Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elakazal (talk | contribs) at 08:12, 13 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.48.49 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an advertisement. This is an article about the political views of a presidential candidate. It isn't going to be deleted as spam. Life, Liberty, Property 05:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


This article does belong here

What? What information is more relevant about a politician than his political views? Do we expect articles on Hitler, Lenin, or Mussolini that don't explain Nazism, Leninism, or Fascism? Seems like Paul believes in the philosophy of the Founding Fathers of the United States: Natural Rights.

The man's political positions are here in black and white. I would think such clear statements of what a politicians stand for would be a great resource to thier critics most of the time. If you disagree with him, here are his positions clearly stated, so now you know it. If you think the politician is dishonest or inconsistent, what better way to prove this than to look at his professed political beliefs and compare them to his voting record?

He's a ten term congressman, so critics are now well armed to comb his past speeches and voting record. Call him on any inconsistencies or hypocracy. How many politicians today are honest enough that an article such as this would stand, open to public editing based on thier voting record? Critics should love such opportunitiies. So have at it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929

-Added by DC7, on 6/6/2007


Sam Brownback is more popular as a candidate, and Chuck Hagel is approximately as popular as Ron Paul. Why are there no articles for their political views? Consistency is important. I would, however, suggest that this is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Speedily.

How is Brownback more popular as a candidate? Cite the polls... they're even or close to even, and I'm willing to bet Paul has raised more money than Brownback has. Chuck Hagel isn't a candidate in this race yet. When did you write this and who are you? Please sign your posts with four tildes or you make Wikipedia talk pages very confusing.--71.65.202.41 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


This article does belong here. It helps citizens interested in the United States presidential race gather more information and make an informed decision. However, from Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election, Ron Paul came in sixth place in first quarter fundraising among all Republican candidates. Republican candidates who out-raised him include Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo.

Ron Paul did much better in the second quarter, and as mentioned in either this article or the main Ron Paul article, has more cash on hand than John McCain. This is because he hasn't spent much money campaigning:

"Arizona Sen. John McCain, once the early favorite to win the nomination, reported raising a disappointing $11.2 million in the second quarter with only $2 million cash on hand — $400,000 less than Paul. His campaign said his support of immigration reform legislation hurt his fundraising ability.

Paul, with only 11 staffers on his campaign, runs a frugal campaign. The Texas Republican rarely travels to key campaign states." (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/06/paul-has-more-campaign-cash-than-mccain/)

BareAss 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't belong here

This article in its current form does not belong in wikipedia or any other site that tries to be a neutral source of information. This entire article reads as if it was written by his campaign team.

There's very little criticism or analysis of this person's views, but plenty of outlines of his key policies, exactly the kind of policies that he'd want to advertise as a presidential candidate. There's evidence that he annoys his colleagues, but his candidacy is apparently built entirely around this kind of anti-establishment reputation, as he wants to attract the votes of those disillusioned with politics.

Phrases like "He opposes surrender of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations - thus supports withdrawal of funds and participation." are so politically loaded as to be meaningless.

(Reply: No, this statement has a very clear meaning. These are all words in common english usage, and clearly defined in the dictionary. Perhaps "He's against giving up the United States' right to self determination" or "He claims granting legislative authority to organizations outside the US, not composed of representives elected by it's citizens, is to surrender sovereignty" are easier to understand? To me, the meaning seems very clear, but if you find the phrasing biased, please suggest a neutral way to say it. -Added by DC7, on 6/6/2007)

His supporters have been placing him at the top of Digg and various other news services, and I strongly suggest that this entry be made far more neutral or tempered with opposing views. If it isn't, you can expect even more candidates in every election under the sun to start adding and maintaining similarly one-sided pages in the run up to the relevant vote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.146.47.250 (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, most of the opposing views I've seen on those services have consisted of smears and accusations that his supporters are spamming, just because he's not promoted very much in the mainstream media. Such material as some of what I've seen would be unfit to be included in Wikipedia and is borderline defamatory. If you can find an article written by a credible news outlet criticizing Ron Paul (other than questionable claims that his supporters are spamming, which I would assume would be considered unfit to be included in Wikipedia), feel free to use it as a source for adding criticisms. The articles for most of the other candidates, if not all of them, have the criticism in the main article. If you want to change some of the wording around to be more neutral, go right ahead. Much of the text in this article has been moved from the main Ron Paul article. I'm going to try to edit the phrase you mentioned to try to make it more coherent. Life, Liberty, Property 22:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, the article has been fairly well-balanced in its treatment of Rep Paul's views, though some cites (i.e., the one on H.R. 2587 there seems to have been some deliberate misrepresentation of the content of the bill in oder to make Rep. Paul look bad to traditional liberals, I clarified it.

