Is Ron Paul running a more pure/libertarian campaign this time around?

[Karsten]

It seemed to me like, in 2008, he was playing more or less the anti-war Republican card, and was trying his hardest to appeal to social conservatives. Now, with that chapter in his book on immigration, his outright defense of legalizing drugs (rather than simply talking about states rights), his apparent support of gay marriage (providing it's not forced on the states by the federal government), it seems like he's running on a more pure, libertarian stance. Thoughts?

By the way, I think it's great. I never cared for his socially conservative pandering in 08.

[Sola_Fide]

By the way, I think it's great. I never cared for his socially conservative pandering in 08.

Ron is a social conservative. Its not pandering if you actually believe it.

You don't think Ron is just pandering to you because you are a libertarian, right? Its that he actually believes it.

[PineGroveDave]

My wife, a staunch Libertarian of 28 years and a now "hesitant" supporter of Ron Paul does not believe that RP is in support of gay marriage. He defends the DOMA and I've not read anything to the contrary. This is a bone of contention with me as well as I support gay marriage. Do you have a link that supports that statement?

[libertybrewcity]

i don't think it could get any more "pure" than RP.

[Karsten]

Ron is a social conservative. Its not pandering if you actually believe it.

You don't think Ron is just pandering to you because you are a libertarian, right? Its that he actually believes it.

Being in favor of prostitution and gay marriage, so long as the states approve and it's not forced on the states by the federal government, sounds more libertarian to me than conservative. Talk to most social conservatives, and they would say ban it at the state level, and usually, at the federal level (example-- marriage ammendment)

[Sola_Fide]

Being in favor of prostitution and gay marriage, so long as the states approve and it's not forced on the states by the federal government, sounds more libertarian to me than conservative. Talk to most social conservatives, and they would say ban it at the state level, and usually, at the federal level (example-- marriage ammendment)


The point is: whenever Ron gets into these debates with conservatives about liberty, it always comes back on him like he is DEFENDING prostitution or heroin. Ron does not defend heroin or prostitution. If he did, I wouldn't support him.

[Vessol]

Ron is a social conservative. Its not pandering if you actually believe it.

You don't think Ron is just pandering to you because you are a libertarian, right? Its that he actually believes it.

This.

Ron Paul is socially conservative; however, he does not believe in forcing his opinion on others via gunpoint(government)

[Karsten]

The point is: whenever Ron gets into these debates with conservatives about liberty, it always comes back on him like he is DEFENDING prostitution or heroin. Ron does not defend heroin or prostitution. If he did, I wouldn't support him.

Neither does libertarianism (in and of itself) defend these activities. I admire, for instance, Penn Jillette, an unashamed, blunt, forceful Libertarian, who supports legalization of all drugs at all levels of government, who has himself never even so much as had a single sip of alcohol.

[JoshLowry]

Ron does not defend heroin or prostitution. If he did, I wouldn't support him.

He does defend their voluntary use but does not condone or look approvingly on the controversial behavior.

[sailingaway]

It seemed to me like, in 2008, he was playing more or less the anti-war Republican card, and was trying his hardest to appeal to social conservatives. Now, with that chapter in his book on immigration, his outright defense of legalizing drugs (rather than simply talking about states rights), his apparent support of gay marriage (providing it's not forced on the states by the federal government), it seems like he's running on a more pure, libertarian stance. Thoughts?

By the way, I think it's great. I never cared for his socially conservative pandering in 08.

He did say leave it to the states. When Wallace suggested that was insane because deciding NOT to regulate wasn't an exercise in liberty and I guess states couldn't be trusted to pass their own laws, he articulated the case for letting the individual regulate themselves.

[sailingaway]

My wife, a staunch Libertarian of 28 years and a now "hesitant" supporter of Ron Paul does not believe that RP is in support of gay marriage. He defends the DOMA and I've not read anything to the contrary. This is a bone of contention with me as well as I support gay marriage. Do you have a link that supports that statement?

