He's the only anti-war candidate. Too bad he can't be more moderate on other issues because an anti war stance is exactly what this country needs to clean up our financial troubles. It is no surprise that under Clinton's watch, he shrunk the military and we had surpluses.
Agreed, but the discussion about political/economic philosophies is also very important. I'd be 100% behind Paul except that his ideas about regulation and the free market are outrageously silly.
I always wondered where all his campaign money goes. He doesn't spend any money on TV. I guess he just laughs all the way to the bank.
I have spent time discussing issues with Dr. Paul one on one. My impression- *only honest politician I have heard *we disagree on his personal responsibility/freedom/de-regulate drugs stance, although he said he supported laws at the local level and thought states should regulate traffiking. *his economic theories are just that, around free market and sound money he is spot on, he does not think the solution would be to just pass one fix all law, but that it is like turning an ocean liner, you start steering the right direction and eventually get it turned around... he is alot less radical on economics that you might think, he would slash military spending to bare bones, enough for national defense of our borders, and he would begin to reform most every social program by attacking waste and he would do everything in his power to get us out of debt, and use a monetary basis besides debt and paper with green ink. *he would push most decisions to states and downsize the federal govt. alot *he is a very strict constitutionalist and would narrowly interpret constitutional govt. based upon early case law, pre-1920. The biggest problem I find with Ron Paul, knowing him personally is that he is too much the optimist. I am going to speak with him after his campaign is finished about the strong corporatist nature of our government. It is because we have a strong corporatist government that constitutional governance is impossible. In my opinion he is delusionally optimistic about people having enough good to make the nation better. The core character of Americans does not lend itself to individual freedoms, but central government control. Dr. Paul is too late. I have told his son Ron Jr. who is a personal friend to get his Dad back to his OB Gyn practice, but he thinks his Dad actually believes that truth will prevail, or at least should be heard. Problem is in our current state the truth doesn't work. We need lying politicians in government who can be controlled and who bend to special interest groups. That is how our government now exists and to pull the rug on that would create chaos. Dr. Paul is a very humble, honest and nice man, but he shouldn't be in politics.
And that assessment is why I believe he should be in politics. Governance should be done properly from the middle and you need a voice like him to have a counter argument to the policy set by the corporate interests as he represents ideal personal liberty.
IMO- corporate power is so great that they will destroy any personal liberty that runs counter to their profit motive, here or abroad... my son in law is from PaPua New Guinea and global corporations are raping that country and the people grabbing up their gold , copper, natural gas and oil. It's just too late for people to escape their power. They control the military and they control most of what they want to control. What would we do if our governement started arresting innocent citizens just for speaking out against policy?-answer nothing, they already can snoop/monitor through email, online activity, cell phone usage, drivers license, ss #, banking etc. I don't think any of us would do anything if our government came after innocent people because we couldn't do anything. This isn't 1776 you know
Riiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhhhttttttttt. Out of curiosity, I'll go ahead and ask which people are more inclined towards individual freedom and not central government control. Perhaps I'm biased, as the two foreign countries I know the best are both highly authoritarian cultures, but this should be fun. The fact that you spout gold junk is fun too. You say you talked with him, so I want to be super, duper clear. Dr. Paul is perfectly willing to throw about 100 years of court out the window? Including, say Brown v. Board, Griswold v. Connecticut, Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, and so on? If your answer is yes, then uh, congrats, he's surpassed Bachmann and Santorum for insanity.
sorry, the posting about pre 1920 case law was with respect to civil liberty, I wasn't thinking of a particular time period or case, just saying that he is very anti- big centralized government. I don't think he would go after any specific SC decision, just saying he opposes government intrusion into personal lives and liberty. IMO he prefers local/state law to federal controls. And as far as central government vs. more individual freedom to me it doesn't matter that much, except as far as the kind of government my children and grandchildren get.
How do you know hes not spending money on TV? He is spending money like crazy these past 2 quarters. He has made and aired multiple ads in key primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Just because you dont see ads on your tv screen does not justify your silly comment
I have nothing against Ron Paul personally and admire him for his consistency of his views. While I don't agree with him on many things I agree that he absolutely should be in politics. Realistically yes he might not get any more successful than he is now but his voice is very important for the national discussion.
1. His message attracts too many fringe groups, that hurts the national discussion IMO. He is not 'political' and 'crafty' enough to deliver the same message wrapped in a more centrist package. So if he questions the FED or Foreign Policy he speaks his mind so directly that more extreme groups take up his mantle, which places their reputation on him. For instance, how many mainstream politicians will appear on Alex Jones show? I don't think Ron Paul really cares about all the other associations Alex Jones has, Paul just is willing to go on anywhere to speak. 2. He becomes an easy target for mainstream politicians because he doesn't compromise his beliefs and thus those ideas that have real merit and possible opportunity for the nation go down with the ship. 3. The most important reason I wish he got out of politics is that in the end, the majority of the populace will have the same response, nice guy, don't agree and he could do so much more in other areas. For instance he was my wife's doctor and we miss his practice alot. I wish he would go back to his medical practice, I would get to discuss things with him more. BTW- There are alot of things he and I don't agree on also. But a few key issues I think he is spot on, he has a brilliant understanding of money and economics, at least from the Austrian perspective. Very articulate with regard to long term value and wealth creation in a national economy (at least once you get past the surface level discussion like in a political debate).
I guess it makes sense given his optimist nature, but this point is really a sour one. yes, money creation based on financial innovations, and money being the physical manifestation of innovating fiscal markets (and thus a permanent reflection of growth rather than the short-term paper whims of madmen) looks good on paper, but who the hell can't see that most of the major banks are run by people who would have no qualms robbing Grandma to make a quick buck? Who can't see that the derivatives they are creating are nightmares that don't innovate, but rather are mere illusory tricks designed to disguise an unproductive alchemy that leaves the rich richer, and the poor poorer? How could you believe in people (especially bankers) that much?
As long as we have a financial system that rewards companies for short term profits (think about how stocks go up and down based on quarterly earnings) companies will always do whatever they can to make a quick buck, even if it means trashing the environment or robbing the poor and middle class. Corporations are encouraged to think only in terms of short term gains by investors. So why would you trust these things (or according to supreme court, people)?
True, get ahold of the book 'The Creature from Jekyll Island' , it is hard to understand what money is since bankers manipulate currency and debt markets; and this book really demonstrates the difference between a debt note (paper with green ink) and money.
rhester, your Ron Paul perspective is very interesting and enlightening. I would rep you if it would let me.
Paul is an interesting case. It's hard NOT to like him personally from what we can consume as a public at large, but some of the things he says make me scratch my head a bit. I'm always surprised at the amount of results that people actually think a President can get, though - especially in the climate that exists in our Congress for the past few years, which is so bitterly partisan that I have lost faith that anything can be done quickly to right the ship. Part of the beauty in how our government is set up is how slowly change can really happen - it has preserved us for a long time in keeping things stable without giant spikes. But we get to points (like we are in today) where we WANT drastic change, but I don't think our system can support it.
The core character of Americans does not lend itself to individual freedoms, but central government control. If I may give my interpretation: Americans are some greedy snake oil salesmen. If left to their own, they would sell:
