20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.

Via on Dec 14, 2011

Update: we just published not one, but two lists of reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. Let’s hear it for learning together, and respectful debate! ~ Waylon, ed.

I like Ron Paul.

A lot. He has integrity, consistency (not always a good thing—views can and should evolve, open-mindedness is a virtue, too), his values are clear. He’s pro-Wikileaks, pro-OWS, pro-legalization, anti-war, anti-SOPA, and anti-fascist state BS.

Here’s everything we’ve blogged up about him, lately (we give him a lot of love on elephant).

But I won’t vote for him. Why? Easy:

1. He’s anti-gay marriage (supports DOMA)

2. He’s a young earth creationist

3. He’s a climate change denier

4. He believes that America, founded on principles of freedom of worship by many less-than-Christian framers, is a Christian country.

5. Worse, he believes that separation of church and state is a myth

6. He is against net neutrality (you know, liberty online)

7. He believes the civil rights act had a negative impact on the country

8. His stance on safety-nets (none, please)

9. His stance on student aid (do away with it)

10. His stance on health care (including Medicare, Medicaid)

11. His stance on abortion (goodbye, Roe v. Wade)

12. He would shutter the EPA (goodbye environmental health regulations, hello toxic daily life for our children)

13. His stance on Social Security (a hindrance to freedom)

14. His stance on taxes on the super-rich (no, thank you)

15. His stance on financial regulations (none, please)

16. His lack of support for renewable energy

17. He would close the Department of Education

18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home: “Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”

19. He signed the Pro-Life Presidential pledge, which includes a vow to only nominate pro-life judges to the Court. Generally, serious presidential candidates should refuse to sign all pledges, since they remove the rights of citizens in a democracy to see their wishes represented, and make their reps beholden to outside interests.

20. Given his ground game, he’d be tough for President Obama to beat. A lot of liberals, including myself, would be tempted to vote Paul. I’d rather Obama get to bat around damaged-goods Newt or wooden-1%er Mitt.

Still, with the exception of Jon Huntsman, he’s the best—by far—of the rest of the GOP field.

~

PS: did I forget a reason not to vote for Ron Paul? Add in comments? Did I forget a reason we like Ron Paul? Add it in comments. Did I get any facts wrong? Let me know. I know this is politics, but we can do all this respectfully. If you can’t, read this. Disrespect will be deleted.

~

Bonus:

YouTube Preview Image

About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now elephantjournal.com & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. elephantjournal.com | facebook.com/elephantjournal | twitter.com/elephantjournal | facebook.com/waylonhlewis | twitter.com/waylonlewis | Google+ For more: publisherelephantjournalcom

25,946 views

Like this article? Leave a tip!

(We use PayPal but you don't need an account with PayPal.)

Elephriends - Mindful Affiliates

140 Responses to “20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.”

  1. Mark Ledbetter says:

    A number of items on this list look fishy.

    In any case, with Ron Paul you don’t get a lukewarm kinda sorta anti-war advocate. War is the number one issue that trumps all others. If, for example, Dennis Kucinich were the Dem nominee, you’d find libertarians backing him even though he is the most anti-libertarian mainstream politician on domestic issues. Why? Because war trumps all else and Kucinich is the only principled anti-war Democrat.

    Murray Rothbard, mentor to all modern Libertarians, back in the Vietnam War days, joined the ultra-left Peace and Freedom Party. (Of course he also joined the Smokers Rights organization despite being a non-smoker) because the issue of war trumps all else.

    Ron Paul is against bombs and bailouts and incarceration of millions of Americans for victimless crimes. Don’t those three things trump everything on this list by a country mile?

    • Those three things are huge, but Paul could continue to be influential on those issues within Congress. While I never choose a candidate based on one issue, his ability to appoint Supreme Court justices, and his commitment to only appointing pro-life justices concerns me quite a bit.

      • Dustin says:

        While it would seem that he should be influential as a congressman, he is not. His peers ignore him. Pro-life or not it won't matter when most of the country is locked up. He has also stated that the fed shouldn't have a say on the abortion issue.

        • True! I guess my point was that hypothetically, the areas where he appeals to me (though they are few) are things he could address from within Congress…if he had any influence.

    • Nicholas Guenther says:

      Kucinich is only "anti-libertarian" by ultra-right wing economic standards and is arguably even more libertarian on domestic social issues. The Rothbard Libertarian wing is purely an American phenomenom; no self respecting Anarchist subscribes to that definition of Libertarianism. So the term libertarianism is truly misrepresented and perverted in America in my opinion.

    • C.J. says:

      No. Anyone who believes women’s reproductive rights should be restricted believes that they are second class citizens. Until Paul is out of my uterus, then he won’t get my vote. Period.

