Ron Paul

[vivo]

what are the thoughts on Ron Paul here? He does evoke an image of responsible government and a way to get this country back on track. he may be a bit too social conservative/small govt for me but that's ok. glad he had such a great fundraising day yesterday.

[old_school_soul]

The libertarian in me digs him. Of all the dems/repubs, he definitely seems the most revolutionary.

[dacrunkest]

He's kinda like Ross Perot without the crazy uncle charm and the graphs...so, basically just crazy dude.

[redav]

His popularity reminds me of Howard Dean. His supporters make lots of noise, but he's not going to win anything.

[Vikarious]

I want to know more about him because from what little I know....he sounds right up my alley.

[Kragthorpe]

Paul has NO chance at winning, but he will surprise with his early showing.

WHY do you think he's simply a "crazy old man?"

Paul wants troops home and troops home now. Which is the position of the left. He wants troops home because he doesn't believe the US should engage in interference with foreign interests and international entanglements, which is the position of George Washington and the position the Republicans took from 1980 forward (at least on the campaign trail). He's for slashing government spending, requiring balanced budgets, lowering and flattening taxes, and is generally a "government should get out of the way of the individual and it should not entangle itself abroad" conservative. The argument can be made that he's the most fundamentally conservative candidate in the race. I would suggest that Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are more "out there" than Paul.

I think the reason Paul has this image as a wacko stems from his engagements with Giuliani throughout the campaign. Social conservatives now see national security as a moral imperative. Paul's position is that 9/11 happened because the US won't go one day without involving itself in other nation's affairs (which, ironically is what George Bush said he would do...stay out....in 2000). Giuliani, the security candidate, has turned that into "Ron Paul says we brought 9/11 on ourselves" to his benefit and voila! Instantly, Ron Paul becomes a wacko. Such is the state of politics today.

That said, Rudy IS my guy, and I see how he benefits by taking that approach. But politics ain't beanbag, as they say.

[vivo]

another thing about Paul is that his voting record in Congress is actually consistent with what his stands on issues. some of his views are a bit out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pda-rT1sf2M

official site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[dacrunkest]

Paul has NO chance at winning, but he will surprise with his early showing.

WHY do you think he's simply a "crazy old man?"

Paul wants troops home and troops home now. Which is the position of the left. He wants troops home because he doesn't believe the US should engage in interference with foreign interests and international entanglements, which is the position of George Washington and the position the Republicans took from 1980 forward (at least on the campaign trail). He's for slashing government spending, requiring balanced budgets, lowering and flattening taxes, and is generally a "government should get out of the way of the individual and it should not entangle itself abroad" conservative. The argument can be made that he's the most fundamentally conservative candidate in the race. I would suggest that Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are more "out there" than Paul.

I think the reason Paul has this image as a wacko stems from his engagements with Giuliani throughout the campaign. Social conservatives now see national security as a moral imperative. Paul's position is that 9/11 happened because the US won't go one day without involving itself in other nation's affairs (which, ironically is what George Bush said he would do...stay out....in 2000). Giuliani, the security candidate, has turned that into "Ron Paul says we brought 9/11 on ourselves" to his benefit and voila! Instantly, Ron Paul becomes a wacko. Such is the state of politics today.

That said, Rudy IS my guy, and I see how he benefits by taking that approach. But politics ain't beanbag, as they say.

He also supports doing away with the IRS, without which we wouldn't be able to enjoy national parks, nationally funded arts programs, and education or support people who are elderly and/or people who are disabled and in need.

[wordsmith]

I think the reason Paul has this image as a wacko stems from his engagements with Giuliani throughout the campaign. Social conservatives now see national security as a moral imperative. Paul's position is that 9/11 happened because the US won't go one day without involving itself in other nation's affairs (which, ironically is what George Bush said he would do...stay out....in 2000). Giuliani, the security candidate, has turned that into "Ron Paul says we brought 9/11 on ourselves" to his benefit and voila! Instantly, Ron Paul becomes a wacko.

Personally, the reason my gut reaction is that Ron Paul is a wacko is because every day on my bus route, I go past a HUGE billboard of him grinning like a maniac, with a big, bright yellow, advertising-flier style sunburst underneath his picture, with big letters saying, "Ron Paul says ABOLISH THE IRS!!! VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!" All it needs is a big loudspeaker attached bellowing "Sunday, sunday, sundaaaaaaaaaaaaay....BEEE THERRRRRRE!!!" and it might possibly be able to come off a little more ridiculous and difficult to take seriously. Maybe.

[Kragthorpe]

First, the IRS has zilcho to do with national parks, national arts museums, and medicare, but for collecting money for them.

Frankly, here's the Paul argument for abolishing the IRS: http://www.enigmacurry.com/2006/04/12/ron-paul-on-the-irs/

ONLY 1/3 of the budget comes from money collected by the IRS through personal returns. The remaining 2/3 is MORE THAN THE TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET in 2000. As such, the IRS could easily be reformed or abolished, budget levels could be sustained at 2000 levels as government gets out of people's lives, you can still have your parks and arts and old people (none of which are in any way threatened), and we can have shocking fiscal responsibility for once.

Further, were individual income taxes to become flat wherein you identify your gross income and then pay 15% or some other percentage, you can do that on a single card, send it in, and a government system that's modeled after any credit card company's system could track and manage that.

Not so crazy.

[Kragthorpe]

Personally, the reason my gut reaction is that Ron Paul is a wacko is because every day on my bus route, I go past a HUGE billboard of him grinning like a maniac, with a big, bright yellow, advertising-flier style sunburst underneath his picture, with big letters saying, "Ron Paul says ABOLISH THE IRS!!! VOTE FOR RON PAUL!!!" All it needs is a big loudspeaker attached bellowing "Sunday, sunday, sundaaaaaaaaaaaaay....BEEE THERRRRRRE!!!" and it might possibly be able to come off a little more ridiculous and difficult to take seriously. Maybe.


I find it tragic that Americans no longer desire to control their own destinies. Essentially "we've had the IRS for so long we can never not have it" is the complaint. Let's apply that to other things:

- We've had the Soviet Union so long, we can never not have it.

- So-and-so has been fat for so long she'll never not be fat.

- Racism has been here forever, we should just live with it because it won't change.

- Cancer has been around forever, we should not bother fighting it.

- Navy hasn't beaten Notre Dame in forever, they should just quit trying.

That's essentially the same thing. Remember, there was NO income tax until after the civil war. We went 100+ years with no IRS. That alone tells me that while maybe we needn't abolish it, it can certainly be streamlined and pared down to a small agency, and the government can as well. Further, that tells me that the proposal therefore isn't prima facie "crazy."

[old_school_soul]

It amazes me that people aren't ready for someone who's views are "out there". If you want more of the same shit we've had for the past 20 years, keep voting for the same run-of-the-mill candidates. Views that arent "out there" have gotten this country into a quagmire of peanutty diarrhea. I find nothing special or interesting about any of the candidates other than Ron Paul. That being said, I doubt he will be on the ballot.

[Kragthorpe]

Paul has no ballot issues. He'll be on the ballot in every state. It's only a matter of whether the voters will vote for him. Watch for this thing to get VERY interesting VERY soon.

ARG shows Mike Huckabee at 19% and in second place in Iowa as of today, and other polls have showed him surging. Now that Paul looks to have funding, watch for him to percolate up. While I don't think either of these guys win, their increase will likely hurt Romney. Particularly, Huckabee could win Iowa, and though that's not likely to ignite a Mike Huckabee movement, it could throw New Hampshire to McCain or it could give Paul a boost there, making the larger state Primaries likely to sweep through with big Giuliani victories if Romney is crippled or in the alternative swing McCain back in as a real threat.

And, with Hillary cutting her own throat on immigration issues, watch for her numbers to decline a little in New Hampshire, and watch for the Reps to gore her on that issue in the fall.

[embrassezla]

a quagmire of peanutty diarrhea
Ohh, I LOL'd.

[Millenial]

what are the thoughts on Ron Paul here? He does evoke an image of responsible government and a way to get this country back on track. he may be a bit too social conservative/small govt for me but that's ok. glad he had such a great fundraising day yesterday.

i think ron paul is one of the more promising candidates, i think he should definitely continue bc most likely he won't be getting the republican nomination.

he could definitely have an impact on the election as an independent or libertarian. not sure whether it would favor the dems or republicans, i've seen people from both sides of the aisle support Ron Paul.


also ron paul has the most donations from the military compared to other republicans.

[Kragthorpe]

Any third party candidate in '08 benefits the Dems.

[wordsmith]

No issue with an "out there" candidate. But it has to be one I can take seriously.

[vxmike]

Paul won't be allowed to the major debates or covered seriously by the media, so thus he has no chance.

My vote is for Ron Paul though. Best candidate since Ross Perot and the only guy with a solution to our economic problems.

[Kragthorpe]

Paul has been allowed at every debate had to date.