He WANTS government out. But you are right, he supports DOMA. He wasn't there when it was voted on and it is one of those places where I am not sure he read the bill (like with DADT where he thought it was just an anti fraternization policy, not a status crime, essentially, until constituents told him otherwise.) Right now religious folks are scared of government regulating how THEY do things, what they call marriage, forcing abortion into Catholic charity hospitals (two hospitals in PA just closed because Obamacare requires abortions be a provided service if you get any govt funding. It is fair to have strings to funding but it was a trap because the govt wanted to use the network of Catholic hospitals to give vaccines back when the govt didn't have enough of a network, and the hospitals became dependent on the financing.) So he doesn't like laws defining a sacrament. Govt should have benefits neutrally defined, not using a sacrament as a threshold test, in any event. But as things are he says he defines DOMA to protect state rights to decide the hard questions. But philosophically he thinks marriage is a personal, religious and contract matter and the government should just stay out. He said that very clearly in the SC debate.

[CJLauderdale4]

Keep in mind, over the years both parties of the 2 party system have done an excellent job in the media of painting the word "Libertarian" as being associated with drug legalization, legalizing gay marriage, possibly supporting abortion, and isolationist foreign policies.

Neo-cons are waking up, since Faux News/Business (the neo-con media hubs), have been inviting Ron on (mainly to discuss economics). Now Republicans know Ron well, but that doesn't mean the establishment Republicans will accept him.

So, the only way to paint Ron as a nut, is to simply use the word "Libertarian" next to his name. Make him out to be an imposter, only ask him questions that show parity between him and the establishment, and never let him speak economics (because he'll win that now that folks know him).

For the Republicans to beat Ron this time, they must paint him as a drug-legalizing, Israel-hating, gay marriage-loving nutcase. Other than the marriage response, Ron knocked each one of these points out of the park at the debate this week.

How should Ron approach the marriage issue then:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?291578-A-much-better-argument-on-the-marriage-issue

[JohnGalt1225]

My wife, a staunch Libertarian of 28 years and a now "hesitant" supporter of Ron Paul does not believe that RP is in support of gay marriage. He defends the DOMA and I've not read anything to the contrary. This is a bone of contention with me as well as I support gay marriage. Do you have a link that supports that statement?
I'm pro-choice, but I respect Ron Paul way more than many other pro-choice politicians. Because in the end, Ron Paul is really pro-CHOICE. He's for leaving a choice to people, and not forcing anyone to take his point of view. He also wants to get the government out of marriage all together. At that point does it matter if he agrees with gay marriage? He's giving them the freedom to get married and have a life together. He's consistently pro-liberty. That's all that matters.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He WANTS government out. But you are right, he supports DOMA. He wasn't there when it was voted on and it is one of those places where I am not sure he read the bill (like with DADT where he thought it was just an anti fraternization policy, not a status crime, essentially, until constituents told him otherwise.) Right now religious folks are scared of government regulating how THEY do things, what they call marriage, forcing abortion into Catholic charity hospitals (two hospitals in PA just closed because Obamacare requires abortions be a provided service if you get any govt funding. It is fair to have strings to funding but it was a trap because the govt wanted to use the network of Catholic hospitals to give vaccines back when the govt didn't have enough of a network, and the hospitals became dependent on the financing.) So he doesn't like laws defining a sacrament. Govt should have benefits neutrally defined, not using a sacrament as a threshold test, in any event. But as things are he says he defines DOMA to protect state rights to decide the hard questions. But philosophically he thinks marriage is a personal, religious and contract matter and the government should just stay out. He said that very clearly in the SC debate.

After hearing Ron's answer to the DOMA question last night, I'm starting to think that's the situation.

[sailingaway]

Keep in mind, over the years both parties of the 2 party system have done an excellent job in the media of painting the word "Libertarian" as being associated with drug legalization, legalizing gay marriage, possibly supporting abortion, and isolationist foreign policies.

Neo-cons are waking up, since Faux News/Business (the neo-con media hubs), have been inviting Ron on (mainly to discuss economics). Now Republicans know Ron well, but that doesn't mean the establishment Republicans will accept him.

So, the only way to paint Ron as a nut, is to simply use the word "Libertarian" next to his name. Make him out to be an imposter, only ask him questions that show parity between him and the establishment, and never let him speak economics (because he'll win that now that folks know him).

For the Republicans to beat Ron this time, they must paint him as a drug-legalizing, Israel-hating, gay marriage-loving nutcase. Other than the marriage response, Ron knocked each one of these points out of the park at the debate this week.