      The lack of separation of church and state is also very disturbing. Imagine some warped form of Christianity taking over the country and every time you masturbate and expunge sperm, you are committing murder. Oh wait, we are pretty close to that already with the fetus personhood bill. If I become pregnant and have a miscarriage, no matter the cause, I could be convicted of murder. These people are loony tunes and Paul is willing to hand them, the keys to the capital by integrating church and state. Most anti-choice justices are also pro-fetus above ALL else. Our soldiers are second class to the fetus. Women are merely fetus-incubating devices. But once that fetus is born – fuck it! You’re on your own, baby! No safety net for you! Get a job you lazy shiftless one-month old! Or make your mom (because Lord knows your dad isn’t around) get 3 jobs just to afford the rent plus day care! You don’t need no stinking bonding!

      As an aside, I don’t understand how libertarians can be anti-choice. How is my right to my OWN BODY not at the CORE of libertarianism??

    • William Rice says:

      Yes.Exactly why I support Ron Paul over all the others. He may have issues you disagree with But..He is the only one telling the truth. That is why we need him now.

    • sundene says:

      As a woman (and 51% of us are) he is definitely not capable of representing my interests, based on some of his stances. I also do not favor a country where the first amendment freedom of religion rights are tossed out in favor of this being a "christian" country. So no, those things don't trump much of anything for me.

    • Satyavira says:

      Great points, and thanks for bringing up Rothbard.

      Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side of the political spectrum who is not afraid to speak about indefinite detentions of American's as being a BAD thing. He is the only candidate talking about the FED and their phony fiat ponzi scheme. What he thinks of gay marriage and abortion i can live with. He's a doctor who knows where the bleeding is coming from and not afraid to say that.

      • what says:

        really? he is a doctor yet a young earther. WTH. And "pro-life" is not really pro-life. it kills women. because making abortion illegal does not prevent abortion. it forces underprivileged women to have abortions in back alleys.

    • guest says:

      "Ron Paul is against bombs and bailouts and incarceration of millions of Americans for victimless crimes. Don’t those three things trump everything on this list by a country mile"

      no they don't. he is a nutjob. This article basically explains it. He is crazy. Anti-women, anti-science, anti-social security.

    • Lynn Chase says:

      My take on Ron Paul being Pro life. He is pro life but he also would not impose the government on the current laws on the books. So even though he is pro life he also against government interference so pro choicers really shouldn't worry that Ron Paul will take up a cause for over turning Roe vs Wade! At least with Ron Paul we know where he stands and franky they all say they are pro choice! At least with Ron Paul we know he won't go out of his way to change laws like a Santorum or Romney might. Obama who knows? He pretty much does the opposite of whatever he says.

  2. Donovan says:

    Ron Paul is against bombs and bailouts and incarceration of millions of Americans for victimless crimes. Don’t those three things trump everything on this list by a country mile? DITTO.

  3. He's definitely the best of a bad bunch this time around. But when you look at this list all together, there is just too much to overlook. I seem to remember that some of his stances (marriage equality comes to mind?) were not completely against the issue, but wanting individual states to have the decision. I respect that idea on principle, but I don't feel like civil rights issues can be left to popular opinion.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Leaving this here, this comes via the trash-talking "Tentcityhall" below, who despite anonymous trashtalk has a great list of clarifications of positions that I didn't want to delete along with the needless invective. So here's the first few, rest of the list remains below: ~ Waylon.

      ~
      via "tentcityhall", whoever that is:

      . Ron Paul isn't anti-gay marriage. He believes the federal government has no place is defining marriage whatsoever, saying that such arrangements ought to be defined by religious institutions (as they have historically been). The government, if it has a role, would simply be an enforcer of legal contracts and their dissolution, should such an occasion be necessary. He also voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. In his own words:

      "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

      2. . "I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." <–Hardly "new earth creationism"

      3. He's not a climate change denier. Again, in his own words:

      "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

      "The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well."

      4 & 5. "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

      • elephantjournal says:

        Most of my list above comes from various other blogs…because while it may be strictly accurate, it may not be thoroughly so…so I relied on the Web 2.0 nature of great comments. This is a discussion, not a monologue. Thanks for helping us all to learn, we all have open minds here.

        One of my friends, in fact, has as a result of the above blog just sent me 20 Reasons to vote for Ron Paul, which we'll be publishing posthaste. ~ Waylon

    • Stephanie says:

      Kate – the problem lies in the fact that the Federal Government was NOT given the right to decide this issue. The ONLY legal way they should get involved is if WE decide to go for a Constitutional Amendment. Otherwise, it IS a state decision. And truthfully, no matter which side of the fence you are on in this issue, it is technically a "popular opinion". It is a choice of the society.

