I Need Some Help Refuting This

[HeyArchie]

I've got some Obama supporter friends talking in a thread on FB. They're saying they are going to vote for Obama, but the only candidates in the GOP field they'd consider voting for/think are viable are Ron Paul or Mitt Romney. Keep in mind, these are very liberal people.

One person posted this and I don't know enough about unions and his view on social programs to refute it. I know Ron Paul abhors corporatism, but these folks think that corporatism comes from de-regulation, not the collusion between corporations and government (which is how I would define it, wouldn't you?)

The person posting this seems informed and I agree with some of what they say, but I don't want to get owned. :D



The most sickening aspect of it is that it will pretty much all be starting in just a little over two months. Elections in this country are pretty much extended marketing festivals, playing to an American fetish of celebrities and tangential hot-button issues. The office of president isn't something worth 10 months of such distraction-- in fact it's counter productive when you consider all this time could be better used on the grass-roots level building genuine, non-partisan people power. This would be so much stronger than vesting hope and expectation in a figurehead... so the most important consideration in this election should be how open the candidate is to listening, even if that means over-stepping political ties, party line or corporate donations (especially difficult this year considering the now-legal unlimited election donations). I see Obama and Paul as two of the strongest in this regard.

However, in policy terms, Paul's libertarianism would probably come with destroying unions, vital social programs and promote corporatism at a time when the US economic distribution is more unequal and working conditions worse than it's been in decades. Some form of redistribution is required, and Obama is probably more likely to make that happen. That being said, the presidential political power will continue to be meaningless and against the social benefit if there isn't a people's movement to force it to adhere to progress. I encourage all of you to come out to Occupy Tallahassee and help realize that goal on a local level. :)


It could be that we are just too different and view the world differently... What say you?

[Travlyr]

Let them know that the disparity in economic distribution is designed by the central bank. That's what they do. Ron Paul would correct that by allowing honest markets to operate. Also, let them know that the dollar has lost (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html) 95% of its value since 1913, and it will eventually go to zero. Finally, give them Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) by Ron Paul to read (a very quick read) so they get a better understanding of what is going on in our world today.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

First, i'd explain to him that Corporatism isn't an intended part of a right-wing political philosophy ideology, and that fake/wrong conservatives were wrong to do this in the past. Which Ron Paul is already against Corporatism, so he need not worry for that. Ron Paul is obviously against corporatism, as he doesn't receive corporate-funded campaign contributions. I'd make sure to specify that Corporations and Corporatism are two entirely different things.

Second, i'd explain to him that Ron Paul has already acknowledged that the social programs (specific ones) will remain in-tact as he works on reducing the federal government's authoritarian rule and size, as well as ending the wars which will reduce spending dramatically and allow for more finances to be pumped back into our own economy to prevent implosion. I'd explain to him that the social safety net cannot be sustained under these economic conditions, and that continuing to support them in their full implementation contradicts what is needed to reduce spending and conserve money. Conservatism preserves both social and economic harmony by preserving economic stability more-so than social.

Third, i'd be sure to include that Ron Paul doesn't discard the US Constitution, which protects all social liberties and freedoms. Whereas, Obama has discarded almost all of his constitutional responsibilities.

Fourth, i'd explain to him that if the economy implodes that social programs and unions will be non-existent, because everything else would be too. I'd make sure to tell him that it's economically impossible to persist on this path by taking out more loans from the federal reserve, as the value of the dollar can only be stretched too thin before hyper-inflation (great depression) kicks in. Preservation of the economy is priority, and spending isn't going to get you there--neither are taxes on the rich and regulations.

Fifth, i'd explain to him that's if he supports Obama; he's also supporting illegal war (no declaration signed) which goes against the Liberal political philosophy and US Constitution.

Sixth, i'd explain to him that Unions and Corporatism really have little difference anymore, and that they monopolize local communities. Ron is also pro-union as long as they're not forced to pay dues/join.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Let them know that the disparity in economic distribution is designed by the central bank. That's what they do. Ron Paul would correct that by allowing honest markets to operate. Also, let them know that the dollar has lost (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001519.html) 95% of its value since 1913, and it will eventually go to zero. Finally, give them Gold, Peace, and Prosperity (http://mises.org/books/goldpeace.pdf) by Ron Paul to read (a very quick read) so they get a better understanding of what is going on in our world today.

I support these suggestions as well.

[harikaried]

Paul's libertarianism would probably come with destroying unions, vital social programs and promote corporatism at a time when the US economic distribution is more unequal and working conditions worse than it's been in decades.Ron Paul is pro union as long as people are not forced to join or pay dues. See Right to Work: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/

Ron Paul would not be promoting corporatism and would have vetoed the corporate bank bailouts and drawn more attention to the $16 trillion that the Federal Reserve gave out to its close bank buddies. Obama has allowed for more corporatism and now needs to fix it; Ron Paul would have prevented it in the first place.

