who do you think will win the 2012 Presidential Election?

Extremely doubtful, IMO. I expect Paul would steal as many or more votes from Obama as from the GOP nominee. His social libertarianism and strong opposition to virtually all wars would appeal very strongly to a lot of Democrats and Dem leaners. And, in a three way debate match-up, he would hold each candidate's feet to the same fire. I expect he would have a Perot-like effect, drawing nearly equally from both sides and forcing each to talk about things they'd rather not.

I'd quite welcome a third-party Paul bid. I could never vote for him but I respect his point of view and I think it would force the debate we need to have as a nation.

 

Name some of Paul's "irrefutable" points.

 

Okay, that was too strong a word. Of course anything can be argued. Let me just say that he makes arguments that I think it would be difficult for any thinking person to disagree with.

He, and I, are absolutists on getting the government out of regulating what should be personal decisions: drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I think he falls down on abortion here but I understand it's a gray area that could go either way with regard to questions of liberty. I also think he makes strong arguments against our out of control military budget, the scope of our foreign aid (particularly when we are ourselves in such debt), nation-building and (more than anything) the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action.

If it makes you feel any better though I think his other ideas are tremendously dangerous for the state of the union.

 

If that was all he argued against, I could understand. But it's a strawman. I seriously doubt Obama or if he's elected Romney, are going to go off invading countries pre-emptively anytime soon. At best, they'll do something like Libya, which has been a stupendous success, but which Paul opposed and has continued to oppose because he basically wants us to literally not involve ourselves with the rest of the world, period. I mean, this is the guy who stated that going into Pakistan to take out Bin Laden was a bad thing. That is something I can never accept. Foreign aid is a miniscule part of our budget, and while our military budget could possibly be slashed, it's the standard Paul thing of he has one good idea, and 500 insane ones. His gold crap alone should merit him not being taken seriously, as that would destroy this country if ever implemented.

 

i think he has more appeal than people realize. but if it came down to a 3 way race w/ paul as a 3rd party candidate i think his #'s would go up. he would definitely sink the republicans, which i think would be awesome, but i also think he would win the independent vote and even some democrats who are disillusioned w/ obama. i think he would have as good as or better a shot than perot did.

and thats why i like him. i dont agree w/ him on everything, but on what i see as the key issues (foreign policy, wars, civil liberties, corporatism, spending/debt) i believe he is spot on. his ideas, in alot of ways are radical...but they are only radical in the sense that he wants to follow the constitution and over the last 100 years or so we have really gotten away from it.

this sounds like exactly what we have been for the past 30 years or so. actually, its been worse than every man for himself under R's and D's - we have the 99% subsidizing the enrichment of the 1%. imo, what we have now is cruel, unfair and short-sighted.

totally agree. and i respect the fact that as a democrat you want to see the process opened up to 3rd parties/more ideas. many R's and D's seem content to keep things the way they are.