Is Ron Paul "Electable"?

[bluefrog]

I thought he did pretty well in the debates last week and he's held steady in the polls despite being ignored by the media and raising a good amount of money for his campaign.

I mean, the Republican Party is supposed to be a party, you know, of defining small government, but when it came to the civil liberties and the Patriot Act and the invasion of privacy and the Fourth Amendment, all these things, they wanted more government. And of course, it is traditional that they wouldn’t ever back off on anything military, even though the Republican Party has had a tradition like this, certainly not now.
It is the perception that you have to be more militant than the next guy. So, but you don’t know how it evolves. Sometimes they change their positions. I would have to be convinced that their position has changed. But from what I hear now, I think it would be very difficult for me to get very enthusiastic about any of them. I think time will tell, and who knows what will evolve.

Well, you know, I think the rhetoric is different between the two, but if you look throughout history, Barack Obama has not been loyal to his base.
He is trying to neutralize the Republicans by being more militant and he has really gotten the Republicans in a box because now that is why they are talking more militant because he is showing that, boy, he is tough and he will create these wars and he is going to be a tough guy. So it goes back and forth.
What they say and what they do is so different because when we, the Republicans, get in office and say we’re the fiscal conservatives, we don’t do anything about balancing the budget and we give them No Child Left Behind and prescription drug programs.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/2011/11/25/ron-paul-rise-iowa#ixzz1f8b0leVq

It's too bad Libertarians have to run under the Republican banner to for President. I know more people who consider themselves "Libertarians" than "Republicans". And it seems there is room in American politics for a party of fiscal conservatives yet social liberals.

 

[MARIS61]

It seems highly unlikely that a majority of the people would ever vote for someone who would disband public education and all safety and health oversights in our food, drugs and workplaces.

How many votes did the last libertarian candidate get?

 

[MARIS61]

It's too bad Libertarians have to run under the Republican banner to for President. I know more people who consider themselves "Libertarians" than "Republicans". And it seems there is room in American politics for a party of fiscal conservatives yet social liberals.

They don't.

It is done purely to trick the Republican voters into thinking they represent Republican ideals, which they don't.

 

[Denny Crane]

It seems highly unlikely that a majority of the people would ever vote for someone who would disband public education and all safety and health oversights in our food, drugs and workplaces.

How many votes did the last libertarian candidate get?

Where do you get the silly idea he'd disband public education? Or any of the rest of that crap you just posted?

 

[bluefrog]

I don't agree with a lot of his ideas but he seems honest and consistent which is more that I can say for most politicians.

I also like that he isn't bogged down by partisan politics. He would equally piss off people on both sides of the aisle.

In Washington, when there is a tight vote and the whip comes around and they want you to change the vote, the ultimate test is, are you or aren’t you going to be a team player? It has nothing to do with what you believe in or what the law says, but the question is, will you be a team player?
So I have never enjoyed that type of conversation. One time Ronald Reagan asked me to change my vote and I explained to him that I had promised in the campaign to vote a certain way, and I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t be able to do it. He was very, very respectful and understood it and didn’t then try to intimidate me in any way.

 

[MARIS61]

Where do you get the silly idea he'd disband public education? Or any of the rest of that crap you just posted?

http://www.lp.org/platform

I agree with you. Libertarianism is a pretty silly way to "govern".

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.lp.org/platform

I agree with you. Libertarianism is a pretty silly way to "govern".

"Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

That's not disbanding public education. You do realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1979. We clearly had public education before that.

 

[ABM]

You do realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1979....

So, that's what happened.

 

[Denny Crane]

So, that's what happened.

Embrace the change. It's the best you can hope for.

 

[barfo]

"Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

That's not disbanding public education.

Certainly sounds like it. If every parent is responsible for, and has control of, the funds for their child's education, that means I don't pay tax for schools anymore.
If only the parents pay, and they decide where to spend the money, without government interference, what's public about that educational system?

You do realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1979. We clearly had public education before that.

What's that got to do with anything? The statement above doesn't say federal government. It says 'government'.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

"Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

That's not disbanding public education. You do realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1979. We clearly had public education before that.

Note the bold part.

Also the part you skipped:

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.

 

[Denny Crane]

Certainly sounds like it. If every parent is responsible for, and has control of, the funds for their child's education, that means I don't pay tax for schools anymore.
If only the parents pay, and they decide where to spend the money, without government interference, what's public about that educational system?