This article needs serious rewriting in parts, for instance the section on immigration where it calls jus soli citizenship policy a "constitutional loophole", which is simply nonsense. Birthright citizenship was granted by the Fourteenth Amendment, and was very much intentional (the fourteenth amendment was largely aimed at guaranteeing the rights of former slaves). Calling it a loophole is just plain wrong and distorts the issue. While it would be equally editorial to imply that Ron Paul opposes the Fourteenth Amendment or equal protection, this phrasing issue and others like it must be addressed if the article is to live up to the NPOV standard. User:70.171.20.227 04:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

According to Woods in this seminar[1]. The problem with the 14th amendement is that no one really knows how to interpret it and is used for all kinds of situations nowdays at whim. Woods says even the writer of the amendement himself didn't answer coherently when asked about the interpretation Lord Metroid 12:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does belong here

"There's very little criticism or analysis of this person's views, but plenty of outlines of his key policies." This is an online encyclopedia, your descriptive criticism I believe is self-explanatory. Criticism of different policies can be found within discussions solely dedicated to those positions. A politician's page ideally is limited to outlines of his positions, not analysis; interested parties can undertake that activity on their own, and in seperate entries. The reverse policy would lead to endless rebutals that needlessly entangle the larger scope. One need not debate the merits of slavery within Abraham Lincoln's entry, for example.68.174.133.172 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

68.174.133.172 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)butlmat

Discussion at another article named "Political views of ......"

-- Yellowdesk 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructive Criticism: Immigration

Explain this sentence: "Paul believes that all immigrants should be treated fairly and equally."

Does this mean that both legal and illegal aliens should be treated equally, that immigration should be colorblind, what? Is he an open borders guy or a or immigration reform? No offense, guys, I understand diplomacy, but I have no idea what that means.Yakuman (数え役満) 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Today immigrants of high notability get to immigrate on request while not so for the common man. Hence it isn't an equal playing field. Maybe that's what he means? Lord Metroid 08:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
One aspect of this, perhaps, is that H1B visas are only allowed for large corporations, so they're basically a form of corporate welfare... large companies such as IBM can import workers from elsewhere for much less than they'd pay an American (although the law says they have to pay them the same, it's not done in practice at all), but a small company who would seemingly benefit as well from these visas isn't allowed to use them. Milton Friedmann said this, and I wonder if Ron Paul does as well? Also, maybe he thinks Mexican immigrants are given advantages and easier paths to citizenship than immigrants from other countries? From the UK, I believe, we'd only accept immigrants if they're family members or highly educated workers, but from Mexico we may accept laborers or the unskilled. I'd be interested in an elaboration on this as well.--71.65.202.41 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

POV and sourcing/citations

First, as this article stands now it is a political advertisement. The article essentially eulogizes Paul and covers little to no criticisms or other sides of the issues. While his politics may be noble, Wikipedia is not the place for this content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not an encyclopedia article.

Second, because it is a political advertisement the sourcing is extremely poor. In the article's current state I believe it may violate WP:OR due to the fact that nothing is verified. Much of the article cannot be sourced except from the Paul campaign who obviously have a POV. While a citation to the "homepage of the the United States House of Representatives" may sound good, these are all press releases from the Paul campaign. I believe these are essentially self-published sources. Sources from reputable third parties would be better. I also think the sources by Lew Rockwell are poor. This website and "commentator" seems nothing more than a blog/mouthpiece for Paul.

I therefore don't know if this article can be fixed, its problems are large and many, but I think someone knowledgeable on Paul should try. I am going to give it some time before moving to WP:AFD. KnightLago 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed? It ain't broke. In fact, it's an excellent piece on Paul's political views. Let's have some specifics, KnightLago. Please tag the specific areas that you feel require citation. If you have some dirt on Paul, by all means, let's have it. But you'd need a darn good reason to take the article to AFD. I'm removing the tags in lieu of a more specific request. JLMadrigal 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I put in a few fact tags just starting from the top, I will add more later. The citations to the us house and press releases direct from the Paul campaign are still all in there, all violate WP:NPOV. I also think the references to Rockwell violate NPOV as well. If I can not check a fact from a third party reliable source, then the fact shouldn't be in that article. More citations latter, re-added tags. KnightLago 11:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the article is not on Ron Paul... it's on his political positions. How can that be POV or not? He has these positions; there's no point of view about it. Give some specifics, please.. I'll take a look at the fact tags you put in but I'll remove the neutrality tag if I don't find anything that merits it. I think you're misunderstanding what neutrality is. References to legitimate sources such as press releases and major blogs do not violate NPOV. I think you need to study NPOV a little more. Sources can be POV, and in fact many sources are... for example, The Economist has a definite POV-- free markets, socially liberal, dictatorships are bad, etc.-- but that does not make it an invalid source for Wikipedia and it is often cited in articles.--Gloriamarie 23:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"While his politics may be noble, Wikipedia is not the place for this content." I would imagine that an article entitled "Political Positions of Ron Paul" would be exactly the place for content on Ron Paul's political positions. The Lew Rockwell links are articles written by Ron Paul himself on his political views. There is no better source to a politician's views than that politician himself! I draw attention to "written by Rep. Ron Paul, MD" at the top of the Lew Rockwell links-- they were written by him and that is why they are sympathetic to his own ideas. Much of the article can be sourced from sources other than Paul, but it doesn't make sense to do so, because those media sources would simply be relying on Paul himself. I don't understand what your complaint is and I'm removing the tags.Gloriamarie 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not flattering.

I thought the first two paragraphs were very unflattering. My take, as a Ron Paul sympathizer, was that it was written by someone who had a bias against him. Later, the mention of the nickname 'Dr. No' while interesting, could also be seen as a negative and perjorative description. In any event, he deserves a spot on Wikipedia, so I hope we can create a page that everyone can agree meets the standards of Wikipedia.

The article is not supposed to be flattering or unflattering-- it should just give the facts. If you want to rewrite something, you can go ahead and change it to make it more NPOV.--Gloriamarie 00:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

Shouldn't there be a section on how he feels about the Arab-Israeli conflict and how he would change American policy towards it? ~ Rollo44 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How would he change policy?--Gloriamarie 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. That's why I was hoping there was a section on it. More involvement in the peace process? Or a completely hands off non-interventionist approach? ~ Rollo44 03:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't said that much on the issue, but from what I can recall, I believe he has mentioned for the U.S to stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. a small section about it should be included. Manic Hispanic 04:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a transcript I made of comments Ron Paul made on Tucker Carlson's show on 6-14-07: "I think we should be on the side of neutrality and friendship with everybody and not subsidize either side... Intervention doesn't lend itself to a peaceful world, especially for us. We lose a lot of men and women now being killed and a lot of money being spent and there's no more peace than if we weren't there. As a matter of fact, I think Israel would do quite well without us there. They'd probably have a peace treaty with Syria. They want to talk peace with Syria and we interfere with that process and say oh no you can't talk to the Syrians. So Israel would have a great incentive to work out agreements with some of its neighbors... I don't think we add a whole lot to solving that problem over there." I think this answers the question of how he sees the issue. ~ Rollo44 22:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Racism as a political position?