  4. yogalouisville says:

    i don't agree with all of these statements. He is prepared to bring our troops home. it's more expensive to keep bases open than close them. and, the cost of lives is obviously higher. when an article is written, it would do you best to cite sources, otherwise- this article is just an editorial, not fact based- which is dangerous and misinforming. the best thing about ron paul is his consistency. look at his record. the proof is there.

  5. elephantjournal says:

    #
    David Patterson I will give you a THOUSAND reasons why I would NOT vote for any of them !!!! Pick your poison, I suppose.

    #
    Mat Hill ‎21) Proposes intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution to be taught in school science classes.

    #
    Fredric Ward why would you delete my comment? not favorable enough for ya?

    #
    Bill Tatro Wow! Newsflash. You won't be voting for a Republiican. Who'd a thunk?

    #
    Tom Frascone: I think people misunderstand Paul. People from both sides tend to label him as being "for ___" or "against ___" because they don't understand his stance that the federal government does not have the constitutional right to make certain decisions – decision that are supposed to be left to the state. Mainstreams like to see issues as black or white, with no area in between. That's one of Paul's problems – he's not always black or white on an issue.

    Many conservatives view Paul as being "Pro-Choice" while liberals believe him to be "Pro-Life."

    Many conservatives view Paul as being "Pro-Gay Marriage" while liberals believe him to be "Anti-Gay Marriage."

    So Paul supports neither: federal legislation to ALLOW or BAN certain things, based on his perception of whether or not the issue is governed by the US Constitution. This opens the door for criticisms as I describe above.

    E.G.
    "Prominent religious conservatives in Iowa, however, object that Paul does not apply his beliefs at the national level. Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He thinks both issues should be left up to the states."

    I think people also misunderstand Paul's "personal beliefs" versus what he thinks is allowable by the constitution. This is to say, he can have his own opinion, but still understand that he doesn't have the constitutional right to govern others based on his own personal belief.

    #
    Larry Downey Right on Tom! The way I understand it, the Constitution is a tool to be used to govern these United States based on law… NOT personal ideology. In my opinion, folks (right and left) are compelled to push their own personal beliefs or agendas on others and prefer to use government/laws to do so. I see this as being the reason our country is so divided. A personal spiritual practice for me is to make decisions outside of the emotional attachment to outcome. Why would we want our country's laws to be decided by the emotional bias of one group or another? What I like about this man, Ron Paul, is his ability to make decisions that may go against his personal belief system based on the law our country was founded upon, the Constitution.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Tom, buddy, just emailed you. Would love an article "Why I'll vote for Ron Paul" from you…I know you're a(n insanely) well-informed passionate gent. ~ Waylon

    • CelticPatriot says:

      And who are you voting for, Sir? The impostor who is bankrupting this country and is systematically turning it's people in to slaves?

  6. elephantjournal says:

    Fredric, as I mentioned above in the blog, I'll repeat. We have a comment policy: rude comments will be deleted. Critical but constructive comments are more than welcome: http://www.bit.ly/aVGiui Thanks, keep commenting if you like! ~ Waylon

  7. elephantjournal says:

    Steve Frazier:
    Ron is an interesting guy, but as this related, he has issues. Please read and comment.

    Gary Denton He's a Bircher. I don't need any further.
    #
    Anna Moorman Hi, I tried to post this several times on the EJ website, but each time I got a message that my comment was "deleted by the administrator" within a few seconds of posting. This is my comment:

    "I agree that the upcoming Republican primary is important for liberal voters. I agree that Paul is probably the strongest candidate in the Republican field. I disagree that because Paul is strong, he should be ignored. It is precisely because he is strong, and because of his issues-focused campaign, that we should give him our Republican primary votes. What we want in 2012 is vigorous public debate focused on the issues, not a farce with mediocre moderates like Gingrich or Romney. We have an opportunity to make the 2012 presidential debates about issues, not the usual and customary choreographed piece that is public politics. Vote for debate next spring and then vote for Obama in November 2012!

    Please have the professional courtesy to site sources where Paul espoused the opinions you ascribe to him. Thank you!"

    #
    Anna Moorman Sorry for getting in the middle of that, Fredric. : )

    #
    Kevin Hotaling ‎@Waylon – I sent a response to you and Lindsey. Thanks for keeping the Ron Paul debate lively. :)

    #
    Michael Boxer You have little understanding of the Libertarian movement and it's basis in Protestantism. The "Merit" based society flies in the face of your so-called Buddhist beliefs. I think you have become sensational and ill-informed. I will not follow your page any more.

