herman before him.

dataminer3• 15 years ago

How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph, using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.

gahahaha3• 15 years ago

"""wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky"""

That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.

j2labs3• 15 years ago

I think it is a rational take on how the US generally views him.

jaysonelliot2• 15 years ago

I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

But none of that really matters.

He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the constitution.

Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a historian running for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul is wrong on some things I care about, but so is Obama, and certainly so is Newt or Romney. I think I'll vote for the lesser of a dozen evils, and go with Paul.

maratd4• 15 years ago

I feel the same way. In fact, I'm sure most of Ron Paul's supports feel the same way. I find his foreign policy views deplorable and offensive.

You know what? I will still be voting for him.

I'm tired. I'm so tired of the lying. Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Bush, etc. will say anything to get elected. Once elected, they all behave the same way.

I'd rather have an honest man I disagree with in the White House, than a man who says one thing, but does another.

nextparadigms4• 15 years ago

I think his foreign policy is one of his strongest policies for which he gets a lot of support. What's funny is that Bush got elected in 2000 for having almost exactly the same foreign policy that Ron Paul has now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsvf1HU0KHM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

roguecoder3• 15 years ago

He's either lying now about the newsletters or he was lying then and in 1996 and profited from those lies.

I don't understand why people think he's an honest straight-shooter, any more than I understood that meme when it was applied to McCain. He's a politician playing a roll, that's all. He's not even a libertarian: he's perfectly fine with States grossly abridging freedom, just not the federal government. It's the same Southern conservatism that has been prominent since they lost the Civil War. Paul was smart enough to realize that you could sell this to a broader audience if you wrapped it in libertarianism is all.

ericingram2• 15 years ago

If you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's because you've spent far less time studying the real implications and economic intricacies as he has. He's right on everything.

spindritf• 15 years ago

> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment?

Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often?

[1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html

espeed3• 15 years ago

He's saying he prefers an authentic candidate with principles over candidates whom pander to the media to get votes, even if his views differ in some areas.

gruseom• 15 years ago

It's just you. This is a rhetorical device that's been around for centuries.

stfu• 15 years ago

HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning, especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases" upfront.

Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite - but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".

thebigshane8• 15 years ago

You have to admit that most people immediately roll their eyes when they read another die-hard Ron Paul supporter. That disclaimer lets people know/believe that this isn't a fanatic speaking. While I agree with Robin Hanson that I wish we didn't need disclaimers, it truly is an effective way of signalling, and often essential in tone-less, emotionally-ambiguous internet discussions.

Disclaimer: Ron Paul supporter (hopefully not too fanatical)

roguecoder3• 15 years ago

I can't vote for anyone who, when reality conflicts with his mental model of the world, believes reality is wrong.

Paul's not just wrong; he works from false assumptions to come to consistently illogical conclusions. I don't care if my politicians disagree with me, but I certainly care that they live in a world of evidence-based decision making.

dataminer3• 15 years ago

Can you please cite some of his false assumptions and the illogical conclusions. I believe his argument against SOPA and regulation/censorship of internet is quite sound. His arguments for a sound fiscal policy is based on evidence that governments (or individuals or corporations) spending beyond their means usually lead to their downfall. Results of Vietnam war, Iraq war provide alot evidence that much more diplomacy is needed before going to war, and once you go to war, fight it win it and get out, don't go into nation building.

adabsurdo• 15 years ago

>> But none of that really matters.

I would bet that you are neither a woman, black, jewish, poor, or gay.

So the fact, for example, that ron paul is a huge racist is something that you can discount at no cost to you.

edit: wow, i see the ron paul brigade is out in force, as usual. thank you all! never been so proud of being downvoted.

dantheman7• 15 years ago

Ron Paul is not a racist, and in fact sees racism as the lowest form of collectivism.

eftpotrm4• 15 years ago

Personally, I believe that Ron Paul will do what he says and that's a problem. I've read the articles, I've looked into things as much as I can and I very firmly disagree with him on his general monetary policies. The Federal Reserve being wound up and the USA returned to a Gold standard would not be A Good Thing for the USA or the world (me not being American); there's a reason why countries don't do that any more and it's not so politicians can lie, cheat and steal. We tried it his way before and it caused more problems than it solved.

Newt Gingritch, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann et al may well be unprincipled and deliberately lying about all sorts of things. But I don't think any are proposing anything quite as reckless as Ron Paul's economic policies. Frankly though, that this lot are the best the Republicans can produce is an abysmal failure.

BarkMore3• 15 years ago

Ron Paul wants to allow gold and silver to be used as legal tender. This is not the same thing as returning to the gold standard.

MattBearman• 15 years ago

The actual article is titled "Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Slams SOPA", which I think is a better title, especially for us non-US residents.

As while I'm hugely interested in the whole SOPA story, being from the UK, I had no idea who Ron Paul was, let alone that he was a presidential candidate.

Now that I know who he is, his stance against SOPA is much more interesting. Just a thought.

nextparadigms4• 15 years ago

The first time I heard of Ron Paul was when he was basically the only one who stood up for Wikileaks in Congress and defended them when everyone else was calling them traitors and terrorists. I really liked that and I've been following him since:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A

redthrowaway2• 15 years ago

I get not knowing who Ron Paul is, being from the UK, but at the same time I would expect you would at least know his name, being from the Internet. He's not exactly a low-profile figure in these tubes of ours.

jsavimbi• 15 years ago

The thing I like most about Ron Paul is that he's unelectable as a national candidate, he knows it, yet has fun on Reddit and the national stage every four years.