There is a section in this article on Paul's criticism of racism and alleged racist remarks, but I don't see how this is a political position of his. Has he advocated or tried to implement racial legislation?--Daveswagon 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The section starts with his explicit political position: racism equals collectivism, which he clearly despise. His voting record demonstrates that he is against racism such as affirmative action based on racial criteria. Terjen 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Then the voting record should be in the section. Simply equating something with collectivism is a bit of a stretch to be a "political position".--Daveswagon 00:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The voting record is a manifestation of his principles, but the principle is the core of the political position, and he goes beyond just equating racism with collectivism in the quote we provide. But I agree that the voting record on affirmative action and alike should be in the section on his positions against racism.Terjen 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Rudy Giuliani has stated that he hates abortion. However, his political stance is pro-choice. What is that?--Daveswagon 03:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Inconsistency? Or perhaps a separation between his personal view and what he want to push on others through public policy. Terjen 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That's my point. A personal view isn't a political stance if it's kept personal.--Daveswagon 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the other sections and just left the first paragraph. While he is against affirmative action for these reasons, I believe he votes against federal funding for it for the same reason he votes against almost all federal funding: unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.--Gloriamarie 21:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

He does not vote against affirmative action because he's against minorities-- he votes against it, as most Republicans do, because it is favoring one group over another. In the case of the federal government, I believe affirmative action policies would entail providing funds to favor one group over another. He usually does not vote for most federal funding for any purpose he believes to be unnecessary, and he does not believe in sorting people into groups as he said in the last debate. If affirmative action is mentioned, it should be in its own section and not one on race-- it's not really a race issue... it also includes women, so it can't be classified as a race issue. I would probably benefit from affirmative action policies, but I'm against it on principle as well. That doesn't make me a racist and it is muddying the issue by implying that to be the case in this situation.--71.65.202.41 17:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gold Standard

The article contradicts what Paul says in this interview where he says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard," but that he would "legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender." He says this does not mean he would amend the constitution, but that he would legalize it. [2] What is meant by this? Free gifts 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Drug policy

For anyone who's interested in pursuing expanding or further referencing the drug policy section, an archive of (currently) 128 sourced articles referencing Ron Paul and focused largely around the issue can be found at the Media Awareness Project of Drugsense website via the link http://www.mapinc.org/find?BK=ron+paul&BT=Phrase&BO2=and&BK2=&BT2=All+Words&TO=and&TK=&TT=All+Words&SO=and&SK=&ST=All+Words&AO=and&AK=&AT=All+Words&GACop=inside&GAC=&Section=All+Types&MM1=1&DD1=1&YY1=1990&MM2=12&DD2=31&YY2=2007&SUB=Search&PA=1&MAX=20&DE=High&SRT=Latest — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 21:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting Rights Act

I have put back the information on Paul's vote on the Voting Rights Act renewal, although I have added Paul's justification for that vote. Voting against the Voting Rights Act, whatever the reasoning, is a relevant political position in which many people are interested. Frankly, regardless of his stated reasons, I have to question the motivations of a man who in his own newsletter says "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," when he votes against voting rights for minorties. (And yes, I realize he has claimed that this was the work of ghost writer. Whether or not he wrote or agrees with the statement, he was obviously not too terribly upset about it, since it took him nine years from the publication of those remarks (and five years after they were reported by the Houston Chronicle) to repudiate it.) Elakazal 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not the place for commentary of the subject unless it has to do with the article.--Gloriamarie 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely has to do with the article--you competely removed my inclusion of Paul's vote on the Voting Rights Act. I replaced it and provided justification for its relevance and importance, which includes not only the specific measures included in the bill but also its relevance to the fact that Paul is considered by many (whether he is or not) to be racist. I think most people would consider that to be an element of his political positions. You have through many, many revisions allowed Paul's anti-racism statements to remain, suggesting that this is indeed relevant to the article, but have removed racist statements, which should have equal relevance. In my opinion your edits of this article, in this area and others, do not reflect an attempt to create an informative, balanced reference piece, but rather to promote Ron Paul, and the article shows it. This is a tremendously one-sided article. Elakazal 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have many concerns about the quality of this article. Most importantly, I am lead to question the extent of its purpose, insofar as it dictates what is and is not appropriate content. I feel that it is important that an article such as this consider many different factors and sources, beyond the expressed positions of the individual and the arguments of his supporters.

