Ron Paul Making 2016 Presidential Bid

Ron Paul Making 2016 Presidential Bid

1250
9
SHARE

He’s undeclared but there is little doubt that Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination. Although he is a Libertarian, he wants to run under the GOP flag. The big question is, will Ron Paul’s extremist views damage son Rand Paul’s chance to win his party’s nomination?

Ron and Rand share similar views on state’s rights, but when the senior Paul suggests that our nation’s economic policy return to the archaic gold standard, he becomes laughable; and many Republican voters will assume that father and son agree on all of the issues.

There are differences between father and son on the issues as well, but the reason is not what you might think. Most of it is because Rand Paul continually changes his stance to fit the beliefs of the group to which he is speaking. In 2009 he spoke in favor of legislation banning same-sex marriage. In 2013 he stated that the states should make the decision, not the federal government.

Another disagreement between father and son is on the issue of economics. Rand believes in a ‘trickle down’ system, allowing corporations tax breaks which will in turn create jobs; Ron does not believe corporations should be treated differently than individuals.

One trait they both have in common is that they are misogynists. Rand Paul claims that there can’t be a war on women, women have gained full equality with men. He also voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Rand and Ron both oppose any legislation requiring that women receive equal pay in the workplace.

Ron Paul has always attempted to include religion into politics. When he was in Congress he attempted to submit a bill which would force schools to allow prayer. Rand Paul has failed to link church and state; so far.

Both men are against abortion and any form of discrimination.

Ron Paul is already busy shaking hands and kissing babies. Here are some of his more extreme positions.

Paul would remove all ‘entitlements;’ social security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

He believes that about half the cabinet posts should be removed, including the Department of Labor, Homeland Security, the Departments of Energy, Education Agriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services.

Paul believes in protecting the privacy of sexual predators by removing the requirement which instructs anyone who discovers a transmission over an electronic device about actions of child pornography and other sexual misconduct to report them to the authorities.

He said he wouldn’t have raided Bin Laden’s home in Pakistan; he would have worked with the Pakistanis to arrest him.

He would legalize prostitution and all drugs at the federal level.

Paul favors monopolies over competition in business.

He would eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency; climate change is a natural phenomenon.

He would have voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964. The law violates the rights of privately owned businesses.

Paul is against the Americans with Disabilities Act. Private business should decide if they want physically challenged citizens as patrons.

He believes hospitals should have the right to refuse assistance for illegal residents in emergency rooms.

All I can say is ‘my oh my.’ If voters align father and son, Rand Paul might as well pull out of the race today.

By James Turnage

Sources:

MSNBC

Info Wars

Mother Jones

Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore

Flickr License

9 COMMENTS

  1. It’s much more simple than you describe. If he could, Ron Paul would abolish all government everywhere. He is a disciple of Rothbard, an avowed anarchist. Why do people call Ron Paul a libertarian? It’s like calling a cat a zebra. You have not been doing your research. Stop lying about Ron Paul and call him what he is: an anarchist.

  2. When Ron Paul ran for president under the Libertarian ticket in 1988 (I was at the convention in Seattle when Ron Paul and Russell Means ran off for the nomination), the party was about evenly split between “minarchists” and “anarcho-capitalists.” Minarchists believe in the maxim that, “that government is best which governs least.” Anarcho-capitalists embrace the concept of self-governance. So it is ignorant of the Libertarian Party’s history to say that anarcho-capitalists cannot be libertarians. It is also ignorant of the article’s author to call Rand Paul a misogynist because he denies the progressive neo-liberal’s false narrative of a war on women. To the contrary, there is a cultural Marxist war on American culture that targets men to destroy the family and the middle class. The author also implies support for the time worn lie based on bad math and repetition that women as a gender class are victims of wage discrimination: when individual variables are accounted for, the overall difference drops to 2 cents. Both the neo-liberal (welfare) progressives on the left, and the neo-conservative (warfare) progressives on the right are useful idiots in an agenda that is impoverishing billions and destroying nations. I am not optimistic about their future.

  3. Every nation returns to a gold standard eventually. They return to it when the fiat currency collapses and becomes worthless, or they return to it in an attempt to keep the fiat currency from collapsing. History is on the side of gold and silver, because every fiat currency in history has eventually gone to zero. Gold and silver have never gone to zero in over 4000 years.

  4. i love how you label ron paul as an “extremist” when all he talks about is following and obeying the constitution. I understand that all politicians shit all over our constitution nowadays except for ron paul, but that is not a reason to label him an extremist. hes got the same ideas that our country was founded on. stop acting like hes some sort of alien just because he tells hard truths and has stayed ideologically consistent for over 30 years in government, which no other politician can say about themselves. shame on you. you call him laughable for wanting to return to the gold standard? how many years before the U.S. dollar existed did people use gold for currency? how long has the U.S. dollar been in existence, and since its inception, how is the dollar value doing? you think it is laughable to get back on the gold standard? i think you and your article are both laughable for believing that anything you believe in politics is accurate. all you libs and conservatives make us libertarians laugh cuz you still dont realize that after all this time you are both the problem

  5. I stopped reading at “but when the senior Paul suggests that our nation’s economic policy return to the archaic gold standard, he becomes laughable”

    The author has no understanding of history. Fiat currency is also archaic and is the end of all world powers. Just because something is “archaic” doesn’t effectively make it bad. Please continue to perceive that paper stuff is valuable while I get rich buying gold and borrowing at amazingly low interest rates to invest.

Leave a Reply