The thing I like the least about Ron Paul is that some of his ideas are easily comprehended and adopted by people who I would otherwise consider intelligent and educated. It breaks my heart that for all intents and purposes, they are insane.

edit: had an extra "and" in there.

jliechti1• 15 years ago

The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the other day in the Chicago Tribune:

I just pulled out three random stories: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-io... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-ri... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-...

Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time) is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.

chernevik2• 15 years ago

CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly coherent.

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there.

I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide.

EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.

padobson• 15 years ago

"I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there."

This does little to differentiate him from any other politician.

jamesbritt2• 15 years ago

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and there's very little there.

That describes nearly every single politician. Bill Clinton comes to mind as an exception, and no doubt there are a few others, but not among the anointed GOP candidates.

This lack of depth and intellectual rigor does nothing to dissuade major news outlets from sticking a mic in front of nearly anyone or discussing them as serious contenders.

Reporters have decided that Paul is never going to get the nomination so they don't bother.

Anyway I'd love to see that Paul interview if anyone has a link. I'm curious about "bamboozled by questions on the gold standard" and "hardly coherent".

nickpinkston2• 15 years ago

(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008)

I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views, but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on pure philosophy and not on pragmatism.

I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not all good policy, but he's serious and consistent.

The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully controlled by interest groups.

I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid (seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views, but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.

TallGuyShort• 15 years ago

Good on Ron Paul! I've expressed this sentiment on here before, but it still bothers me that so much of what I read in opposition to SOPA is linked to actual piracy. Sure, I think that DRM is ridiculous and counter-productive, but piracy only serves to legitimize the claims of SOPA supporters, and undermine the claims of it's opponents that it would do no good. Please, if you oppose SOPA, stop using rhetoric from sites that appear to condone piracy.

efader• 15 years ago

Political pandering; I would not trust this.

tempire6• 15 years ago

It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions, when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that positions grow out of.

That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician, which is why he confuses the media so much.

wycats7• 15 years ago

It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA.

That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government projects that might lead to future innovations.

In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research, and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians are usually against regulating the private market once the handoff has occurred (for good in many cases, and definitely in this case), but they are usually against the initial government bootstrapping.

It's easy to imagine attacking the initial ARPA work on privacy, anti-military, or anti-elitism grounds, and I could easily imagine it losing its funding today, decried as a boondoggle that was useless for regular Americans, who of course would never have access to a computer, with taxpayers footing the bill.

WalterBright• 15 years ago

It's often assumed that without the ARPA the internet never would have existed. ARPA, however, is just one of many "internets" that sprung up over the years. There was also FIDOnet, Prodigy, BIX, Compuserve, MCInet, etc. Everyone with more than one computer thought to hook them together. Heck, even some friends of mine invented their own internet back in the 70's.

If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else.

wycats7• 15 years ago

The examples you listed arrived after ARPA. CompuServe, which arrived pretty early in the greater scheme, was founded in 1969 as a time sharing computer service. It wasn't until quite a bit later that it became a packet-switched computer network, likely in response to the success of ARPAnet's implementation.

In contrast, the plans for ARPAnet were finished in 1968, and the system was operational in 1969. The concept was pretty pie in the sky at the time, and it's likely that the success of ARPA led to commercial implementations of packet-switched networks.

Additionally, the early private networks did not have the character of the "public Internet" which is a crucial component of the Internet we know and love today. Indeed, the reason we care about SOPA is that the public Internet, and not a patchwork of private internets, won the day.

dataminer3• 15 years ago

However if a project was useful for military it would have gotten the funding from military budget. I don't think Ron Paul wants to dismantle the military.

wycats7• 15 years ago

I think Ron Paul would consider ARPA to be military pork, and he is in favor of a drastically smaller military, so things like ARPA would likely end up on the cutting room floor as "pet projects" etc.

smokeyj5• 15 years ago

You really believe connecting two computers would not happen without government "bootstrapping"? I hope this is not a serious position.

I personally enjoy your simplistic vision of how an economy works. It's as simple as having the government water little seeds of innovation, and to simply hand it off to the "free market" to flourish and capitalize.

You see, entrepreneurs operate in a market, in which they compete to create value. A monopoly on violence is not an entrepreneurial entity.

wycats7• 15 years ago

See my other response on this thread. My comment here was based entirely on what actually happened, not some theoretical view of how economies work in the abstract.

webista• 15 years ago

It should have been more convincing for me if he instead made this statement before the goDaddy boycott, and net giants public opposition against SOPA, not a few days before the election circus.

Politics is still politics, and this kind of rhetorical display and timing have long been around for centuries as politicians' device that pander to the media to get the favor from the people. I do not question his principles and previous acts, it's the timing that's fishy.

stcredzero7• 15 years ago

TLDR for your non net-savvy friends and relatives:

SOPA = takedown of websites without due process = censorship for those (corporations) who can afford big legal teams

Restriction of where you can link to = restricting dissemination of information = censorship for commercial interest over free speech.

Simple as that.

dubfan3• 15 years ago

Good work getting a political article up to the front page.

Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

Related Stories