I Love Ron Paul

[Schmidty]

I've followed him closely, and I just watched him on "Meet the Press", and in my opinion, that man is what this country needs, even if he's not perfect.

I am not politically savvy AT ALL. I admit that openly. I am more of a broad vision person, but I love his general ideas. Maybe I'm a rube, but at least I know he's passionate and isn't a scumball like......pretty much every other candidate that's running. Everyone else is sucking at the teat of special interest.

He cares about us and our liberty. Maybe he's wrong. I don't know, but he's the only person I trust.

Anyway, go ahead and blast me. Maybe I'll learn something.

[Schmidty]

By the way, that Tim Whatever guy is a cock. He wouldn't even let him talk. What a fuck-ass.

[rowech]

Nothing to blast....he's absolutely what the country needs but he can't win because people will simply vote for who the media tells them to vote for or they won't even pay attention.

[Cringer]

I love the guy, even if he is a Republican Party member.

Even being in his 70's isn't as big a deal to me. I usually really don't like guys who are past their 60's. He just doesn't come off that old to me though. Seems like he has some decent energy left, a little fire. He isn't Bob Dole to me. He isn't what McCain seems to be quickly becoming.

[JPhillips]

Nothing to blast....he's absolutely what the country needs but he can't win because people will simply vote for who the media tells them to vote for or they won't even pay attention.

I'm sure that's true for some, but most people also won't vote for him because they don't like his policies. He has a very passionate, but very small base of support and that's not the media's fault.

[BishopMVP]

I like his overall appeal to small government and identify closely with many libertarian principles, but Ron Paul would be a disaster for foreign policy IMO and economically regardless of your political orientation. Combine his obsession with the gold standard and his opposition to free trade agreements and you have a disaster long-term. Then throw in his flirtations with the Amero conspiracy theory and I'd be terrified what he might actually try to enact. Foreign policy is a bigger debate, but IMO completely withdrawing militarily from the rest of the world is neither possible nor ethically responsible.

Add in the fact that when you look closely at his voting record, he's revealed to be a hypocrite like every other politician and I think it would be great if he could put a scare into the other candidates and get the Republican Party to realize it should be for smaller government (I hold out little hope the Democratic Party will ever shift down), but an actual win would be terrible (and also not happening.)

[Toddzilla]

It is refreshing to see a politician so passionate about his country and wanting to fix what he thinks is wrong.

That being said, *how* he wants to fix the country is completely fucked. Eliminating income tax and un-deploying our military? He's batshit insane.

[flounder]

No income tax and no permanent military deployment overseas is how this country operated for 150 years. Going back to that might be wrong but I don't see how you can say it's insane.

[larrymcg421]

No income tax and no permanent military deployment overseas is how this country operated for 150 years. Going back to that might be wrong but I don't see how you can say it's insane.

_________ and ________ is how this country operated for 150 years.


You can fill in those blanks with alot of insane stuff.

[Buccaneer]

The policies that the liberals are decrying can be implemented over time (as in a generation for some), not all at once. Do you honestly think that the right policies are to do the opposite when there is so much evidence to the contrary over the past 40 years?

What we need is not a Ron Paul as President, but the candidates and the Congress to be libertarian-minded. Maybe he can get them and the voters to think that there may a different way of thinking and doing things instead of piling more on top of more corruption, extortion and wastefulness.

[Toddzilla]

The policies that the liberals are decrying can be implemented over time (as in a generation for some), not all at once. Do you honestly think that the right policies are to do the opposite when there is so much evidence to the contrary over the past 40 years?

What we need is not a Ron Paul as President, but the candidates and the Congress to be libertarian-minded. Maybe he can get them and the voters to think that there may a different way of thinking and doing things instead of piling more on top of more corruption, extortion and wastefulness.Can't really argue with that at all.

[rowech]

The bottom line is our country was both saved and destroyed by the policies of FDR. He bailed out the country when it needed it by doing all kinds of things and it worked perfectly for what it needed to do.

Unfortunately, they forgot to close Pandora's box back up once they didn't need it anymore and for the last 60-70 years our country is slowly going bankrupt and to crap because of this.

There were no other options at the time and as I said, FDR saved the country. However, by leaving this stuff around and expanding on it exponentially, our country is and will bankrupt itself...just a matter of when. Paul's the one candidate who gets this and as someone mentioned, he has no chance because his policies fly in the face of individuals in this country who don't understand things. Our country cannot keep doing what we're doing. You can only artifically manipulate an economy for so long before it won't respond anymore. Just a matter of time.

[stevew]

I hope that at least he will have enough money to be the "last man standing" vs Fuckabee, or Rudy. I doubt that he really has any chance of winning. But hopefully he could drive the debate through the late primaries, and possibly effect the planks. Not that the party/eventually will follow them anyways.

[BishopMVP]

No income tax and no permanent military deployment overseas is how this country operated for 150 years. Going back to that might be wrong but I don't see how you can say it's insane.Even if we ignore the Barbary Corsairs and peg it to the Phillipines and the Spanish-American War (which makes it 115 years), your criteria of overseas conveniently leaves out that that is when we ran out of Indians and Mexicans to fight here in North America. America's a restless, expansionist country and always has been.Paul's the one candidate who gets this and as someone mentioned, he has no chance because his policies fly in the face of individuals in this country who don't understand things.His principles fly in the face of individuals who don't understand things. His policies fly in the face of individuals who do understand things.Our country cannot keep doing what we're doing. You can only artifically manipulate an economy for so long before it won't respond anymore. Just a matter of time.Even if I accept this as true (and the current low Americans dollar that's gonna transform our deficit {already lower than reported because it should be based as a % of GDP, rather than an absolute number} into an export surplus would seem to remove the major objection people have had the past few years) how is tying our currency to the gold standard the answer? That's only going to ensure that when a recession occurs, it is much faster and much harsher than it needs to be, much less what people want it to be which is slow and predictable even if they are worse off in the long run.

[sterlingice]

The bottom line is our country was both saved and destroyed by the policies of FDR. He bailed out the country when it needed it by doing all kinds of things and it worked perfectly for what it needed to do.

Unfortunately, they forgot to close Pandora's box back up once they didn't need it anymore and for the last 60-70 years our country is slowly going bankrupt and to crap because of this.

There were no other options at the time and as I said, FDR saved the country. However, by leaving this stuff around and expanding on it exponentially, our country is and will bankrupt itself...just a matter of when. Paul's the one candidate who gets this and as someone mentioned, he has no chance because his policies fly in the face of individuals in this country who don't understand things. Our country cannot keep doing what we're doing. You can only artifically manipulate an economy for so long before it won't respond anymore. Just a matter of time.

I still would have preferred Ross Perot's 1992 platform over Ron Paul's. Frankly, whenever I hear Paul talk, it's like a more radical version of what Perot was suggesting back then.

SI

[Toddzilla]

I'd never ever want Ron Paul as President of the United States, but damned if we couldn't use a few more people like him to shake up the political landscape.

[PilotMan]

I generally with what Bucc said, however, after watching his interview with Russert I could never vote for him. I get the impression he is one of these "if we just do this then everything will be fine people." That to me, lacks vision and a clear understanding of the systems that are currently in play.

Regardless if we operated just fine 150 years ago, we aren't living 150 years ago. To his credit, his strong desire to shrink the govt and get the financial elite out of Washington DC is just what we need.

Running for office is no longer open to Joe Public. Only to the rich, which I clearly see as a constitutional violation.

[rowech]

Running for office is no longer open to Joe Public. Only to the rich, which I clearly see as a constitutional violation.

Its not a violation...it is what it is. An apathetic American public who votes for whoever they see and hear the most from instead of actually using their brain.

[Young Drachma]

I generally with what Bucc said, however, after watching his interview with Russert I could never vote for him. I get the impression he is one of these "if we just do this then everything will be fine people." That to me, lacks vision and a clear understanding of the systems that are currently in play.


I was at CPAC (http://www.cpac.org) in 1998 and honestly, it was precisely this mentality that pervaded the place that turned me off from that whole movement as it were. My views are more nuanced now than they were, but it has been about a decade.

A lot of my friends are excited about Ron Paul, but I'm not buying in.

[Anthony]

you don't have to be rich to be in politics. you need to get on the air (commercials). therein lies the problem. i'm sure a lot of the people on this board would make good politicians, but if the masses can't hear your views that won't do much good.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd never ever want Ron Paul as President of the United States, but damned if we couldn't use a few more people like him to shake up the political landscape.

That's about how I feel as well. Shaking up political landscape is ok... him being elected?! Oh Hell No! I guess it is similar to a Goldwater/Reagan thing. Goldwater shook up the landscape to allow a more moderate Reagan to get elected. I'm not sure that I can, in good conscience, take someone seriously who advocates returning to the gold standard. Well that and abolishing the income tax (this includes all those "fair" tax loonies).

[BishopMVP]

you don't have to be rich to be in politics. you need to get on the air (commercials). therein lies the problem. i'm sure a lot of the people on this board would make good politicians, but if the masses can't hear your views that won't do much good.But even then the party leadership is all about conserving their own power. Look at how they made sure Stephen Colbert was kept out of the race. He terrified and disgusted them.

I've met a number of politicians in the Massachusetts legislature recently (admittedly, a little more old-boy network than most states) and they describe the legislature they're a part of as "full of idiots with big ego's who desperately want to be taken seriously". The Speaker of the House hates the head of the Senate, both hate the Governor, and all three conspire to usurp the will of the people (we passed a bill providing for public funding of elections like 8 years ago and it still has not been funded or enacted.) One guy talked about how proud he was that in 6 years as a Representative he had not proposed a single bill nor even bothered voting except maybe once/twice a year because he was solely concerned with moving up the power structure and didn't want to piss people off by taking stands. He spent most of his time taking constituents pictures out of the newspaper, laminating it and sending it to them.

[sabotai]

I hope that at least he will have enough money to be the "last man standing" vs Fuckabee, or Rudy. I doubt that he really has any chance of winning. But hopefully he could drive the debate through the late primaries, and possibly effect the planks. Not that the party/eventually will follow them anyways.

That, to me, has always been the best case scenario. I don't think anyone really thinks Paul can get elected President (I don't), but I hope he can stay around long enough to get enough time in nationally broadcasted debates (on the networks) so that he can get enough people to question if we really need to be doing all of the things that most other politicians say are necessary.

[Young Drachma]

But even then the party leadership is all about conserving their own power. Look at how they made sure Stephen Colbert was kept out of the race. He terrified and disgusted them.

I've met a number of politicians in the Massachusetts legislature recently (admittedly, a little more old-boy network than most states) and they describe the legislature they're a part of as "full of idiots with big ego's who desperately want to be taken seriously". The Speaker of the House hates the head of the Senate, both hate the Governor, and all three conspire to usurp the will of the people (we passed a bill providing for public funding of elections like 8 years ago and it still has not been funded or enacted.) One guy talked about how proud he was that in 6 years as a Representative he had not proposed a single bill nor even bothered voting except maybe once/twice a year because he was solely concerned with moving up the power structure and didn't want to piss people off by taking stands. He spent most of his time taking constituents pictures out of the newspaper, laminating it and sending it to them.

A lot of state legislatures are corrupt or at least, useless by most accounts. There, it's a completely different spectrum because it doesn't necessarily require money...it simply requires power and knowing the right people at the right time.

I guess that's almost true of anything, but with so much at stake it's sorta frustrating.

New Jersey's legislature is full of people who often take more than one elected position (Mayor/State Senator, etc.) and just take what was supposed to be a part-time job and turn it into another cash cow. It's really ridiculous the sort of gestapo-like stuff that happens. But Jersey is notoriously corrupt.

On the flip side, Wyoming's legislature is only in session for two months every other year (there is a one-month limited session in the alternate years) and it's for about 60 consecutive days. So it's just balls to the wall craziness for two months where they try to do a ton of stuff. Ranchers -- who in a state where agriculture is only 2% of the economy -- have disproportionate influence because they're able to take two months off and come to Cheyenne and run for the House or the Senate.

But it doesn't take virtually any money to run and win. Yet, the general consensus is that the people's will isn't really always taken into account.

And don't get me started on how much influence lobbyists have here. They might as well be sitting in the chambers next to the legislator while they vote.

Because of the lack of funding for legislative assistants, there is barely any independent research at the disposal of legislators here and so, whatever isn't produced by a state agency or a lobbyist just doesn't get produced for the most part.

It's neat to be able to be that up close to the decisionmaking process and yet, it's amazing to see how out of touch people are when they are seemingly too close to the situation to understand alternative points of view.

[Cringer]

I like his overall appeal to small government and identify closely with many libertarian principles, but Ron Paul would be a disaster for foreign policy IMO and economically regardless of your political orientation. Combine his obsession with the gold standard and his opposition to free trade agreements and you have a disaster long-term. Then throw in his flirtations with the Amero conspiracy theory and I'd be terrified what he might actually try to enact. Foreign policy is a bigger debate, but IMO completely withdrawing militarily from the rest of the world is neither possible nor ethically responsible.

Add in the fact that when you look closely at his voting record, he's revealed to be a hypocrite like every other politician and I think it would be great if he could put a scare into the other candidates and get the Republican Party to realize it should be for smaller government (I hold out little hope the Democratic Party will ever shift down), but an actual win would be terrible (and also not happening.)

From what I understand his view is that the "free-trade agreements" are not true free trade, they are actually "controlled trade." I tend to agree with that.

Economically, I think we are headed into a bad place anyways, in part because of the current free trade agreements. I don't claim to be any kind of expert, as with many I base my views on personal experience. The way things are right now though, I know one major part of our economic backbone is hurting, and is only going to get worse, trucking. The transportation industry is in bad shape, and the way things are going down in several areas it has no choice but to get worse at this point. Eventually this is going to hurt the whole country. The policies of Paul, or someone like him, would greatly help the trucking industry. I can see how some of his policies could also hurt, or add confusion to the trucking industy if enacted completely, but none more then there is now I am sure. Overall it would help.

This is not my only reason for liking the guy, just one example of why I like him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Its not a violation...it is what it is. An apathetic American public who votes for whoever they see and hear the most from instead of actually using their brain.

Pretty much what I was thinking.

[Barkeep49]

By the way, that Tim Whatever guy is a cock. He wouldn't even let him talk. What a fuck-ass.
While I can't support a guy who thinks Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War, I can agree that Russert is one of the worst influences on modern day politics.

[Buccaneer]

That, to me, has always been the best case scenario. I don't think anyone really thinks Paul can get elected President (I don't), but I hope he can stay around long enough to get enough time in nationally broadcasted debates (on the networks) so that he can get enough people to question if we really need to be doing all of the things that most other politicians say are necessary.

Including what it says in your sig?

[Buccaneer]

In the meantime, let's do more locally ourselves and those in our sphere of influence - in promoting and supporting those services that the federal govt says they have to provide. And stop supporting those that want to expand the power of the federal govt.

[sterlingice]

A lot of state legislatures are corrupt or at least, useless by most accounts. There, it's a completely different spectrum because it doesn't necessarily require money...it simply requires power and knowing the right people at the right time.

Bucc, this is why I think your libertarian ideal of "make gov't smaller, push it down to a local level" is really a problem. Like JiMGA has said on a couple of occasions (paraphrasing)- local politicians are like national politicians only more inept.

SI

[molson]

The excitement around Paul kind of depresses me, because it's so novel. Why can't we have a leader that people actually get excited about? It's just not possible for whatever reason. What we get is the bland middle, whoever manipulated the primaries enough to be the "least offensive" of his party.

[Cringer]

Have I mentioned Ron Paul doesn't want to return my love? Not even a peck on the cheek! Instead I just got a restraining order. :(

[Buccaneer]

As an aside, this is why I think Bucc's libertarian ideal of "make gov't smaller, push it down to a local level" is really a problem. Like JiMGA has said on a couple of occasions (paraphrasing)- local politicians are like national politicians only more inept.

SI

That certainly is true in some parts of the country, more so than others. It's like the old adage of trading one tyrant 3000 miles aways for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away.

However, as the mandates and extortion from the federal level decreases, more power would be given to the states and locals on certain things. We would have more influence in holding those accountable than we have with a federal system. Such influence would not eliminate corruption but we can do more about it. I have studied the town meeting style of local government and found that to be a better model. Even in a town council type govt, as we have here in Colorado, the amount of recalls, force outs and railroading for those that abused and corrupted the system is far greater than what could take place in Washington.

[ISiddiqui]

The excitement around Paul kind of depresses me, because it's so novel. Why can't we have a leader that people actually get excited about? It's just not possible for whatever reason. What we get is the bland middle, whoever manipulated the primaries enough to be the "least offensive" of his party.

Now, now.. that's not true. Look at the various Republicans who are still in love with Reagan and the Dems still in love with Clinton. For both of these Presidents, it wasn't voting against the other side, it was voting FOR their guy.

[Young Drachma]

Bucc, this is why I think your libertarian ideal of "make gov't smaller, push it down to a local level" is really a problem. Like JiMGA has said on a couple of occasions (paraphrasing)- local politicians are like national politicians only more inept.

SI

Well, but the rub is...at least at the local level you have to face your neighbors. This might not be the case in more populated places where it's really divisive for one reason or another (or the corrupt bastards don't care), but at least in small places like here or in New England with town meetings..if you decided to get involved, there is a generally a place for you.

Maybe not at the table, per se, but you can certainly find a way to get in there and raise hell.

To the point where someone can say "you should run for the Legislature" and it's not a far-fetched, distant thing that could never happen. It's just a matter of timing (or in my case) make sure you live in the right district where you could get elected.

So I guess the point is, the status quo surely isn't working, because the further away you get from the actual people..the more out of touch you get. The local folks might be inept, but their ineptitude is really just a reflection on the people who vote them in by and large.

It's basically impossible for one person to know everything that's happening at one time and to couple the life experience of thousands (or tens of thousands) into their own experience and make intelligent decisions 100% of the time.

