Get Out Your Presidential Primary Vote!

I don't think we'd get along well.

I think we would, because I also support all three. Me believing in states having the right to ban those acts is where we wouldn't get along.

...outlawing sodomy, drinking, or gambling really doesn't take away my life, liberty, or property.

I don't think we'd get along well.

"Federal courts shouldn't decide whether or not sodomy or any sexual/social practice is acceptable."

Federal courts are not deciding if practices are acceptable. They're deciding if laws banning the practices are constitutional. Based on the 14th amendment, Sec. 1, they are not.

You're incorrect on this. It's the reasoning that allowed for some crazy old Puritanical laws even here in the Northeast, that regulated social practices. Of course, I think sodomy should be legal everywhere, but outlawing sodomy, drinking, or gambling really doesn't take away my life, liberty, or property. So those powers are left up to the state.

I'm not going to quibble over nomenclature. Why should someone get the money back? There are many programs that our tax dollars go towards where we see no direct benefit. Should we get a tax credit for that, too? No, because that's not how it works. You don't get to pick and choose which taxes you pay.

I'm against the Federal income tax, so I think you should get all of that money back to use on education or a new iPod.

But taking money away from an already troubled system is not likely to bring positive effects, especially when one of the largest problems with the system is low pay.

All I can say is read Milton Friedman's views on this. He can explain why private education is no threat to public education, and how we can reform education. Most writings and his "Free to Choose" videos were from the '70s, I think, yet they're still on the money.

"It's not giving money away. It's a tax rebate; You're getting the money that you gave."

I'm not going to quibble over nomenclature. Why should someone get the money back? There are many programs that our tax dollars go towards where we see no direct benefit. Should we get a tax credit for that, too? No, because that's not how it works. You don't get to pick and choose which taxes you pay.

"When increase spending per student yearly, yet all metrics have shown that education has worsened. So it's not a money issue."

It's a very complex situation so I don't think one can say "well spending went up and that didn't work, so that's that". I'm not saying throwing more money at the problem is necessarily the solution. But taking money away from an already troubled system is not likely to bring positive effects, especially when one of the largest problems with the system is low pay. However, I do agree with Paul that there should be much less federal involvement with education.

"Yes, he does think abortion can be illegal in states. He has made statements as an OB/GYN that make sense about why he thinks abortions are a bad idea."

First off I think the OB/GYN part is a red herring. There are OBs for abortion and OBs against it. Yes, he wouldn't use standard GOP tactics to outlaw abortion, but his views, if enacted, would make abortion inaccessible to a geographically large part of the country.

"Federal courts shouldn't decide whether or not sodomy or any sexual/social practice is acceptable."

Federal courts are not deciding if practices are acceptable. They're deciding if laws banning the practices are constitutional. Based on the 14th amendment, Sec. 1, they are not.

You and Rep. Paul hold Constitutional views that are in the minority. If those views were mainstream at various times in our history, this country would be completely different, and not for the better.

1. It's not giving money away. It's a tax rebate; you're getting the money that you gave. And that's not what is making it fall apart. When increase spending per student yearly, yet all metrics have shown that education has worsened. So it's not a money issue.

2. Yes, he does think abortion can be illegal in states. He has made statements as an OB/GYN that make sense about why he thinks abortions are a bad idea. But if a state like MA or NY decided they would be legal, he certainly wouldn't try to pull a Bush and sneak a bill in that seeks to ban abortion. It's a state's call, and he won't interfere, especially not through corrupt executive powers. Plus, you have the Libertarian ideal that no one should be able to take another's life. And I'm not religious in any way and know that religion is not for me, especially Jesus Christ.

3. Federal courts shouldn't decide whether or not sodomy or any sexual/social practice is acceptable. That's a road I never want to head down again. And powers not explicitly mentioned are left up to the states. So if Texas towns want to ban sodomy, that's their prerogative. I don't have to live there.

Once you start giving people money to opt-out of the public education system, it will fall apart. It's already on the edge as it is. Obviously the current system needs reform, but I don't think giving money away to people who pull their kids out of the system is the solution.

"He believes states should decide abortion, and that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as privacy is not implicit in the Constitution."

He believes states should decide abortion.. to be illegal. He introduced a bill to federally define life as beginning at conception (at odds with his "states rights" view, no?). The bill would also have stripped federal courts of jurisdiction for abortion cases (which would allow states like SD to pass abortion bans). His view appears principled, and I suppose it is, but keep in mind that the endgame of his view is a ban on abortion in many jurisdictions, and that is the goal.

Paul also thinks federal courts should not hear cases relating to same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and religious displays on public property. I'm very wary of anyone who thinks the Congress should be stripping jurisdiction from the courts. Yes, it may be Constitutional, but it is fundamentally against the idea of three independent branches of government to say that courts cannot review the constitutionality of certain issues and laws.

What is the requisite number of tests a person must fail to be a worker at the polls. The voting machine in my district was broken. The workers at the poll were completely at a loss. They said "we never used paper ballots before". Don't they get any training? I had to vote with a paper ballot that they threw into a carboard box. What year is this??? Will my vote be counted?

