This guy is just so honest. While all the politicians are appealing to peoples emotions and trying to gain votes, he stands for something, literally stands for it and he sticks to his story and is just honest up there. I don't agree with some of the things he says and find it to be a bit too unregulated, but i do agree and most of all appreciate and respect that he is not playing games and that he is being honest. That is how I would want the country handeled and represented http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/ron-paul-pot_n_1109102.html
I's not a caricature, it's the way he actively portrays himself and responds to any question on the issue: From his website: That's not buried off in the fine print, it's what he announces everytime somebody asks the question: Seriously, what normal non-ridiculous posititions does he have that nobody else brings to the table? I can think of maybe repealing farm subsidies as one....but that's about it.
As I like to observe on that field, Rorschach was very honest. Pragmatic is the LAST word out there I would use to describe Ron Paul - you can't be as honest and uncompromising as he is, and still be pragmatic. Some of his issues may in fact be better than mainstream conservatism, but it's not out of pragmatism. It's out of fanatical adherence to a libertarian ideology which is right two times a day, and wrong the rest of the time. Secondly, mcmark showed a series of polls where frankly Paul has not really been in the top three that often. And like debate polls mean anything - everyone who knows anything about present and past GOP election cycles know that Paul's fanatical supporters will spam any poll that he can, as that's why he wins all the internet polls. Why would you doubt that Paul would start the discussion with that? It's what he's all about on taxes. He's preached that repeatedly, in public. Why do you think, all of a sudden, he's going to stop saying it just because he's nominated. Paul really doesn't follow political winds, he says what he believes, which means that any debate he has will have him ranting about his ideology. Some out there say it's honest and they like it. I say that honest craziness is still craziness, and is possibly worse than dishonest craziness as you know the honest guy will stay crazy.
This is the reason that I would support Paul on the bottom half of a Presidential ticket. He would have enough influence to get us back on track, but not enough power to enact the truly crazy s***.
Politics aside, it would be kind of strange putting in a guy who's 76 years old to be the Vice President.
+1. I agree with Paul on about 90% of things, but the 10% we disagree on is stuff that, if he were to touch, might completely bumfuzzle this country.
I agree the debates would be very interesting and probably pretty substantive. It would be interesting to see Ron Paul hitting Obama from the left regarding foreign policy and national security. What would be even more interesting would be seeing a three way debate between Obama, the Republican nominee (be it Romney, Cain, Gingrich or Perry) and Ron Paul. While the debates would be interesting I predict Ron Paul gets crushed in a landslide in the general election.
I agree with the Nader comparison to some degree, but believe most Nader supporters knew he had zero chance and fully understood his role was to interject certain ideas into the discourse. The Paulites on the other hand (the 10 Percenters?), latch on to the good stuff Ron says and ignore his nutjob offerings that nullify him as legit. They really think he is a viable candidate.
Most Paulites that I have talked to support every part of his platform. Some support the parts that most people consider nutty, gold standard, abolish the Fed, more than other parts that wider agreement (decriminalization of mar1juana and ending the wars).
Good point. To clarify, many Paul supporters apparently do not comprehend the real-world ramifications of his nuttier positions.
-There's an obvious distinction between stating and starting a debate with "we need to abolish the IRS and abandon the unconstitutional income tax" I'm not questioning that it's his position. Just saying that the manner he'd go about articulating the position and justifying it would probably offer a little more depth than what you provided. Seriously? -Opposition to foreign intervention and wars of aggression -Enhanced diplomacy with foreign countries -Opposiiton to foreign aid -Understanding of terrorism is typically far more balanced and nuanced than other politicians -Constitutional rights issues such as freedom of speech and never suspending habeus corpus -Against the Patriot Act -Substantial reduction in defense spending -Against domestic surveillance programs -Against extraordinary renditioning of US citizens -Opposition to the ongoing, counterproductive drug war I dont see a single Republican candidate that would espouse the above positions, and frankly, Obama does not stand for the majority of them as well.
The debates would be as interesting as watching Al Gore grind Ross Perot into the dust on Larry King.
Not really...it's actually even worse than you'd imagine from that snippet. The full transcript is here - he's basically saying Cain's idiotic 9-9-9 plan is dangerous becuase "it raises revenue" (which is false).... ...then he diverts the discussion into his policy and agenda abolishing the income tax and replacing it with nothing. So you're right, he didn't start out with "i'm going to abolish income tax" - he started out with "Cain's [regressive] 9-9-9 tax cut plan is a horrible idea because it's not regressive enough AND I'm going to abolish income tax" Uhh...about half or more of these is directly/indirectly on foreign policy Paul is about as impractical and silly as it gets. He was against the most popular foreign policy initiative of the last decade...the bin Laden raid, and has mumbled something about working with Pakistan instead. That's about as dangerously naive as W, Dickie, wolfie & rummy thinking htey can create an athenian democracy in Baghdad in 3 months
vaids, a quick question on the Drug War, and one that I simply can't understand. Do you think legalizing ALL drugs is okay? Including cocaine, morphine, meth, etc?
I think your opinions are bat**** nuts, without any merit, and extreme, and I'm not going to say why; I'm just going to tell you my opinion as though its the truth. My opinion is as good as yours right???
There's a baseline level of credibility that certain opinions should have to meet to merit non-summary dismissal. Many, arguably most of Paul's ("we shouldn't go after bin Laden, we should just let the Pakistanis handle him!") generally don't meet that threshold. That's why he's a fringe candidate of the single white internetmale.
Sentences 2-5 of my original statement should probably be read again. The destruction of the Federal Reserve, the implementation of the Gold Standard, the complete end of the Drug War ( I can understand lessening it, but not ending), almost total withdrawal from international affairs (Sam's point about Paul's claim that he wouldn't go after Bin Laden, as well as the fact that he opposed the Libya strike, are perfectly valid. America has a right to attempt to reshape the world in a way that suits it the best.)