At the local level, it's a hell of a lot easier to get it right more often because you can get to the source of the problem a lot easier. In big-time politics, it's just the opposite, because no one cares about the details, they're too busy trying to cultivate a big picture.

And more often than not, that big picture isn't anything more than a tapestry crafted to benefit the person cultivating it in the first place.

[BishopMVP]

The big problem with local politics is that there is limited information. You can argue that the media does a poor job covering national politics, but they do a much better job there than regarding state politics, and trying to find information on town level politicians and issues is ridiculously hard. I'm not really sure how to remedy that because there isn't a market for that information even if someone was willing to dedicate themselves to the issue.

[Young Drachma]

It's hard in a relatively big city. But most Americans don't live in big cities.

The problem is, people don't care. They have their own lives, their own problems and by the time they get done worrying about their own stuff, other things just don't matter to them unless it's specifically affecting them.

It's the whole "old people don't like to pay for schools when their kids get old" syndrome.

[Jas_lov]

I like Ron Paul too even though some of his stances are pretty out there. Doesn't have much of a chance to get elected though. The establishment is currently pushing McCain to be their nominee. I guess he's the safest pick among the neo-cons. Paul doesn't want to nuke Iran or listen to people's phone calls so that kind of eliminates him from becoming the Republican nominee. I'm interested to see if he does somewhat well in the primaries though. If he does, maybe he'll run 3rd party for the general so you can vote for a decent candidate instead of Hillary or a neo-con. I agree with others that Paul likely won't win, but maybe he'll help shape the political landscape of the future by getting young people involved in politics and running for office and more people interested in his liberty message so that a more moderate presidential candidate can pick up the mantle someday. Someone who has better speaking abilities than Paul because that clearly isn't one of his strengths. But he practices what he preaches, isn't corrupt, gives a straight answer when asked a question, and is an honest politician so that makes him one of a kind in this election.

[ISiddiqui]

The establishment is currently pushing McCain to be their nominee.

Say what? The establishment candidate is quite clearly Guiliani.

[Crapshoot]

It's hard in a relatively big city. But most Americans don't live in big cities.
.

I disagree about this - The US is primarily an urban country, not some midwestern fantasy. New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Philly, Phoenix, The Bay Area - just these metropolitan areas represent 80-90 million people. The majority of people live in cities, not small towns.

[JonInMiddleGA]

...and trying to find information on town level politicians and issues is ridiculously hard. I'm not really sure how to remedy that because there isn't a market for that information even if someone was willing to dedicate themselves to the issue.

Two good points in one post.

Having spent years dealing with the difficulty in gathering local information, I'll share at least one helpful tidbit: nowhere on earth is the phrase "follow the money" more useful than in dealing with local politics. It'll lead you to the motivation for some action/inaction more often than not, and can also prove helpful in altering the course to something more to your liking if you can figure out how to use that information to your advantage.

Another bit of advice to consider would be remembering that the surest way to influence the direction of a vote/decision is to make being wrong cost more than being right (in this case, right/wrong I'll use as relative terms). At the most local levels, that often requires little more than shining a little light on the matter at hand, making sure they realize that someone out there is watching.

In both cases, having an impact can prove easier at the local level than any others (except in cities of significant size) since the trail is often more obvious due to the limited number of suspects available.

[BishopMVP]

The problem is, people don't care. They have their own lives, their own problems and by the time they get done worrying about their own stuff, other things just don't matter to them unless it's specifically affecting them.

It's the whole "old people don't like to pay for schools when their kids get old" syndrome.I agree that apathy is a/the big problem, but if you think the second thing leads to apathy I assure you it does not. We have what many would consider an ideal style, with an open town meeting every year. And due to Prop 2.5 which capped the amount taxes could be raised without a vote, every year the budget gets voted on. The Board of Selectmen aren't idiots and put all the town services like police and their own offices into the budget and specifically ask for funding for the schools in the override. The fights between the anti-raising Real Estate taxers and the parents are really quite something to behold. Even moreso when you realize there is plenty of waste that could be cut from the budget if people looked past that argument and at the way the selectmen configure the debate. But the thing is people get their information either via word of mouth or from letters to the town newspaper, which is basically word of mouth. I don't really know what my point was, but people who don't want to pay taxes for something certainly aren't the ones ignoring the issue.The establishment is currently pushing McCain to be their nominee. I guess he's the safest pick among the neo-cons.Not to pick on you alone, but can people please stop (mis)using the term neo-con? It referred to a very specific group of people and policies, and McCain does not fit in there. It's as annoying as hearing ignorant conservatives misuse the term liberal.