What's that got to do with anything? The statement above doesn't say federal government. It says 'government'.

barfo

Control of the funds for their children's education sounds like vouchers to me. And finer control of how the money is spent in their district.

You do realize there are state governments, right? Public education existed before 1979, and still does to a large degree, as the states' responsibility.

ABM made the connection between federal government interference and the decline of our educational system (e.g. results relative to other nations).

Ron Paul would do away with the Dept. of Education (among others). I suppose that's what got Maris to thinking he is opposed to public education or would dismantle it all.

Yet...

http://chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Views_of_Ron_Paul_and_Libertarians_on_Education_and_Other_Issues

Ron Paul takes a strict view of the U.S. Constitution and, during his Congressional career has made a point of voting against legislation that involves the Federal Government in areas not covered by the Constitution. In a nutshell he is opposed to the Federal Government funding or regulating education.

Ironically, despite the fact that, as a member of Congress, he is opposed to federal funding or regulation of education as being outside its Constitutional authority and, as a political and philosophical libertarian, is probably also opposed to public education in general, he has received a rating of 67% from the National Education Association (NEA) which lobbies vigorously for support of public education at all levels of government.

While this is certainly not a vote of confidence in Paul by the NEA, it indicates that his position on federal legislation has been the same as that of the NEA more than half of the time.

---

And from the libertarianism FAQ:

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

Libertarians don't believe in tax-funded education, but most favor the current "parental choice" laws and voucher systems as a step in the right direction.

 

[Denny Crane]

Note the bold part.

Also the part you skipped:

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice.

Do you think the private schools do a better job of educating kids than the public ones?

I rest my case, because if you answer "no" you are playing the fool.

 

[ABM]

Do you think the private schools do a better job of educating kids than the public ones?

I rest my case, because if you answer "no" you are playing the fool.

I'll voucher for that.

 

[Denny Crane]

Since this thread is about Ron Paul's positions...

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/education/

Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.

On November 14, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:

“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.

Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington.

Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats.

The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.”

 

[MARIS61]

You do realize the Dept. of Education has only existed since 1979. We clearly had public education before that.

A rose by any other name...

A previous Department of Education was created in 1867 but soon was demoted to an Office in 1868.[3] As an agency not represented in the president's cabinet, it quickly became a relatively minor bureau in the Department of the Interior. In 1939, the bureau was transferred to the Federal Security Agency, where it was renamed the Office of Education. In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was upgraded to cabinet-level status as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Upgrading Education to cabinet level status in 1979 was controversial and opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However many liberals and Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

Functions

The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights.[4] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges.[5]

The Office of the Inspector General has a unit of enforcement agents who conduct investigations and raids in connection to student loan defaults and fraud.[6]

Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control.

The Department's mission is: to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.[7] Aligned with this mission of ensuring equal access to education, the Department of Education is a member of the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness,[8] and works with federal partners to ensure proper education for homeless and runaway youth in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

 

[barfo]

Control of the funds for their children's education sounds like vouchers to me. And finer control of how the money is spent in their district.

You do realize there are state governments, right? Public education existed before 1979, and still does to a large degree, as the states' responsibility.

ABM made the connection between federal government interference and the decline of our educational system (e.g. results relative to other nations).

Ron Paul would do away with the Dept. of Education (among others). I suppose that's what got Maris to thinking he is opposed to public education or would dismantle it all.

Yet...

http://chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Views_of_Ron_Paul_and_Libertarians_on_Education_and_Other_Issues

Ron Paul takes a strict view of the U.S. Constitution and, during his Congressional career has made a point of voting against legislation that involves the Federal Government in areas not covered by the Constitution. In a nutshell he is opposed to the Federal Government funding or regulating education.

Ironically, despite the fact that, as a member of Congress, he is opposed to federal funding or regulation of education as being outside its Constitutional authority and, as a political and philosophical libertarian, is probably also opposed to public education in general, he has received a rating of 67% from the National Education Association (NEA) which lobbies vigorously for support of public education at all levels of government.

While this is certainly not a vote of confidence in Paul by the NEA, it indicates that his position on federal legislation has been the same as that of the NEA more than half of the time.

---

And from the libertarianism FAQ:

http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html

Libertarians don't believe in tax-funded education, but most favor the current "parental choice" laws and voucher systems as a step in the right direction.

