.
Ron Paul did get a great buzz going at one point in this election. He had enough followers to make youtube and other social networks go wild. Seemed like everyone with a political video was tagging it “Ron Paul”, just to try to get some of the crumbs off his table.
So, now that Ron Paul has folded up like a progressive Democrat in primary season, I found it entertaining to predict where his fans might go.
Over at Liberty Maven, they created an entertaining and informative chart about all these comparisons. It is the “Ron Paul-O-Meter.” With a very detailed and clever list, they evaluated one candidate at a time in comparison to Ron Paul’s stand on various issues. One thing reading it did for me, was remind me that Ron Paul was not as good as they hype. Ron Paul is pro-life, and is also somewhat conservative on immigration. I don’t know that all his fans saw that. I think a lot of them saw a political maverick, or a promise for change, and hung on for those ideals.
Realizing that Ron Paul has these conservative aspects of his agenda, it was easier for me to accept (and even appreciate), that Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney rated a somewhat low score. That’s okay. I think that some of the Ron Paul people will find aspects of Cynthia’s policies to like. And, having an outspoken, black woman for president will no doubt be at least as exciting a change (or more so) than a free-thinking , somewhat conservative Libertarian.
Here is the summary of scores as given by Liberty Maven on their “Ron Paul-O-Meter”:
Barack Obama: 17 out of 99
Cynthia McKinney: 20 out of 99
John McCain: 25 out of 99
Ralph Nader: 26 out of 99
Chuck Baldwin: 88 out of 99
Bob Barr: 88 out of 99
I have to hand it to the Liberty Maven, I don’t agree with all the Ron Paul positions they praise, and I don’t think Nader or McKinney should score that low on anything, but at least Liberty Maven included all the top tier candidates, from the Green Party to the Constitution Party.
Filed under: Barack Obama, cynthia mckinney, election, elections, Green Party Websites, John McCain, Political Websites, president, presidential race, progressive politics, Ralph Nader, republican, third party, US Politics Tagged: | Ron Paul, third parties
Ron Paul wants the states to decide about abortion, he wants the federal govt. to stay out of it. He personally does not believe in abortion.
On “illegal” immigration– very simple–if you’re illegal, you’re breaking the law. So, yeah most of Ron Paul supporters do understand where he stands on the issues as well as I do. Maybe you need to listen to more of his debates.
oh and on a side note: when I said he personally doesn’t believe abortions are right. What that means is that “he will not perform them.” But he believes in the individual to decide for themselves.
Julie,
Have *you* read what Ron Paul has said and legislated about the right to choose? “Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception,” a standard Christian Right viewpoint.”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric
As to Immigration, your reasoning is faulty. Would you argue that Jim Crow laws should never have been overturned because sitting at the front of the bus was just illegal. Just because it is a law, does not make it right.
-Ian
To Ian,
In 1970, we had 203,000,000 people in this country. In 1973 the American population
moved to a below-replacement fertility. That means we had fewer than, on average,
2.1 children per woman. At below-replacement fertility, we will eventually stabilize
our population along with all the rest of the advanced nations of the world.
But we still had growth (birth over deaths)
The reason is the baby boomers had to move through their childbearing years. Even though
they had small families there were so many of them that they kept growing.
Demographers showed what will happen to the 1990 stock population through out the next 50
years, that is, the people that were here in 1970, subtract the death of those ppl, add
their descendants and subtract the death of those decedents and this is what will happen:
Our population right now is very slowly growing. In the next year it will stop growing after
the echoes of baby boomers. And then it reaches a peak of 247 million by 2030.
This is not a zero immigration level this is replacement immigration. That is, replacement-
fertility as when you have the same number of ppl being born as are dying each year.
Replacement immigration is when you have the same number of ppl coming in as are leaving
each year. Right now about 200,000 people leave each year permanently each year.
What the census bureau tells us, what actually happened in the last twenty years.
Our population has doubled what it otherwise would have. Doubled as in-how many have come
into the country plus their descendants minus their the deaths of both groups.
Theres been as much growth from immigration as from the natural growth of the stock
population.
Now that has meant we’ve had to double all the additional infrastructure expenditures
we’ve had in this country.
We had had to build twice the additonal: schools, sewage plants, roads and streets. All of the needs of this country have doubled because of this radical immigration policy
of the U.S. govt.
In Ca, the state department of educations found that they have to build an entire elementary
school every single day of the year, in perpetuity, as long as the current immigration is
at this level, just to keep up with the children being added from immigration.
The census bureau tells us if congress does not lower the rate of immigration that we have
right now, we’re looking at a future of immigration levels three times the amount of
growth from stock population. The numbers go completely off the charts (literally)
And this is what we are bequeathing to our children. This is not conjecture, this is not
subjective. This is not what might be. This is what WILL be, if congress refuses to lower
immigration to somewhat of a traditional level.
Heres some data:
21,648,277 illegal immigrants in the country
540,274 OTM illegals
$34,803,356,140 -wired to Mexico since Jan 2006 (this number increases by $1,000 every
second)
$292,432,644,398 – wired to Latin America since 2001 (increases by one dollar every second)
$397,466,168,417- cost of social services for illegals since 1996
4,421,139- children of illegals in public schools
$14,405,890,853- cost of illegals in k-12 since 1996 (increases by $1,000 every 45 second)
684,830 – illegals incarcerated since 2001
$1,438,537,043 – cost of incarcerations since 2001 (increases by about $5.00 every second)
684,831 – illegal immigrant fugitives
2,047,649 – anchor babies since 2002
10,608,401 – skilled jobs taken by illegals
My “reasoning” is not faulty. I wouldn’t argue that Jim Crow laws should have
ever been overturned.
Sitting at the front of the bus, didn’t cost the American people a dime.
Sitting at the front of the bus, didn’t murder, rape, assault American citizens or legal
immigrants.
Sitting at the front of the bus, didn’t take jobs that our country needs for its legal
citizens.
I could go on and on.
Just because someone can come into our country illegally-DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!
(maybe someday we can argue abortion issues.)
Success is going from failure to failure without a loss of enthusiam.SirWinstonChurchillSir Winston Churchill, 1874-1965
I write scripts to serve as skeletons awaiting the flesh and sinew of images.IngmarBergmanIngmar Bergman