    #
    Bruce Becker DO NOT TRUST HIS MULTIPLE HIDDEN AGENDAS

    #
    Justin Pape Veterans know the TRUTH, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&li
    You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy http://www.youtube.com
    So, you'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his wacky foreign policy? U.S. mil…itary veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for P
    #
    Justin Pape anyone who can't handle ron paul can't handle freedom and therefore doesn't deserve to be free!

    #
    Mike Zobbe If you loved America in 1910, you'll love Ron Paul.

    #
    Courtney Parker But without all the fresh water and clean air….or any hope of ever regaining it if Ron Paul has his way.

    #
    Michael Witten The FED rules over the US government.

    #
    Anna Moorman ‎@Courtney, Ron Paul won't be elected president. Moderates will vote for Obama before they'll vote for Paul. Even if Paul were elected, he would be checked by the legislature, so his most extreme initiates would never get off the ground. Those same checks and balances are the reason we aren't closer to single-payer healthcare system after the first Obama term. Paul's voice is important. His voice is leaven. Putting him in the presidential debates can help us remember our constitutional roots, like our 6th Amendment due process rights that are being challenged by the NDAA. Romney signed it. If we lose our constitutional rights, if we lose our right to petition the government for redress of grievances, then how will we continue to fight in a free adn efficacious way for a cleaner, greener world, or for anything else we hold dear? I won't vote for Paul because, among other things, I want federal oversight in education, but I do think that his is a voice that needs to be heard. Moderates and many liberals such yourself and I will not vote for him in the election. He will not be successful there. But liberals have the opportunity to make the next series of debates and the mainstream news cycle more about the issues rather than just another pageant of political posturing.

    • CelticPatriot says:

      Anna, your think is very weak and dangerous. You are one of the people who will cause us to lose our freedom. You're following like a sheep.

  8. elephantjournal says:

    Michael Boxer, sorry to lose you ol'brother. We welcome debate, different points of view, as I said in the blog. I respect Paul a great deal, and if GOP would vote for him with few regrets. If you only want to "follow" sources that agree with you 108% of the time, good luck.

    As for merit-based society, that's a nice way of saying "good luck po'folk who don't get a good education and live in crime-filled neighborhoods." I'm doing well in a merit-based society because, though my mom was poor, I had a good education and lived in a safe town. Many Americans don't get those same advantages.

  9. carterjay61 says:

    Ron Paul is a man who's highly subsidized medical education makes him now think he has the right to eliminate Federally supported education efforts. It's a Hippocratic oath you take as a Doctor, not a hippo-critical oath to turn you back on everything that assisted you in becoming a well paid success. Make Ron Paul pay for the entirety of his multi-million dollar education!

    • tentcityhall says:

      Highly subsidized medical education? Tell us what you know. He paid for his own undergraduate education. I was under the impression that the same was true for his medical degree.

    • CelticPatriot says:

      Carter common, now. Come back when you have some facts.

  10. matthewscottwallace says:

    I'd love to see some sources. These are pretty big claims to not have any.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Much of this has come from my actually watching the debates—Dr. Paul is very straightforward, to his credit, about his values and what he'd cut.

      Let me know what points you feel are untrue—I'm happy to fix anything—most of the above is Libertarian 101, and offered with respect. ~ Waylon

  11. elephantjournal says:

    #
    Jacob S: The only republican I would even consider would be Huntsman.

    #
    Subra Manian No mention of Paul's views on the Civil War? http://www.frumforum.com/the-anti-lincoln-brigade
    Nor, as in the words of (again) David Frum – "his crank monetary theories": http://www.frumforum.com/dont-endorse-ron-paul ?

    Michael Grey I have always heard and believed that Ron Paul DID in fact support gay marriage. I am with Mark. A number of items on this list look fishy. Please explain or retract these starting with the first one.. here is a video of him saying the exact opposite. Thanks EJ, I usually do look to you as a source of inspiration but this is making me wonder the truth of the stories you post. "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." -RP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

    #
    elephantjournal.com ‎@michael – if you read through the discussion in the comments, the article was really meant to be a starting point. Paul does oppose a federal decision regarding marriage equality. His reasons are not "anti-gay" but constitutional. None the less, his lack of support for federal legislation on this is one (of many) reasons I will not be voting for him. ~ Kate

    #
    Michael Grey Then how is this a true statement or are you posting to drum up debate loosely posting "facts" such as this? "1. He’s anti-gay marriage"

    #
    elephantjournal.com Michael, he is anti-gay marriage. Do you have a source to say otherwise? If so, happy to correct my admittedly rough-but-so-far-accurate-it-seems list. No need for accusations of "fishy," friend. ~ Waylon

  12. guido says:

    Ron has recently upped the ante by pointing out that many heinous crimes have actually been government false flag operations. For this alone he is just about the only one talking seriously about the problems that face this country. He would never be able to get rid of the department of education or the EPA and I doubt the republicans will do so well in other areas like congress and the senate this election so some of his wishes would not be obtainable in one term…. Wish he would run with Kucinich as his VP… Tah dah…

  13. nicholas Guenther says:

    Ron Paul isn't opposed to Social security. He actually voted against privatizing it. I am not voting for Paul either I'll prolly vote Nader again or just do a fun write in like Sacco and Vanzetti hahaha….