Ok, so in fact, Maris was right when he said 'disband public education'. Why are you arguing the point and conceding it simultaneously? Did you not read what you were quoting?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Do you think the private schools do a better job of educating kids than the public ones?

I rest my case, because if you answer "no" you are playing the fool.

Obviously not a fair playing field.

Private schools do not accept "problem" or "challenged" students. Most do not even accept "average" students.

And yet, I would say no they do not. They provide a much narrower, specifically tailored education to overqualified and pampered students who never learn the intangibles that come from being challenged by adversity.

 

[Denny Crane]

^^^

LOL

We're spending $77B at the federal level on that crap.

$77B that would be far better spent on teachers' salaries, keeping the roofs of the schools from leaking.

Or the purchase of 77 million MacBook Air laptops for the students PER YEAR.

And the bit you underlined is what I posted in #12:

You do realize there are state governments, right? Public education existed before 1979, and still does to a large degree, as the states' responsibility.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obviously not a fair playing field.

Private schools do not accept "problem" or "challenged" students. Most do not even accept "average" students.

And yet, I would say no they do not. They provide a much narrower, specifically tailored education to overqualified and pampered students who never learn the intangibles that come from being challenged by adversity.

Nonsense. There are numerous private schools for the handicapped and for those with other issues that qualify them as "problem" students.

 

[MARIS61]

^^^

LOL

We're spending $77B at the federal level on that crap.

$77B that would be far better spent on teachers' salaries, keeping the roofs of the schools from leaking.

Or the purchase of 77 million MacBook Air laptops for the students PER YEAR.

LOL indeed!

Denny Crane, Champion for the Teacher's Union!

Here's where that $77b really goes:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/education.pdf

BTW, I can't think of a more wasteful use of the money than spending it on Macs when the entire business world uses pc's.

 

[MARIS61]

Nonsense. There are numerous private schools for the handicapped and for those with other issues that qualify them as "problem" students.

Back of the bus, eh?

However, you are mistaken. Private schools exist only for the wealthy, and reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone.

 

[MARIS61]

Getting back to Paul, the subject of this thread, he might get my vote if he wasn't running as a Republican simply because of his strong support of the 2nd Amendment and his opposition to the Patriot Act.

I agree with him on very few other issues, but these 2 are the most important issues for me.

No other candidate has stepped up on either issue, and Obama is coming down hard on the 2nd Amendment right now.

 

[Denny Crane]

Getting back to Paul, the subject of this thread, he might get my vote if he wasn't running as a Republican simply because of his strong support of the 2nd Amendment and his opposition to the Patriot Act.

I agree with him on very few other issues, but these 2 are the most important issues for me.

No other candidate has stepped up on either issue, and Obama is coming down hard on the 2nd Amendment right now.

So you favor the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Haakzilla]

...yes, vote Ron Paul 2012 [or you're in for more of the same...status quo policies]!

 

[huevonkiller]

Charter schools dominate public schools. Public Schools waste hundreds of thousands of dollars just to fire ONE teacher, so spare me.

 

[huevonkiller]

Also back to Ron Paul being electable.... He's been picking up some momentum in Iowa. If he wants to make a serious run he needs a lot more money.

His son probably has a better shot to win, however his Son is 99% Ron Paul and 1% neocon on some stuff... The guy sounds more aggressive in foreign policy. I would not mind voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as a third party candidate.

 

[bluefrog]

You know things are bad when George Will is calling on you to drop out of the race.

LINK

When recently asked if he might mount an independent candidacy, he said: “I’m not thinking about it because, look, I’m not doing badly right now. … So we concentrate only on one thing: Keep moving up in the polls, and see how things come out in a month or two.”
...
At a minimum, a Paul candidacy would force the Republican nominee to spend time and money in places he otherwise might be able to economize on both. And a Paul candidacy would make 2012 much easier for Obama than 2008 was. Now, reread Paul’s words quoted above, particularly these: “right now” and “in a month or two.”

 

[huevonkiller]

I honestly do not care if Paul makes the neocons lose.

That's what they get for being big-government spending hypocrites.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've always voted for the guy I wanted to win, never the lesser of two evils. I'd rather see Paul get 20% of the vote and Obama get another term than vote for Newt or Romney.