How should Ron approach the marriage issue then:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?291578-A-much-better-argument-on-the-marriage-issue

That is exactly what Fox and other media are doing they never mention him without 'libertarian' and often 'one of the two libertarians' then going into some of GARY's ideas and the impression is that that is what both think, and Gary is personally socially liberal and doesn't articulate the conservative case for liberty.

[Sola_Fide]

Keep in mind, over the years both parties of the 2 party system have done an excellent job in the media of painting the word "Libertarian" as being associated with drug legalization, legalizing gay marriage, possibly supporting abortion, and isolationist foreign policies.

Neo-cons are waking up, since Faux News/Business (the neo-con media hubs), have been inviting Ron on (mainly to discuss economics). Now Republicans know Ron well, but that doesn't mean the establishment Republicans will accept him.

So, the only way to paint Ron as a nut, is to simply use the word "Libertarian" next to his name. Make him out to be an imposter, only ask him questions that show parity between him and the establishment, and never let him speak economics (because he'll win that now that folks know him).

For the Republicans to beat Ron this time, they must paint him as a drug-legalizing, Israel-hating, gay marriage-loving nutcase. Other than the marriage response, Ron knocked each one of these points out of the park at the debate this week.

How should Ron approach the marriage issue then:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?291578-A-much-better-argument-on-the-marriage-issue


Exactly. Republicans need to understand the difference between believing in liberty and endorsing vices.

Ron Paul does not endorse vices. In fact, look at his life. It is a principled, spiritual, and disciplined life. NO ONE running on that stage has led a more principled life.

[Sola_Fide]

That is exactly what Fox and other media are doing they never mention him without 'libertarian' and often 'one of the two libertarians' then going into some of GARY's ideas and the impression is that that is what both think, and Gary is personally socially liberal and doesn't articulate the conservative case for liberty.

Agree^^^

[PaulConventionWV]

It seemed to me like, in 2008, he was playing more or less the anti-war Republican card, and was trying his hardest to appeal to social conservatives. Now, with that chapter in his book on immigration, his outright defense of legalizing drugs (rather than simply talking about states rights), his apparent support of gay marriage (providing it's not forced on the states by the federal government), it seems like he's running on a more pure, libertarian stance. Thoughts?

By the way, I think it's great. I never cared for his socially conservative pandering in 08.

I don't see any difference. He doesn't advocate "gay marriage," per se. He just thinks the government should be out of marriage completely, so if gays want to have a union, they can, but marriage should be left up to the churches. The idea that someone advocates gay marriage just makes you think that the government is going to intervene and say that gays should be allowed to get married under the government law, when he doesn't even want government to define marriage, as it was supposed to be a religious institution. If gays want to be together, they can call it whatever they want.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm pro-choice, but I respect Ron Paul way more than many other pro-choice politicians. Because in the end, Ron Paul is really pro-CHOICE. He's for leaving a choice to people, and not forcing anyone to take his point of view. He also wants to get the government out of marriage all together. At that point does it matter if he agrees with gay marriage? He's giving them the freedom to get married and have a life together. He's consistently pro-liberty. That's all that matters.

This is mostly true, but he's not actually GIVING them the freedom to get married. That would imply that he owes them the ability to get married. He just gives them the freedom to live together and try to get married (if they want to). It depends on the churches, though, as government should not be defining marriage. So, he's not really giving or taking away. He's just saying he, as the executive, would not be able to make those decisions, and Congress has no right to define a moral sacrament. If gays want to do it, they can try, but the government can't guarantee anything, as that would be a slap to the face of the church's freedom.

See, "marriage" carries this connotation that government is involved and gives the status of "married." RP says government shouldn't do that, as "marriage" is really a religious thing and it creates problems between the churches and its definition of marriage. Instead of creating these social problems, the government should not define marriage at all, and should not grant extra privileges, as this creates social conflict between the churches and those who wish to get "married." The government has no right to do this, but it's not really support of any kind of marriage one way or the other. It would really just end up being more liberty and freedom to make their own rules for both parties. I think this position is spot on.

[Sola_Fide]

My wife, a staunch Libertarian of 28 years and a now "hesitant" supporter of Ron Paul does not believe that RP is in support of gay marriage. He defends the DOMA and I've not read anything to the contrary. This is a bone of contention with me as well as I support gay marriage. Do you have a link that supports that statement?

Maybe your better half doesn't understand why government got involved in marriages in the first place. (Ask her to look it up and get back with you, it might open up her eyes:))