The Ron Paul thread.

@Erock: Actually, history says otherwise with various points like unions and the Depression. I saw an episode of Stossel where he was debunking commonly held myths about history.

Hello, I'm not American, but I've been seeing a lot talk about this Ron Paul fellow and was wondering if you could tell me a bit about him.

Sorry about the thread nerco. :<

edited 22nd Dec '11 3:10:04 AM by joeyjojo

He's just some crazy guy who wants to allow guns on airplanes.

A talks how with a liberterian point of view cannot "debunk" such "myths".

Lets hope he wins Iowa.

edited 22nd Dec '11 6:03:13 AM by kay4today

I am. Pls ask me why...

....

Why.

As I've said before. I don't see him as the "great hope" or some big different person. I trust him as far as I can throw him. I.E. I think he's a liar.

...Now, I can understand "slightly off-kilter", but "liar"?

Probably because he'd get demolished in the general election.

I still want an official statement from Ron Paul on his view of the Right to Death, and things like Oregon's Death with Dignity law.

Two reasons.

First, that I don't feel that this supposedly bedrock ideologies are very consistent. To be honest, it doesn't FEEL like a bedrock to me. It feels like a slap-dash thrown together mix of Far Right and Far Left ideas in order to maximize support.

Second, for years he's been an anti-pork crusader who has also gotten pork for his constituency thrown in. Now, I understand this is politically necessary, but if he's keeping on being reelected, why should it be? His constituents are voting for an anti-pork politician, so no pork for them.

For what it's worth I'm not anti-pork. I'm anti-anti-pork. I think the whole thing is way overblown and actually is very damaging to good government. It's throwing everything in the same boat instead of evaluating them on a case by case basis. Hell, even the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere" wasn't that bad.

Anti-pork? That's a thing?

I'll warn you up front, this is not a serious post.

Ron Paul is dark horse candidate in a wide field, running against an incumbent president. He's a dove that hopes to appeal to young voters and people alienated by party politics. He's a veteran Senator with a reputation for being an effective orator and negotiator, but isn't personally charismatic. He has a salad of views that poll well individually but aren't collectively popular. He has a cult following outside his party's usual demographic, but the party establishment and party core demographics hate his guts.

His primary opponents are an all-but-washed-up party longtimer, a milquetoast party standby ruined by a public breakdown, a charismatic young state governor with a reputation for flip-flopping on moral wedge issues, and a politically-radical woman considered by most to be a longshot.

The incumbent is a charismatic, beleaguered centrist who presided over an unprecedented economic crisis that began under the previous party's administration, and his plan for dealing with it was to appropriate the opposition's previous centrist plans and force them through. The incumbent is also coming off of a foreign relations coup and promises to slowly taper off the country's involvement in draining, demoralizing foreign war, but his authoritarian policies and constant wartime setbacks have cast him as a hawk despite this. Partisanship is at a decades-long high.

Nixon beat McGovern with 61% of the popular vote and took every state but Massachusetts.

edited 22nd Dec '11 6:50:54 PM by AManInBlack

Yes. Up until a few years ago Paul was most active in being an anti-pork crusader.

Because if Ron Paul wins that would send the whole GOP into desarray.

Also... Putting aside his alleged racism and somehow extreme views on gun control...

I still think he is better than anyone else in the GOP if only because he respect civil liberties. The more atention Ron Paul gets... the more atention civil liberties get.

Because, comparing him to Ginrich and Batchmann... Ron Paul is George Washington for all I care.

Besides... We all know that if he actually got elected he would be unable to pass his more extreme reforms but he A) would veto a good deal of horrible horrible bills B) wouldnt suck us into war.

I personally thing than a Ron Paul presidency would be better that what we had under George W. Sure... that is not a lot.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/the-meaning-of-mercury/

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the "it doesn't matter who the president" issue is.

That wasnt my sentiment do. As I implicitly pointed out... the greatest powers the president has are declaring war (through unconstitutional police actions) or vetoing (or not vetoing as Krugman points out).

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:51:16 PM by Baff

The above article was a regulatory change made by the EPA, Baff. The EPA and other such regulatory agencies are under the direction of the president. Ron Paul, in particular, has expressed a desire to abolish the EPA.

A Man in Black, I don't get your first post here's joke, or what Nixon has to do with Ron Paul... :/

And that makes him different from the other GOP nominees how???

Ron Paul is not going to win the precidency no matter what. But its a good thing that he gets a good votation because he inspires true debate.

He is the only true candidate this country has... imperfect and deeply flawed as he might be.

Well if he hasn't said anything about it, maybe he is neutral on the issue?

edited 23rd Dec '11 2:54:58 AM by joeyjojo

Neutrality is completely unacceptable! As a self-declared Libertarian, he must be against government involvement in all aspects of life, including the right to death!

Pfft. Right to death. You pick the silliest wedge issues, Tomu.

Foreign policy is where it's at.

Nonsense. If we're invaded by demons that torture us infinitely, the ability to self-terminate will be more important than traded policy by a mile.