Question: Have you read all of Ron Paul's views? Do you know that he is a hardcore socially conservative Christian and that he wants to abolish the public education system?

Hi,

I think you've heard the slams against him, but looking into him, you'll find that that's what he stands for at all and his stances are different on the two issues you brought up.

I wouldn't say he's hardcore, socially conservative Christian at all. He has no problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious practice. If a church allows gays to marry, he believes that that's the church's right to do so, not government's. He is completely against an amendment to the Constitution on defining marriage. I guess another socially conservative issue is the death penalty. He is against the Federal death penalty as it, more often than not, punishes the poor and minorities who can't afford the fancy law team, and because it's not a foolproof process. He believes states should decide abortion, and that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional as privacy is not implicit in the Constitution. Even if you're pro-choice, look at it this way: Would you agree if the federal courts declared abortion illegal? No, because the government and a court of judges shouldn't decide these issues, right?

And you have his education point mixed up. First off, have you read Friedman's views on our public education system? It is enlightening.

Anyway, he wants to abolish the Department of Education, not public education. However, he wants parents to be able to recoup more tax money if they send their kid to private schools. The general idea is this: Why does this huge bureaucratic organization in Washington know what kids in Athens, GA; August, ME; Bronx, NY; and Los Angeles, CA need to know? They all have different concerns, some because of ethnic and language divides, others because of socioeconomic concerns. The states and localities should decide what their kids learn. This gives tons of control back to the parents on what their kids learn. We'll never get back to the small school houses, but this is a way to let parents have more control. And if you don't like the education system still, though the quality would likely increase, you should get a federal tax credit to put your kids in a private school.

Google Friedman or YouTube Friedman and Education.

I voted for him.

Rocknrope - exactly. That is hardly the same thing as "abolish the public education system"

Per that survey I posted up top, Ron Paul on education:

POSITION: Dismantle the Department of Education, eliminate No Child Left Behind. Give parents complete control over how to educate their children, and give them tax credits to do so.

CANDIDATE'S POSITION: In a report on the presidential candidates, Elizabeth Hartline Green on DMIBlog said, "In fact, all of his views stem from this, making him appear the most ideologically consistent candidate I have yet seen. He supports abolishing the Federal Department of Education, and wants parents to have complete freedom in how to educate their children. Paul voted against mandating prayer in public schools, but also against preventing it?essentially he just wants the federal government out of the issue. He also voted against authorizing No Child Left Behind, believing it represented too much federal involvement in education

More Info here: http://www.dmiblog.com/archives/2007/08/where_do_the_candidates_stand_4.html

and that he [Ron Paul] wants to abolish the public education system

I didn't vote for Paul but I also can't find anything anywhere that states anything remotely close to your assertion.

"how do I complain about where I'm supposed to vote at? The school I'm assigned to is like 13 blocks away and there's closer schools nearby."

Such a bunch of whiners on this site, I swear. Are you fucking serious? A few times a year you need to walk 13 blocks to realize your voting power? Waaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Bottomless Chips,

You've revealed another voting error. You shouldn't have been able to vote Republican in the primary if you are registered as a Democrat. That's the law in the state of New York.

Question: Have you read all of Ron Paul's views? Do you know that he is a hardcore socially conservative Christian and that he wants to abolish the public education system?

Sorry, you probably already know this if you voted for him.

Peace,

Vanessa

Thanks Rocknrope- great quiz compared to some of the others out there...

how do I complain about where I'm supposed to vote at? The school I'm assigned to is like 13 blocks away and there's closer schools nearby.

ditto

my polling place was a portrait of ineptitude this morning. Do they train these people? did my vote count??

I think the volunteers at my polling site let us vote twice because the machine wasn't working properly. So much for voter's confidence.

I voted for Ron Paul, of course. Much to the chagrin of the volunteer who was happy that I was a Democrat and shocked when I asked for the Republican paper ballot.

I think the volunteers at my polling site let us vote twice because the machine wasn't working properly. So much for voter's confidence.

but at least they're both sincere

How is that remotely relevant to what I said? "Hey sorry your vote didn't count but my heart was in the right place." That's the kind of complacency that gets you a butterfly punch ballot - which I'll remind you was designed by the locals in a heavily Democratic district. I'm sure they had the best intentions as well. And how do you know the Ohio volunteers are/were up to something? Every rumor of vote tampering in Ohio had nothing to do with old people at the polls. Sounds like you're a typical Gothamist snob looking down on the Midwest. If you have nothing more intelligent to add then be quiet.

FYI. I answered a newspaper ad years ago that was calling for volunteers. Never heard from anyone.

Have you ever seen the Ohio volunteers? Our old clunkers (the people and the machines) may fail from time to time, but at least they're both sincere.

For those still confused about which candidate matches your own opinion on key issues, I found this survey pretty interesting and insightful:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/sns-candidatepicker,0,950207.htmlstory

Keep an eye on the volunteers in your voting precinct. In my experience most were born when Harding was President. At least three times in the last ten years they forgot to reset the machine before I voted. I have as much faith in our system as I do in Ohio's touch screens.