Persuant to this position, I believe the article should adhere to a certain well-organized standard. As such, I suggest at least the following:

First, in their current issue-centric format, the individual sections should either define, or provide a link to a definiton of, their respective issues before discussing anything else about them. These definitions should be consistent with a general understanding, and cited or referenced.

Second, the sections should state, and cite with multiple sources if possible, Paul's stated position (or cited lack thereof) on their respective issues. It should note any historic trends, including changes in position or refinements of more broad arguments.

Third, the sections should cover Paul's actions relevant to their respective issues, including, though not necessarily limited to, his voting history and his proposed legislation, noting well any discrepancies or apparent contradictions.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the sections should include criticism of Paul's position and his actions. People oppose these things for a variety of differing reasons, and their motivations and interests in stating such opposition are important to qualify their criticism.

All of this should be done within the general parameters of Wikipedia policy--maintaining a neutral point-of-view, not containing "original research," citing statements with reliable sources, etc.

I have a great deal of respect for Rep. Paul and his positions. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia and not a collection of partisan essays.

I am willing to put in the work necessary to improve this article, both for the benefit of Wikipedia and my own personal enrichment. Before I commit to anything, however, I would like to discuss the article, its purpose, and the points I have addressed here further.—Kbolino 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly believe that this is a page for criticism of his political views, and the many other politicians' pages that I have worked on also do not usually include critical commentary unless it is extraordinarily notable (as one example, Ted Kennedy's support for wind power, but not the Cape Wind project visible from his vacation house.) If editors prefer the page that way, that is acceptable, but I have not seen precedence for this on Wikipedia.--Gloriamarie 06:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The type and nature of the criticism is important to its inclusion. With Paul's limited visibility, there are few instances of direct criticism upon his views (as opposed to the general ideas espoused by his views). I would certainly not expect the article to include generic socialist arguments against the free market, for example. It might be worthwhile to consider a separate criticism article; either way, I feel it is important to at least link to critical discussion of his positions.—Kbolino 19:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"War on Religion" -- Obviously incorrect information removed.

This page will be undergoing heavy editing to correct omissions and factual errors.


Ron Paul never released a paper titled "War on Religion". The web site lewrockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html) calls the paper that. The official version at house.gov is called "Christmas in Secular America" (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.htm).


It took about five seconds to find out this information.


During the course of editing this Wikipedia page I noticed this that the personal webs site lewrockwell.com is used a lot as a "source" (over 15 times)


" Add only information based on reliable sources "


Consider the use of lewrockwell.com for the incorrect "War on Religion" headline all opinions "sourced" to the personal web site of Lew Rockwell should be investigated.


Furthermore any other "sources" suspected of bias for or against Ron Paul need to be checked against the facts.


The idea that the incorrect and inflammatory title "War on Religion" was used from a "source" which is someones personal web site is yet another notch on the bedpost of reasons that people shouldn't blindly trust Wikipedia.


Please sign your contributions to the talk page using four tildes (~), otherwise it's difficult to keep track of comments. Lew Rockwell is Paul's former chief of staff and republishes many of Paul's commentaries, and Paul publishes many of his own commentaries on the site that do not appear anywhere else. I agree with you that the original source should be used in this case, and in any case where the official house.gov site duplicates a Rockwell page. But, some of the pages linked to here only appear on Rockwell and are written by Paul.--Gloriamarie 06:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

More on Small Government

It surprises me that nothing about Paul's most recent appearance on The Colbert Report is included in this article. In this interview, he said many revealing things about his political views. For example, regarding small government, Stephen Colbert listed many government programs and asked Paul to raise his hand if he would try to eliminate that government program if he were elected president. Throughout the entire list of programs, including the IRS, the United Nations, the Department of Education, and others, Ron Paul left his hand held high, indicating that he would attempt to eliminate every single government program Colbert listed. This information seems extremely relevant to an article on Ron Paul's political views.

I don't have a transcript of the interview to cite, but I'm sure I could find one or that someone out there has this interview on video to provide more accurate quotes.

BareAss 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul talks about this stuff all the time, and it's already covered in the article: "Paul believes in decreasing the size of federal government. He supports the gradual abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve." --Gloriamarie 06:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul/Archive_1&oldid=144355725"