  14. Billy says:

    I really hope this isn't another partisan PAID smear campaign. Kinda smells like it. Non sourced, and treating back burner social issues as if they are just as important as our collapsing economy , and our atrocious foreign policy.

  15. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Excellent list of point-by-points TentCity!

    A couple o’ responses to other comments…

    “But when you look at this list all together, there is just too much to overlook.”

    RESPONSE: To support anyone else running, Rep or Dem, you have to support war, govt-business collusion, and the American gulag. THIS is what’s difficult to overlook.

    Billy says, “treating back burner social issues as if they are just as important as our collapsing economy, and our atrocious foreign policy.”

    RESPONSE Exactly! I mean, how can back burners take precedence? And they’re all back burners in comparison to the collapsing economy and America-as-globocop.

    “I respect that idea on principle, but I don't feel like civil rights issues can be left to popular opinion.”

    RESPONSE: Civil rights are NOT to be left to popular opinion… This is absolute, unalterable, bedrock libertarian thinking. Therefore, it’s Ron Paul thinking. That’s why he’s against foreign wars and a domestic gulag incarcerating millions for victimless crimes.

  16. Mark Ledbetter says:

    And one more comment…

    Darn it, Kate, if I didn’t read an excellent explanation from you of why we need a centralized-national policy on gay marriage. But I can’t find it???

    In the belief that I’m not delusional about having read that, a brief response…

    I actually agree that what you say makes a lot of sense. But here’s another way to look at centralized decision making as compared to de-centralized (ie, states’ rights) decision making.

    When the central govt decides things like gay marriage, it virtually insures a divisive culture war that is unwinnable by either side and therefore a dangerous cancer on the body politic. State and (even better) local decisions mean that all points of view can find political expression and successful ones can spread organically.

    Of course, for libertarians, what govt should do about gay marriage is a mute question as govt has absolutely no right to define, promote, authorize, restrict, or be involved in any way at all with any kind of marriage.

    • Mark Ledbetter says:

      Also, if the central govt is given the power to universally impose what you think is right, it is also given the power to universally criminalize what you think is right. Kind of scary, isn't it? Leaves you no way out, which is what many conservatives are feeling under the liberal intellectual assualt. Thus their clumsy emotional but powerful attempts to roll back national power.

      That brings to mind the beautifully simple and practical-sounding (even to this libertarian) Oregon State Health Insurance plan of a few years ago. It was essentailly cancelled by a national govt not happy with states veering off on their own. If states rights were still respected, it would likely be Oregon law now. And if it were working, it likely would have already spread to other states. And if it didn't work? It likely already would have been repealed.

      Local decision making is the wise constitutional way.supported by Ron Paul.

    • CelticPatriot says:

      Excellent point.

  17. Bob K says:

    Someone said the most important issue is war vs peace. This really means the "most lives saved" is the issue.

    If we lose the planet to global warming, that would be the greatest possible loss of life. On this issue, Paul chooses to believe the internet (trying to think of the kindest word here I can) "purveyors of distortion" rather than the 97% of professional climatologists (according to an independent poll) who consider it real and human caused.

    As an aside, can you imagine, in general, his decisions on scientific matters? Someone who believes in short time creationism? Would Billy Graham Jr be the presidential science adviser?

    Paul has a lot of good things to say. I wrestled with whether I could support him or not. The bottom line for president for me was: "how many people will suffer and die vs how many will live and prosper?" Obama has turned me off on a number of fronts. But I still give him the edge over Paul on this bottom line issue.

  18. Shamgar says:

    Most of these points are reasons TO vote for Paul.

  19. [...] Considering that the last few months have been a dream come true for Liberty activists, you can probably imagine our dismay when we come across articles entitled “20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.” [...]

