Secular Voters in Iowa are Supporting Ron Paul

While the poll is apparently of intended Republican caucus voters, this is unstated in the KCRG article you linked, and in the ISU press release it links. Shame on them. Because without that piece of knowledge, it very clearly stands out as odd that in the stats you provide that Obama isn’t even on the list.

I don’t get it. Paul is a Christianist through and through, who has publicly stated that he sees no problem with State governments passing religious laws. In his feverish imagination, the 14th admendment doesn’t exist, and the Constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. States can do whatever they want, including jailing all atheists. Is that consistent with what he claims are his “libertarian” views? Of course not, but consistency has never been a strong suit of conservatives. So for an atheist to vote for Ron Paul is equivalent to a Jew voting for Hitler…

How can Paul be a Bible-thumping creationist AND a libertarian ?

It’s really hard to justify watching the polls, because political fortunes are often made and lost in less than a week.  The Iowa caucus isn’t until January 3.

My initial impression that it’s the Republican side.  Not many people think Obama’s nomination for the Democratic party is in jeopardy.

Also, likely caucus voters are more committed types than likely primary voters in other states. It’s not a representative sample of who ends up voting in November. The Iowa caucuses – for  a long time- have been a completely useless barometer in determining who is going to eventually win these things.

Just do a poll in Ohio instead and just call off the Iowa caucuses.

—“That’s secular voters who identify as Republican. Presumably they are Paul supporters for Libertarian economic reasons, because Paul is no secularist.”—–

That’s my hunch, too.

Not sure why I should give a shit about this. Given the religious dogma that’s saturated the GOP over the last two decades, being secular and Republican is like being African American and supporting the KKK. It’s a bad idea that is not going to end well for you.

Plus, as others have pointed out, Paul isn’t exactly awash in critical thinking. IIRC, he’s questioned evolution in the past. The man’s a freaking medical doctor. Either he’s as daffy as people like Perry over this, or it’s one of the more egregious cases of pandering to your electorate.

Many secular and atheist

It’s not surprising that secular voters go to Paul. Considering the extreme Christianist bent of the current Republican party, the only secular voters who are going to remain Republican are libertarians, who don’t like Christianists, but hate government even more. Ayn Rand, the closest thing libertarians have to a prophet, was explicitly atheist. Ron Paul is the only game in town for libertarians. I’m guessing that many either don’t know or make a determined effort to overlook the fact that Ron Paul is a pro-life creationist.

Sadly, I don’t think the lack of support for Romney from born-again Christians will last. Once he’s the candidate, they’ll realize that they prefer a wierd cultish guy who holds their pro-life, anti-gay, anti-secular values (at least as long as it’s convenient) to a guy who some think is Muslim and others think is the anti-Christ outright and who makes unacceptable comments about gay people having rights.

As for the rest, I’m pretty surprised Bachmann got 18% of the secular vote. I understand that secular Republicans are a pretty peculiar lot, but secular Republican Bachmann supporters? WTF? Are they doing it for the lulz of seeing Marcus Bachmann be first lady?

That’s not a reason to vote for Paul though.  One of the few good things about him is that he is consistently anti-war.

Yeah. Gary Johnson is Ron Paul with a little less crazy weighing him down.

I’d like to know who among the seculars is supporting BACHMAN?!?!?!  Romney I get.  Huntsman I get.  Paul I even get.  BACHMAN?

Ron Paul doesn’t believe in science.  The only Republican candidate that believes in science is John Huntsman. 

There seems to be a big misunderstanding among conservative secularists about what Ron Paul believes.

Maybe most disturbing are 18% of the secular vote for a theocrat like Bachman

Vote for Romney as the GOP Nominee? He’s less likely to lean on his religion.

You are the first person I have ever heard make this argument, while every single libertarian I have ever encountered has been a Rand-worshipper, so I find it hard to accept the argument.

Libertarian.  Not a Rand worshipper.  Valuing personal and economic freedoms doesn’t mean you have to be a self-centered jackass.

If he’s the first person you’ve heard make that argument, you know very little about Randian thought, Libertarianism, or Objectivism.

I’m a socialist, and I find Rand’s views horrific.

Romney would be silly putty in the hands of the ‘crazies’.
He’s a chameleon.

“Is that consistent with what he claims are his “libertarian” views?”

Actually yes it is. “libertarianism” is not about “protecting individual liberty” as many liberals assume it to mean. It’s really just a philosophy that the “federal government” may not interfere with private actions. Libertarians have no problem with state governments taking away someones liberties, or for private individuals to do the same to others through the rights of contracts. That’s why it’s not inconsistent for libertarians to believe state governments may put atheist in jail, according to them you are free to move out of that state.  And in the private realm, libertarians believe that all the business men in a town are “free” to meet and decide not to hire any atheist, or black people. For libertarians the atheist and black people are “free” to move. Just like a woman if “free” to sell her kids  into slavery to a corporation all in the name of “freedom” of contract.

Libertarianism is at it’s core social darwinism. It’s a belief that the powerful have an inherently right to push around the powerless all in the name or “freedom”.

“The same way people can be libertarian and have an IQ over 80: massive
cognitive dissonance coupled with willful ignorance of evidence.”

So believing in socialist nonsense would equate to an IQ over 100, right?

Try again.  All the candidates (including Obama) hold views that are awful.  Why should I fear a creationist President more than I fear one who asserts the right to kill anyone, American or not, whom a secret panel has deemed a terrorist? If Paul gets elected, the Fed will still continue to exist, regardless of how much he hates it.

I have never met a libertarian who had an ill word to say about Ayn Rand. However I’ll admit I’ve only ever interacted with libertarians online and I generally avoid them since they are by turns frustrating and infuriating, depending on the subject at hand, so my experience is rather limited. Just out of curiosity, could you tell me what the main differences between objectivists and libertarians are, or point me to a link that explains it?

If Paul had enough votes to get elected, then he might have enough votes to get the Fed removed.   If the electorate moved far enough to get him elected, I imagine that some of his goals might be within reach.

As for the goals of ending the two wars and  legalizing drugs,  I think you’d be better off  voting a straight Democrat ticket.  Historically,  they have been more in favor of those things than the Republicans.I do think that Obama deserves your criticism.    He could have done many things differently.  That said,  it doesn’t matter who was president for the past three years.  The congress we have, and the situation of the world has largely dictated much of the course the nation has steered. And in regards to religion,  of all the candidates in the upcoming election, only one has defended the concept of the separation of church and state, and that was Obama.

“As for the rest, I’m pretty surprised Bachmann got 18% of the secular vote.
”

Like Bachmann, her supporters also lie.

No, you’re right: libertarian philosophy is very similar to Objectivism.  I have heard of modern Objectivists being anti-libertarian (because Rand had denounced the new movement), but not vice versa.  It’s mainly a historical divide.

Not all atheists are one-issue voters.

The problem with Ron Paul is that he is a straight up anarcho-capitalist. He has some acceptable ideas here and there, but takes them to ridiculous extremes

Some libertarian positions are nice, but the thing is that libertarianism (the kind I can buy into to some extent) was originally a left-leaning position. Most modern American libertarians are right-wing and they understand something entirely else under the term. They mostly just want a radical free market economy without any restrictions and without rights for the labor force. That’s just not feasible in a modern economy and society. And they neglect the personal liberty aspect of the concept (which contrary to The Captain’s opinion, does exist in some libertarian views). Especially for groups they don’t like

As said above, there are different libertarian schools that are sometimes radically different. That’s where this confusion comes from

When you think of libertarianism, you probably think of left-libertarianism. Or something moderate in the middle of the extremes.

There are different schools in the movement, with diverse ideals. Ron Paul is an anarcho-capatalist who just wants a free market where the economy is left to its own devices. Consequences for the people be damned. And he doesn’t care about personal liberty. That’s quite compatible with the Bible

Other issues won’t seem so important in a theocracy.

*headdesk*

Ugh. Seriously? Ron Paul is, like, the worst candidate ever. Worse than Bush. Worse than Palin. The. Worst.

I’m no expert on the differences between libertarianism and objectivism, but I suspect that the passion that some display in talking about the differences is akin to the passions that some atheists and agnostics display in discussing those differences…  or the passions that Northern and Southern Baptists display in discussing those differences… etc.  There being some dividing issue that they view as more important than all the other issues that they have in common.

I hope this conversation isn’t too stale for this libertarian atheist to weigh in. A few things:

I was depressed reading these comments until I saw Ross’s comments. Some atheists are going to be single issue voters on how theocratic they expect the candidate will be, and that’s fine (these are important issues!). But there are other issues too. Paul as president could not singlehandedly turn America into a theocracy, but he could do a mighty lot to neuter the catastrophic “War on Drugs”, our (in at least some cases illegal) foreign wars, and the expansion of the national security state and executive power. Paul is far closer to the ACLU on these issues than Obama is. These are not explicitly atheist issues, but they’re probably of concern to most atheists.

That said, I don’t plan to vote for the guy. Gary Johnson has the above advantages but doesn’t have the crazy factor or the shady past of racist connections that Paul has. Gary Johnson is pro-choice and seems to be pretty secular. And he is by far the friendliest candidate to immigrants (radically viewing them as human beings). In fact, he’s far more humanitarian on immigration than Obama, who is worse than Bush.

My remark was made in jest, but I certainly didn’t expect such an exact answer:)

I admittedly only refer to one strain of libertarianism, but it is the strain I see that is dominate in the US by a wide margin. That version is built around the idea of economic liberty, above all else. It’s the founding principle for them, so it overrides all others. So yes, for many of them, you could sell your child (and yourself) into slavery and the right of free contract would trump all ideas of actual freedom, since for them, you where free not to sign the contract. 

