The Ron Paul thread.

Seriously, why doesnt this guy gets more atention from the media compared to, lets say, Sarah Palin??

Dunno maybe because he has some rational sanity.

Because he doesn't appear to be batshit insane or a member of the American Religious Right(Which are often seen as the same).

Some isn't necessarily very much.

He'll probably get more coverage due to his performance in the recent straw poll.

edited 15th Aug '11 3:56:30 PM by silver2195

thats the thing.

He isnt. He practically tied with Bachman...and Bachman is getting all the press... It is disturbing.

edited 15th Aug '11 4:01:21 PM by Baff

Ron has been doing his thing for decades. He has no chance, because he is a principled libertarian-meaning he actually believes in ending wars including the war on drugs. He will always isolate the religious right, and though he has the funding of bigwigs that are anti-tax to some extent, they know that he can't actually get elected because he negate about two third of the Republican base, while simultaneously negating a fair amount of moderate voters. Ron Paul winning debates isn't necessarily even new, it's just that it's never led to anything, and never will.

It's a strange twisting of the Boy who cried Wolf.

edited 15th Aug '11 4:27:34 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Because the press loves drama. I don't know much about this Ron Paul guy, but Bachmann is providing plenty of drama. Mr Paul, I guess, just isn't as interesting.

The way I see it, to win the Republican nomination you've got to be on top of at least two of the four "legs" of the Republican party:

1. libertarian & fiscal conservatives and libertarian moderates: no problem there.
2. moral conservatives, religious fundamentalists, etc.: either Bachman or Perry beats him.
3. "national security conservatives": here, most of the other candidates beat him.
4. moderate Republicans & Republican - leaning independents: here, Romney beats him.

Ron Paul was fine with me up until he did his "Pray For Rain" campaign here in Texas, which is, well... like a slap in the face to sanity and fueling the religious ignorance here.

He's still leagues better than Bachmann but so is a dried-up jellyfish.

That was Rick Perry. Yes, both of them are Texas with the initials RP, so it's somewhat understandable.

OP, Sarah Palin isn't running (gasp!)

He kind of is a nutjob, in a way. He really hates the Federal Reserve, he wants to allow guns on airplanes, and many of his biggest fans are conspiracy theorists.

Still, his status as the anti-war candidate helps my opinion of him.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:28:56 PM by Smasher

He has officially entered the "crazy as shit" portion of the runners.

Which is to say, the vast majority...

He's kind of a loopey guy, but that's easily tempered by a nice strong Cabinet. I'd vote for him again. I think a debate with him on one side and President Obama on the other would be rather interesting to watch.

I'm seeing more a few grassroots signs going up in support of him, recently.

If it was Ron Paul vs Obama, you'd just have to see which of them would want to talk about legalizing marijuana first.

Paul can theoretically appeal to the hippy vote because of his pro legalization stance.

"I believe heroin should be legal. If we legalize heroin, you're not going to go out and try heroin-you don't need the government to tell you that heroin is bad for you."

What appears to be blatant common sense still needs a wee bit of regulating. Or a ban on it. Why do we have various waarning labels on not using an energized pieces of equipment while taking a bath?

Becasue people are STUPID.

So no, Mr. Paul, don't un-ban hard drugs.

Hey, we don't ban toasters, we just apply warning lables. Heroin should be sold in bottles with skull and crossbones on it with the lable "THIS SHIT WILL KILL YOU-THIS SHIT IS THE REAL SHIT!"

Heroin will also cause you to start misspelling lables.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:44:16 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Personally, the tropers have convinced me that unbanning everything but meth is a good idea...

Because that makes it easier to ban, as strange as that sounds.

So, go ahead, Mr. Paul. Doing that makes it easier for me to make drugs impossible to get.

edited 15th Aug '11 6:44:20 PM by USAF713

It's not that people should or shouldn't have access to hard drugs-it's that there are costs to enforcement, and the question is, at what point does allowing hard drugs cost less in overall social utility than enforcement.

I think that it should be illegal to sell hard drugs, but definitely not be illegal to be a user.

Ooooor...

We make them legal and tax them to death.

Thus changing the crime from "possession of drugs" to "tax evasion" and/or "robbery with assault" if they try to get money that way.

Then we can keep them in jail, and/or they just don't do drugs. It would also make it much easier to shame them to death for doing it.

Once again, go Ron Paul!

Dude dude dude, you're missing the point.

Putting people in jail is fucking expensive.

Ron paul was anti abortion there by ruining any credibility he might have had with me.

And if one Republican gets elected, please be Huntsmen, the moderate.

The last moderate Republican was Eisenhower, the last good Republican president.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:31:49 PM by Erock

Ha ha ha. Huntsman being elected? He'd have to be nominated first-and he has less chance of being nominated than Ron Paul does.

Imagine a Huntsman/Paul ticket (or vice versa). Ha.

Given Paul's profession, I'm pretty sure his opposition to abortion stems from sincere convictions.

Exactly.

edited 15th Aug '11 7:50:35 PM by silver2195

He's a doctor who gives birth (he's even done it for free on several occasions)

He also doesn't believe in evolution.

Does he still have that death blimp?