  20. Althaler says:

    Pretty sure he looks at abortion as a state to state issue and something he disagrees with but will not abolish as the Commandar and Cheif. He does not believe in global warming because FACTS that are actually backed up with years of reasearch show that the Earth has only risen 1F and the sun is at it's solar maxium which accounts for the change in weather and large number of global changes. He AGREEs with gay marriage BUT again he says it is a state to state issue not something he can determine himself. He says, "We need to protect libitry across the board and it is a first amendment type issue. We don't have habe the first amentment so we can talk about the weather. We have the frist amentment so we can solve very contriversial things." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4gcnPm0SxQ
    DO your research!!
    He does not support starting a war with Iran and was actually not allowed at the last republican debate becasue of it.

  21. Steve Jones says:

    Ron Paul is also a virulent racist

    • patriciamikkelson says:

      could you validate that with a link? thanks

    • elephantjournal says:

      Please keep comments respectful. If you can't do that, please back comments up with a decent source. Thanks! ~ Waylon

    • Bryan says:

      Good one.

    • Brian says:

      ron paul is not a racist. more lies spread by the liberal media. Hear him speak, tell me if you hear a single racist comment.

    • shao says:

      Media parrot…

    • Paul Braxton Hicks says:

      ‎…okay, let's just assume Ron Paul is a racist, and he hates 25% of the population… Fine…! …most democRats and republiCants either hate 100% of the populace, or like them, as I like a cow thinking of steak in my plate…
      …and the current politicos not only hate the American people here (they just raped everyone financially, and the MSM continues to look the other way)
      …they also hate people all around the world… well, maybe not… …they still like people from the military industry complex.

    • Jessi says:

      Obama has taken money from Goldman/Sachs. It's already been proven that he is not a racist, besides, you CA'tT be a racist and be a Libertarian at the same tme. It's impossible.

  22. swatijr says:

    Ron Paul has taken money from the KKK. End of story.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Source?

    • buddhaflow says:

      So has Coca Cola, Nike, Subway Sandwiches, and the Bank of Podunksville. So what?

    • David says:

      He took money from them? Did they ask for it back?

      What a crazy objection. I am not aligned with them in any way, but I can;t imagine there isn't someone they want to support for their country, too. However objectionable, they are Americans, and can support whoever they want.

      Remember: A country that would get rid of them, would also be able to get rid of you and your kind for what you believe.

    • CelticPatriot says:

      No, not end of story. You provide evidence of that. Post several reliable links that prove it.

  23. Nicole says:

    Awesome!! Very objective and well done!! Also his stance on anti-government is absolutely insane!! Ratify our government yes, but completely get rid of it? Insanity!! His positives can be good but are then contrary to his other stances. Did you know his number one supporter is the John Birch Society? If you don't know who they are they are BFF's with the KKK. Bad news

    • elephantjournal says:

      Nice, but let's keep it respectful. I think he's pretty awesome, but don't agree with all this views. ~ Waylon

      • Cthulhu says:

        With all due respect, but how on earth can you think he's "Awesome" when he's the darling poster boy for the Birchers and the KKK? Storm front LOVES Ron Paul. How big of a warning signal do you need?

  24. [...] 20 Reasons I won't Vote for Ron Paul. | elephant journal ruh-roh! something to chew [...]

  25. Dustin says:

    "18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home: “Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”"

    This is the one thing he absolutely would be able to do. Your compliant is the expense of bringing the troops home? How about what it costs to keep troops stationed around the world? I spent over 6yrs in the military. Troops are moved around all the time, and so is equipment so the money to "move" troops and equipment is already being spent. Kind of a pointless argument, and should be taken off the list.

    • elephantjournal says:

      I'd love to be wrong on that! Not sure it's that simple to close bases and withdraw troops, though—we seem to like the status quo, and to keep our military large…in any case this is one reason why I support Dr. Paul, and President Obama. Less war the better. ~ Waylon

  26. L.K. says:

    What about his wanting to tax corporations LESS — add that next to not taxing the rich. How big can the divide between the rich and poor get before the whole system collapses? I guess we'd find out if Ron Paul was at the helm.

    Is this guy really much different from any other Republican, and many Democrats, believing that the trickle-down effect works? Believing that the inhumane Milton Freedman economic policies are a good thing?

  27. BluBlah says:

    A body within a body is different than your own body. It's not just a body part.

  28. Any “liberal” who says they’re tempted to vote for Paul … isn’t one.

    And, no, he wouldn’t be tough for Obama to defeat at all. Unless Obama is even more clueless than he actually is.

    As for me? I’ll be voting Green again, as I have every election this century. I’m not tempted to vote for either one.

  29. Guest says:

    The powers that be don't like him. That's one thing in his favor.

  30. Sasha says:

    These points are mostly valid, but I make two counterpoints:

    1) None of this gives any argument not to vote for him in the primaries. All the other Republicans are in every conceivable way worse. Except for the haircut.