This idea is not on the fringe either. Many so self identified libertarians have called for voting to be restricted by property ownership, and for the poor to be placed into work camps. Neal Boortz comes to mind, and he has spoken at libertarian party conventions, so he (and others) are hardly fringe.

“Why didn’t they also poll the Jewish Republicans?”

There aren’t any.

Seriously, though, when I was growing up, there were hardly any. Reagan changed all of that. I don’t recognize the Jewish community now. It certainly isn’t the one in which I grew up.

Not a day goes by that I don’t curse that man.

 18% secular voting for bachman…  this marks the first time i have been sad to be in the secular crowd!  even if it is tactical voting… if they push an unelectable candidate to the forefront of the republican party it is going to push the party farther right which is going to puch moderate farther right as well.  which means that whole courty gets pushed to the right.  (the overton window)  if they voted for a moderate candidate they could tactically push the whole U.S. toward the left (even if a republican got elected.)  Come on!!! big picture people!

I not only vote as an Atheist, but I also vote as a Humanist and a liberal.

Ron Paul is none of that and, in fact, is a disaster in all those areas.

He may be right on a couple of issues, but that’s about it. Any village idiot or extremist will agree with you on some issues.

For example: Stormfront people want to end the war in Iraq – for entirely different reasons than you probably want to end the war in Iraq, but they have the same goal. It doesn’t mean that I support them in anything whatsoever.

Nazis believe in freedom of speech – to say entirely different things than you or I say, but they still support freedom of speech (until they take power, that is). I believe in Freedom of Speech too, but it doesn’t mean that I support them in any way whatsoever.

It is curious, however, how Nazis and Stormfront assholes think that Ron Paul is one of them. In fact, if you keep up with what these scumbags think, they’ve thought that Ron Paul has been one of them since decades now – long before Ron Paul started running for President.

It’s also curious that Ron Paul hasn’t renounced their views about him, and seems to relish the idea that so many “diverse Americans” apparently support his cause.

I’m sorry, but they’re a group of “diverse Americans” whose support I think anyone here could do very well without in any election.

But not for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has had close ties with these “diverse Americans” since two decades or more. He also supports 9/11 conspiracy theories which, as we well know by now, has many links to these “diverse Americans” aforementioned. Ron Paul also thinks it would be a wonderful idea to set up a Patriarchy like in the Bible, as well as say that any business could decide not to serve anyone they want – based on any criteria such as, say, the color of their skin or religious affiliation.

Ron Paul is far too closely tied to these “diverse Americans” for my taste. In fact, I think it is incredibly offensive that he is given any time whatsoever on National TV, but that’s his right. However, I will say that I will never, ever, not-in-a-fucking-million-god-damn-years-with-nuclear-fucking-missiles-raining-down-on-us-and-the-only-fucking-saving-grace-would-be-to-elect-him-to-somehow-cowboy-us-up-and-save-the-day, EVER vote for him. The only gesture that Ron Paul will ever get from me is the finger.

I’d rather stick to my Atheist and Humanist convictions than elect a ruddy little closet Nazi into power, thank you – no matter what his stance on drugs or prostitution.

As an Atheist, and as a Humanist, and a liberal, I hope that I have made my position very clear.

Yea, I was out at a bar with the GF for about 5 hours before I wrote that.

Based on the lot of comments I saw regarding Paul’s christian views… I do not like them, I do not agre with them, but I do trust him not to be an atheist but a libertarian.

That explains why you said so much about that which you know so little. Next time, go home and sleep.

I’d rather trust consenting adults to decide what is a mutually agreeable exchange, than trust some magic fairy bureaucrat or politician to decide what is best for those two other people.

Your assertion about personal freedoms is also batshit crazy – Ron Paul is on record as saying people should be free to smoke or otherwise ingest whatever they like.  Educate yourself before you make yourself look stupid and ignorant.

If you never encountered a non-Rand libertarian, you simply need to get out more. Seriously. There is no excuse for remaining ignorant and pontificating about your ignorance.

The schism between Rand and libertarians is not news; it has been around for decades.

There are some serious divisions. For some reason, Objectivists seem to be all devoted to the idea of bombing people into democracy; non-objectivists seldom make that mistake. An orthodox Objectivist cannot be an anarchist; that would be an unspeakable heresy. An orthodox Objectivist cannot tolerate any form of theism; I suspect that their zeal to bomb Muslims derives from this hatred of theism.

Which reminds me – if Ron Paul is as “theocratic”, as some of the people here claim, why is he the only one who opposes the war against Muslims? Seriously, do some of you folks even think, or do you just emote whatever nonsense comes to mind?