Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
FWIW, some of us are still undecided. Since I don't even have a sample ballot in hand yet, I like to sit back, watch, see who says what and go from there. There are lots of candidates and lots to think about. When the time comes, I'll decide. Perhaps I'll vote for the last duck standing.





Besides, the only wall I saw was the one where you indicated that you wouldn't be discussing the matter further.
 
<p>"How much the Paul campaign had snowballed on the Internet became evident last week when supporters independent of the campaign raised $4 million online and an additional $200,000 over the phone in a single day, a record among this year’s Republican candidates. There is even talk that Mr. Paul could influence the primary in New Hampshire, where he could draw votes from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is trying to revive the independent persona that helped him win the state’s primary in 2000."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/politics/11paul.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin">Linky</a></p>
 
<object width="425" height="355">

<param value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUYDt7kC3Z0&rel=1" name="movie" />

<param value="transparent" name="wmode" /><embed width="425" height="355" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WUYDt7kC3Z0&rel=1"></embed></object>
 
<p>Am I the only one that is getting the you tube post throughs streaming like caca? 3 or 4 seconds, pause for 4-10seconds, play for 3-4 seconds, pause to buffer.</p>

<p>Doesn't happen directly on you tube, just when they're imbedded.</p>

<p> </p>
 
What impresses me about Ron Paul as a candidate is his understanding that individual liberty trumps his personal beliefs. Paul believes that the tougher the issue, the more localized the decisions should be made. So, regardless of Paul's views on education, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, or whatever, the fact is, the federal government should not be writting such broadly sweeping laws. To me, this type of campaign strategy should appeal to the majority.



Take for instance the number of people you know who are pro-choice, but say they will not vote for a candidate just because he/she is pro-life (or vice versa and insert your favorite issue)? Well, that voting strategy makes sense if we as a people give up our constitutional rights and continue writing laws at a national level.



Who wouldn't want to vote for a presidential candidate that values individual freedom?
 
<em>>>Paul believes that the tougher the issue, the more localized the decisions should be made. So, regardless of Paul's views on education, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, or whatever, the fact is, the federal government should not be writting such broadly sweeping laws. To me, this type of campaign strategy should appeal to the majority.</em>





Well, yeah. Because if the local majority decides it does or doesn't like something, it can make the law. Time to re-segregate the public schools in the South, I guess.
 
Adam, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in part guarantees equal protection of ALL citizens the equal protection of the laws. To some extent, that means that law has to be written with all citizens in mind. While I agree there are things that the National government should leave to the States, there is no way I want to allow the State of Washington to declare that gasoline cars are illegal, which it most certainly would do if the liberal population of Seattle had it's way. Ron Paul still suffers from the same point I made on the first page... he can't explain how he intends to put his campaign promises into actual practice. Until I see an actual plan, with proposed legislation, he's just another idealogue; the Howard Dean of the Republican party in 2008.
 
<p>I'll take local idiocy over national idiocy any day. I can always change cities, counties or States. Changing my country, that's more difficult.</p>

<p> Nude, you're equally protected if the State makes gas cars illegal. As long as they don't violate your constitution rights, you're covered.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
I think Ron Paul is an intelligent guy, but he seems to be preaching when he talks. I think that may turn a lot of voters off. Whether he'll be good or not for the country is yet to be seen. Can he push policies through with our socialist democrook congress and democrook senate? How about the hear no evil, see know evil right -wing Bernanke backers that live in Larry Kudlow's fantasy land?





Hopefully the internet will continue to bring fringe candidates to light. I'm tired of listening to these over-the hill blowhards on capitol hill who only exist to protect their own self-interests.
 
EvaLSaraphim, you are right. See, what I failed to realize is how the current system seems to be working out well for everybody. Your tactic of flippant remarks has opened my eyes and I would be very interested in learning more about candidates you support. I'll promise not to sit back and simply punch holes in your logic. Fair enough?
 
Adam, forgive me for making you think beyond sound bites.





Also, why are you trying to shut me down? I give you a long detailed response, and you say you don't want to play - can't get into it. I shorten things up for you and you don't like it either. What's that about?
 
Nude - I don't like seeing a plans before elections because it's all a bunch of promises and and arm waving and then when they finally get into office, nothing happens. I think the Bush's are very good at this tactic (Read-My-Lips Bush Sr., and no nation building for Bush Jr). I'd rather have a candidate plain out state where he is on the issue, and REPEAT it everywhere he goes so you know exactly what you're getting. With other candidates, it feels like tossing loaded dice and crapping out the second you think you have something good.



I honestly believe Ron Paul is the very last chance for America to put itself back on track to the greatness it once had. After this, there are no more takebacks or mulligans. I don't like seeing my tax dollars going towards wars that I didn't want, and to bail out Citibank, Etrade, and Morgan Stanley, because a bunch of Ivy League MBAs got greedy. Oil at $100? Somehow I think $100 oil will seem like a bargain once we have one oil supply shock that causes a huge shortage in the system.



As a saver who worked his way through college, I am very angry to see prices go up and being priced out of the home market. Not just Irvine's market, but ALL of California. While I must give credit to those who made a fortune out of selling houses at a huge premium, it has come with a cost (mainly me having to continue renting with roomates. Cmon guys, I need a place of my own after all these years of rooming). People like me have been severely burned by the inflation tax. I know some of you are saying "just continue to rent" but rent is going up at an alarming rate in Orange County. I started college around 2003 and it cost $1300 to rent a two bedroom. That same two bedroom is now $2000 in a matter of 3 years (53% increase, 17% YOY ).



With that, I hope all of you vote no matter which candidate you choose. I hope I'm wrong when I say Ron Paul is our last chance.
 
<p>nude - Specifically, I think Ron Paul's plan is to immediately eliminate the IRS and if he can not actually eliminate the IRS, he plans to do everything he can to take away as much of the IRS's power as he is able. Second, Ron Paul will eliminate the Federal Reserve, and if unable to eliminate, he again will do everything he can to take away the Federal Reserve's power. Then he will break for lunch.</p>

<p>I tend to agree with shizumaru that Ron Paul is this country's last chance for goverrnment by the people instead of by the mob.</p>
 
<em>>>I started college around 2003</em>





You're too young to be bitter about renting. Did you expect to own while you were in college? Heck, I didn't buy my place until I was in my early '30s, when I finally felt comfortable committing to a place.
 
Awgee - I don't think that elimination of the IRS will mean the elimination of income taxes. RP sponsored <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.1364:">HR 1364</a>, which seeks to remove withholding of taxes at payroll and instead collect them monthly. Given how not responsible many people are with their monthly bills, I don't really think that's a great idea. It seems that such a system would be too volatile for running a national government which has to fund large projects like defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top