    2) War outweighs all other issues put together. To say that you will support a candidate who will start a war against innocent people because you want to maintain some benefit the government gives you is a morally indefensible position.

    3) For several of your points, you should remember the Ringo Starr truism: "Everything the government touches turns to shit." For instance, rejecting the department of education is not to reject education; it is to reject the centralization of decision making in education. This centralization has been empirically disastrous, and has helped to inculcate an environment where education is a kind of internship to being a prison inmate. Education should flow from the community up, not the other way around. Ditto many, many other things.

    4) Many people support Ron Paul because they have become disillusioned with the very foundations of our society. I believe that State Democracy is a dangerous and failed social model, that around the world has led to unprecedented concentrations of wealth and power, and acted as a cover for vast transgressions against fundamental human rights. We need something totally new.

    Ron Paul talks about the constituion and conservatism, but in the past has been closely associated with Murray Rothbard, a leading anarcho-libertarian theorist. Many suspect that RP himself has anarchistic leanings that he keeps private.

    No matter what happens this year, I leave with these words to ponder:

    "A democratic vote does not confer authority; it is merely a mechanism for collective decision making within a group that already has a morally consistent authority to make the decision. Confusion over this point is the root failure of western society."

    • ARCreated says:

      so are you for or against RP??? :) I LOVE what you said in POINT 3 exactly !!!
      3) For several of your points, you should remember the Ringo Starr truism: "Everything the government touches turns to shit." For instance, rejecting the department of education is not to reject education; it is to reject the centralization of decision making in education. This centralization has been empirically disastrous, and has helped to inculcate an environment where education is a kind of internship to being a prison inmate. Education should flow from the community up, not the other way around. Ditto many, many other things.

  31. David says:

    Ron Paul's position on Roe v. Wade is that it never should have been decided at the Federal Level. If you listen to everything Ron Paul says, his position is always about whether or not the Federal Government ought to be involved at that citizen level. He is for scaling back Federal Government intrusion.

    His position is that abortion rights ought to be decided at the state level for each state. State's rights have been over-run by the Federal government and Paul wants the Federal government to BACK OFF. Get your nose out of State business.

  32. David says:

    Ron Paul's position on Roe v. Wade is that it never should have been decided at the Federal Level. If you listen to everything Ron Paul says, his position is always about whether or not the Federal Government ought to be involved at that citizen level. He is for scaling back Federal Government intrusion.

  33. Tony says:

    Every point on your list is comically unresearched and skewed to meet your sad political reality. Vote Ron Paul!

  34. Vman says:

    Tony…now that is a well researched response. Full of ZERO. What part is unresearched? Come on throw some research our way. Instead of just crappola. ROFLMAO

  35. Samir says:

    MISINFORMED! This list is comprised of either wrong or incomplete information. All you have to do is go to Ron Paul's website and research each topic, make sure it is taken within context and fitting the whole Ron Paul philosophy. I am positive that if you listen to the entire story, it will make sense to you as well, and you would be a Ron Paul supporter.

    • Rand March says:

      In what context is his refusal to disavow the endorsements of neo-Nazi and KKK groups and to criticize their racism acceptable to you?

      And PLEASE spare me the "They have the right to free speech" nonsense: His criticism of their bigotry would – in no way – infringe upon their rights

  36. JMQuinn says:

    Ron Paul is way too old. He was born in 1935. He would be 78 in 2013. Does anyone want a fossil of 86 running the country? We had enough Alzheimer’s with Ronald Reagan. At the end of Reagan’s term, he was 77. Ron Paul would just be getting started! There is a minimum age of 35 to be President and there should be a maximum age, too.

    • ARCreated says:

      what a load of CRAP being an agist is silly. My father is 81 years old and smarter than most people I have met ever and still gets up at the crack of dawn and mows his freakin' lawn. their is something to be said for experience and wisdom. might as well tell me not to vote for him 'cause he doesn't look good on tv.

      I am still VERY undecided but age will not be the reason, just like bachmann's eyes will not sway me or palin's legs, or romney's hair…. age and looks mean NOTHING.

  37. cheeseandcrackers says:

    turn off your fox news are read about Ron Paul. half your reasons are false. Ron Paul will make a Great president and restore America

  38. Marc Time says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_p

    1)One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[183] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.
    2)He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
    3)He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[62] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period
    4)He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.
    5)Paul terms himself "strongly pro-life",[194] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[195] and believes regulation or ban[196] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[197][198] He says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception;
    6)As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention. In 2009, he claimed that climate change is a hoax.
    7)Paul pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market. He is also opposed to federal government influenza inoculation programs
    8)Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
    9)In an article titled "The Pink House" Ron Paul’s newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
    10)He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty[.

