Ron Paul (R-TX) for President?

[Young Drachma]

http://reason.com/news/show/118086.html

I just read about it and hadn't heard it before. That's surely a surprise, even if the GOP "base" might stop him in his tracks.

[Ksyrup]

If this doesn't spawn a RuPaul for President thread, I'll eat my hat.

[st.cronin]

He's a terrific point guard, but isn't he too young?

[cschex]

I've always enjoyed listening to Paul because he nearly always says what he thinks/believes regardless of whether it's politically popular. He has no chance in hell of getting the nom but I'm glad he's getting press anyway. I might even give a small consideration towards voting for him if he was nominated.

[cartman]

I think he might be making a run at the Republican nomination as a springboard to running under the Libertarian banner again.

[Young Drachma]

I think he might be making a run at the Republican nomination as a springboard to running under the Libertarian banner again.

He already said he wouldn't in that Reason interview. I don't think that'd be a smart plan. He could have the Libertarian nomination now without wasting his time. But I think he sees the field as open enough for a guy like him to have a shot.

And I think that's a calculating move given how polarizing the race could be.

[cartman]

My thought process would be that he would get more publicity first running for the Republican nomination than if he went straight away to the Libertarian nomination.

I missed during my first pass of the article that he didn't want to go that route.

[GoldenEagle]

I would gladly vote for him.

[CU Tiger]

WoW 3 heismans and now president...

Even Beano didnt see that coming

[Noop]

I am now going to vote for this man.

[Buccaneer]

Yep.

[rowech]

I'm voting for him in the primary. I don't think he can win unfortunately but he is EXACTLY what this country needs right now. Someone who understands the government is way too freaking big.

[Noop]

I think he will be the reason why a third major party will be created in the future. This man speaks the truth and has began to open alot of eyes to the truth of our government. I was going to vote for Obama but thats not going to happen no matter how much I like Obama. I think Ron Paul and Obama should run for office together...

[JPhillips]

Listen, I respect that Paul stands up for his beliefs no matter the consequences, but this is a guy that wants to take us back to the gold standard. He's fine representing a piece of Texas, but he'd be a disaster as president.

[sabotai]

From 1988


<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/88REf0tjZHo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

[Coffee Warlord]

It would be nice to see a Paul/Obama race for Pres as they are two classy guys who would be a very nice change from the dreck of the last 20 years.

Which means they're both doomed.

But go Paul. Not a chance, but I'll vote for him in a heartbeat.

[Chief Rum]

Hmm, didn't know much about this guy, but I have to admit most of his views match with mine. I'll definitely be keeping more of an eye on him.

[stevew]

Sure, sign me up too.

Although I think he's too old.....

[Tigercat]

How many people would be worse off in serious ways if a man like Ron Paul got his way?

I respect the libertarian viewpoint, I agree with a good bit of what a guy like Paul has to say, but lots of institutions that he wants to abolish enforce 100% needed protections to people from parts of a complex society.

Its easy to see all the things the Department of Education does wrong, for example. But how many more children with special needs would truly be left behind without its existence? And thats just the first example off the top of my head.

But at least he is a man debating serious ideas, and that by itself is a breath of fresh air.

[Ksyrup]

If this doesn't spawn a RuPaul for President thread, I'll eat my hat.

It's a good thing I don't have a hat.

[Bubba Wheels]

Good Lord, a Presidential candidate who actually reads bills and understands the U.S. Constitution...what could possibly be next?

[Buccaneer]

Good Lord, a Presidential candidate who actually reads bills and understands the U.S. Constitution...what could possibly be next?

Abolishing the Patriot Act, balance the budget by cutting extraneous military and non-military expenditures, and removing 'In God We Trust' from all federal coinage?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

It's not that you leave these kids behind but you don't have the federal government involved in it. You let the particular state deal with it. The US dept. of education has very little effect on a random special needs kid anyway.

That's federalism, not libertarianism...

[Bubba Wheels]

Abolishing the Patriot Act, balance the budget by cutting extraneous military and non-military expenditures, and removing 'In God We Trust' from all federal coinage?

Well, we will probably need certain elements of the Patriot Act for the rest of our lives, or until radical Islam ceases to exist, whichever comes first.

About the coins, not sure God really cares if His name is on money or not, and given the current laws and Supreme Court rulings the phrase "In God We Trust" is pretty much a lie anyways.

But the part about letting the rest of the world pull its own defense weight, now that I really like. Headline on yesterday's Drudgereport states something like 2/3 of the world has no problem with China's emergence as world economic and military power at U.S.'s expense.

Now true democracy is supposedly giving the people what they want, so why do we (the U.S. taxpayers) want to stand in the way of this?

[Tigercat]

It's not that you leave these kids behind but you don't have the federal government involved in it. You let the particular state deal with it. The US dept. of education has very little effect on a random special needs kid anyway.

I used that example for a reason too.

There have been countless times states and local entities have disobeyed federal rules and regulations regarding children with special needs. A lot of the legality of it ties in with the Americans with disabilities act. (Not to mention looking out for the most needful of our children is just the right thing to do.)

Thats like saying in the 60s "Well we can just let the states deal with segregation..."

[Tigercat]

In other words, you handle it constitutionally. I've got several friends who work with special needs kids, and they'll all tell you that the single biggest difficulty they face is the inadequately structured guidelines that federal regulations squeeze them into.

Well it depends on where you are, and the special needs one is talking about.

Take section 504 of the rehabilitation act. If it were not for the Department of Education, states and local entities would ignore it.

Schools already try to do this by ignoring legitimate less than major disabilities or by treating individual children with such disabilities in a manner that is different and in the best interest of school administration but not in the best interest of the individual child.

Its a minority treatment issue, one that the Federal Government has always been better at policing than state or local governments.

[Tigercat]

As a teacher I have to strongly disagree with your statement. The 504 section is one of the most abused sections of law ever. The abuse of 504s and IEPs is THE major thing I don't like about teaching. There are kids who really need help and they never get it. The thing that is hilarious is the way the system is setup. If a kid tests that they should get D's and that is in fact what they get, they don't get help. If a kid tests they should get A's but they get C's, they get helped despite the fact in most of these cases, the kid is L-A-Z-Y.

I'm not trying to pick a fight and I'm guessing you have some experience either personally, with a child, or someone else close to you and I don't mean to demean your situation as I have no clue what it might be if there is one. However, please don't assume the 504 section is education's saving grace because the truth is that it is one of the most abused things in education and in many cases, schools simply don't have the courage, although legally they would, to simply say no to a complaining parent.

See you missed my whole point: "ignoring legitimate less than major disabilities"

If you don't think there are legitimate situations where a child's minor disability needs to be protected less that child be lost you are incorrect. Sounds like kids with legitimate minor disabilities would be lucky to live where you teach, that people know what protections exist. Not every parent and child is so lucky.

And thats the kind of protection that federal entities should be all about IMO.