Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a 2012 Republican Party presidential hopeful, has recently received an immense amount of attention from the American public. Though oftentimes considered an outsider by the Republican mainstream, Paul has garnered support from college-aged individuals at unprecedented levels. As the Republican Party as a whole continues to lose support from young people and the next generation of their constituency, Paul has continually caught an amount of positive attention from young voters coming from both liberal and conservative realms. Paul has done the impossible: He’s successfully captivated the 18 to 20-somethings that Republicans had so expertly lost.

In the past decade, Republican politicians have lost the support of scores of young people largely because of their stance on a few key issues. In particular, many young voters have become disheartened with the party due to the politicians’ general lack of support for LGBT rights. In addition, many young people have major issues with the Republican Party’s stance on the so-called “war on terror” (get us the hell home, right?). Many youth are also turned off by the Republican Party’s stance on drugs; specifically, Republican politicians’ opposition to legalization and regulation of marijuana for any purpose (including medical) resonates as a turn-off to many.

Enter: Ron Paul. Paul, despite his Republican Party affiliation, has been embraced by many young people coming from all political paradigms. Even self-identifying progressives have embraced Ron Paul; he’s known by all too many as that safe pseudo-Republican. He touts the rhetoric of individual liberty and freedom — and it’s catching on.

All other issues aside, Paul has won the support of young people as a result of two key stances: drug policy and war. He has taken a stand unique to any major candidate for any major office today; he supports the ending of the war on drugs and has a long history of opposition to foreign intervention and the Patriot Act. Because of Paul’s party-boundary-bending ways, he’s seen by many as that “anti-war, pseudo-hippy yet still a Republican” guy. Middle-of-the-roaders have fallen in love with him, progressives have warmed up to him, and young conservatives identify with his fashionable anti-war message while being able to maintain their fiscally conservative ideology. Many would say: What’s not to love?

Paul’s religious and cultural ideology is particularly worrisome. In fact, it’s scary as hell. Though often voicing his libertarian principles as opposition to government intervention, Paul is apparently only libertarian on issues that do not impede on his personal ideologies. If you’re female, sexually active, LGBTQ, a racial minority or elderly (or will be any of the former at any point in the future), prepare to have your “individual liberties” impeded on.

If you’re female or sexually active with a female, Paul’s libertarianism does not apply to you. Paul holds a radical view on reproductive rights that is unshared with even some of the most socially conservative politicians. Paul was not only a sponsor of a bill aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade, Paul also holds an absolutely no-exceptions-whatsoever view on abortion. In other words, Paul believes a woman should be prohibited by law to seek an abortion in any circumstance, including rape or incest. Your girlfriend is raped and impregnated by your former best friend? The 12-year-old you baby-sit is impregnated by her father? Paul doesn’t care — his libertarian principles apparently do not apply to women’s bodies.

In addition to Paul’s lack of libertarian principles for the female half of the world, if you’re elderly or disabled, his libertarianism does not apply to you either. Paul has declared both Social Security and Medicare as being in inherent opposition to our Constitution. You want to retire someday? No chance. Your grandmother has diabetes? Doesn’t matter. Your father is paralyzed in an accident on the job and can no longer work? Paul doesn’t give a shit. For Paul, “individual liberty” is only relevant to the young and able-bodied.

Perhaps the most shocking, however, is Paul’s radical stance on civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He has famously issued multiple quotes demoralizing one of the greatest milestones our country has achieved. Both Republicans and Democrats alike can generally agree the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a major milestone in our progress as a country. Paul, not so much: “[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” Outlawing Jim Crow laws and segregation based on race diminishing individual liberty? The majority of sane people could agree that allowing all people, regardless of race, to do something as basic as going to the restroom where they please does absolutely nothing to impede on individual liberty.

Though I’ve only touched on a few of Paul’s worrisome standpoints, he has been incorrectly perceived by an amount of both liberals and conservatives as that “safe” politician who doesn’t worry about party politics. This is simply not the case. If you’re woman or hold sexual relationships with women, are elderly or will be some day, are a racial minority or would like to be able to see all of your friends in public spaces, or are disabled or potentially could be, you are by no means “safe” from the scary politics of the selectively libertarian Ron Paul. In fact, no one is.