  39. Anon says:

    John Huntsman is the best candidate? Try reading up on Gary Johnston.

  40. Rodger says:

    The funny thing is, Ron Paul has his views, but if you look at all of his votes in congress, and none of them impede the values of individual Americans. He doesn’t impose his views on the people, a true constitutionalist and libertarian.

    Ron Paul wants the the government OUT of issues like marriage… so what his views on marriage are is inconsequential.

    I personally don’t agree with a lot of his views, but support him completely for the presidency.

    • elephantjournal says:

      Thanks for your comment! Like I said in the list, I like him a lot and would be happy to vote for him were I a GOP member. As it is, I greatly value his ability to bring us back to the Constitution and spark the only real debate in those "debates."

  41. CJM says:

    #21: When he gets mad he reminds me of my dad, all whiney and crumudgeon.

  42. [...] may not vote for Ron Paul, but god I respect [...]

  43. Larry says:

    Well if anyone here agrees with mostly Ron Paul but let's say not foreign policy then maybe you should check out what happened in Iran going back to 1953. In the debates Santorum kept going after Ron Paul in like the first 5 debates about Iran. But in that last one Ron Paul brought up the 1953 coup. Santorum acted as if he did not know about that. Which is okay because a lot of people either do not remember or do not know. Go watch these quick vids: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed
    then watch this video which has some surprising people in it, maybe then you would agree RP is the guy, we are not behind him as a candidate, we are behind the principles and taking our control back from the government and make federal government smaller and with lower taxes http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed
    Michelle is competing right now against Ron Paul. Before running as candidate that they both go out to lunch pretty frequently and she looks up to Ron Paul. If she changed her view on Iran she could be even considered as possible VP for Ron Paul.

  44. Harold P. Donle says:

    Gary Johnson former Governor of New Mexico is magnitudes better than Ron paul without any of the baggage Paul carries (racism, anti-choice, etc.)

  45. Paul Braxton Hicks says:

    ‎#1-it should be up to the church, not the State
    #2-He’s a young earth creationist (I don’t even know what that is)
    #3-he does not believe man is it’s main cause
    #4-our laws are based on the Bible
    #5-refer to #4
    #6-lie, he’s willing to listen to both sides of the argument before making a final decision.
    #7-well, he is correct in a way…it forced the issue instead of taking baby steps…I went to the “Remember the Titans” school.
    #8-no clue what that even is…I like self-responsibly
    #9-if the government gets it’s greedy hands out of it, higher education will become affordable
    #10-His stance on health care (including Medicare, Medicaid)????
    #11-totally incorrect, States Rights again…not the FEDS place
    #12-(goodbye, Roe v. Wade) incorrect again, see #11
    #13-(a hindrance to freedom)-true…you and only you should control your money and your future
    #14-I not sure he is on the wrong side at all-that is my own opinion
    #15-regulation has impeded our economy for years
    #16-support comes from private industry, not government
    #17-one of my favorites—the DoE has never educated a single person
    #18-conjecture.
    #19-anyone that believe R.vs.W. will ever come up again has their head up their ass
    #20-well, he says it himself, he can, and will beat Obama.

  46. EBlue says:

    I feel weird that I agree with most of these bullets!!!

    A LOT of scientists who are NOT Christians will tell you that climate change is extremely exaggerated and part of an agenda.

  47. ARCreated says:

    I'm still on the fence with RP he's still the closest I see to anything at all like I believe. It ain't perfect but nothing is. As a right swinging left leaning liberal conservative it is hard to find a candidate at all. I think I'd rather see the things he stands for I agree with fly than kill them for the things I don't agree with and work towards fighting some of that.

    It's hard for me to argue against less government. And what I have seen of Obama's admin makes me want to run screaming from that party more than ever. Maybe if instead of fighting this big giant federal monster we all could concentrate on the states we live we would have a better chance of enacting real change. Maybe if people moved to the states that had the laws they loved it would give states incentives to enact those laws. It's a thought anyway. sometimes I think we have just gotten to big and it's too impersonal and too hard to move this rust bucket in a new direction, so let's cut it down to size and grass roots the hell out of it.

    • ARCreated says:

      PS maybe if instead of letting the government regulating everything we were actually educated responsible citizens and consumers we could control corporations by how we spend and invest and then corps couldn't get the government to screw us. Want us to buy your shit? then by god you better be nice to your people and the environment.

      I am a naive dreamer though that actually believes people could be good and thoughtful if given the chance and a reason to be.

  48. You forgot he's pro-nuclear!!! For a man who has delivered 4000 babies, to not be conscious of the long term effects of low level doses of ionizing radiation on the genome is puzzling.

Leave a Reply