[dannno]

nm what he said^

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Ron Paul is pro union as long as people are not forced to join or pay dues. See Right to Work: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/right-to-work/

Ron Paul would not be promoting corporatism and would have vetoed the corporate bank bailouts and drawn more attention to the $16 trillion that the Federal Reserve gave out to its close bank buddies. Obama has allowed for more corporatism and now needs to fix it; Ron Paul would have prevented it in the first place.

Correct.

[Fermli]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/314346_10150361931759872_367822059871_7881649_1377 233144_n.jpg

[kojirodensetsu]

You can tell your friends that their precious unions will still be safe. Ron just wants people to be able to work without being forced into a union.

[Kimmie]

You can also add that Obama gets a great deal of campaign donations from large corporate powers and special interests. Check it out at Opensecrets.org. that's why he has not honored any of his campaign promises. however, the worst Obama's offense is his choice of cabinet positions and advisors - THat is very telling. geithner, summers, bernarke, Panetta, gates, among other untrustworthy individuals.

[overcastpatriot]

I would focus on the solvency of the social programs these people love. You aren't going to convince them they're pretty much counterproductive, at least not in one day. Explain that Obama (and all other candidates besides Paul) have no plan to salvage social security and would just engage in kicking the can down the road. Obama's consistent solution is to spend.. a trillion dollar stimulus and now a half-a-trillion dollar jobs bill. Obama, the social program-loving President is himself the biggest threat to social programs. Also, through runaway spending (debt will equal GDP in just ten days), your savings are being depleted and soon those social programs won't just be for disenfranchised minorities, they'll be for the you too.

If the opportunity presents itself, I'd point to the President's blatant hypocrisy from his campaign. Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Still there, in fact he expanded Afghanistan and started involvement in two new countries, Libya and Uganda. Close Guantanamo... still open. End government secrecy... signed the PATRIOT Act extension at the last minute by auto-pen despite being in Europe at the time. Lower unemployment.. it's higher than ever. Most of all emphasis that this isn't a football game.. if you voted for the guy once beside you thought he'd do a good job, fine. But if you do it again, don't feign rationality, just admit you're voting for the -D next to his name.

[simon1911]

Ron Paul is not against charity, he worked in charity hospital and worked it out with his patients who can't afford payments. When it is done in that level, it is more personal and direct. It is more accountable. Ron Paul also brings up that charity works because of free market. Capitalism allows people to give. Socialism doesn't work.

[Travlyr]

I would focus on the solvency of the social programs these people love. You aren't going to convince them they're pretty much counterproductive, at least not in one day. Explain that Obama (and all other candidates besides Paul) have no plan to salvage social security and would just engage in kicking the can down the road. Obama's consistent solution is to spend.. a trillion dollar stimulus and now a half-a-trillion dollar jobs bill. Obama, the social program-loving President is himself the biggest threat to social programs. Also, through runaway spending (debt will equal GDP in just ten days), your savings are being depleted and soon those social programs won't just be for disenfranchised minorities, they'll be for the you too.

If the opportunity presents itself, I'd point to the President's blatant hypocrisy from his campaign. Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Still there, in fact he expanded Afghanistan and started involvement in two new countries, Libya and Uganda. Close Guantanamo... still open. End government secrecy... signed the PATRIOT Act extension at the last minute by auto-pen despite being in Europe at the time. Lower unemployment.. it's higher than ever. Most of all emphasis that this isn't a football game.. if you voted for the guy once beside you thought he'd do a good job, fine. But if you do it again, don't feign rationality, just admit you're voting for the -D next to his name.
This ^^

[Tod]

I've got some Obama supporter friends talking in a thread on FB. They're saying they are going to vote for Obama, but the only candidates in the GOP field they'd consider voting for/think are viable are Ron Paul or Mitt Romney. Keep in mind, these are very liberal people.

One person posted this and I don't know enough about unions and his view on social programs to refute it. I know Ron Paul abhors corporatism, but these folks think that corporatism comes from de-regulation, not the collusion between corporations and government (which is how I would define it, wouldn't you?)

The person posting this seems informed and I agree with some of what they say, but I don't want to get owned. :D



It could be that we are just too different and view the world differently... What say you?

A good video to show them would be the one in NH. He talks to the daughter of a life-long union man. Union discussion starts at 53:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mVNYqNkZU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-mVNYqNkZU&feature=player_embedded