Ron Paul

[SeVeR]

Ron Paul is running for President in America. He is a right-wing republican. Even though i am a left-wing socialist, and am completely at odds with this man, i would still vote him into office. Why, you say? Because he understands the economy and he understands foreign policy. That's all i need to know he is uncorrupt, and the best thing that could ever happen to America.

 

A summary of his views:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

 

Finally, someone who understands what the current American leaders are doing to the economy. This guy is incredibly brave for standing up to the corruption in America:

 

 

The above link gives a run down of the economic problems and the solution, spoken by Ron Paul.

 

Next is a section of the debate on the Iraq war. Rudy Guiliani shows his true colours, and Ron Paul tells us exactly why they're attacking us:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKITUOl0NBc

 

And he even understands what is happening to Iran:

 

 

In the last minute of this video he explains two of the most important points: 1. We have no proof Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. 2. This incrimination is exactly the same as what happened to Iraq with WMDs (only for us to find no WMDs when the invasion came).

 

I've heard from alot of people that he is being blocked by the media. This doesn't surprise me. I feel it is important to get the word out though. I think he's pro-life and pro-gun etc, but that doesn't bother me. What is important is foreign policy, the economy, and corruption.

Edited May 28, 2007 by SeVeR

[SeVeR]

No-one interested?

[Aileron]

Well, that's the difference when you watch the speech itself rather than listen to some journalist give his rendition of the speech. When someone gives their own speech, they can present the logical sequence of conditions which can explain their position.

 

I've been to one of Bush's speeches, and contrary to what is filtered by the media, he is a level headed guy who knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it. The arguement however is a lengthy one...too lengthy for a journalist to crunch into a 30 second sound-byte.

 

I guess Howard Dean is similarly victimized by the media. His carreer was destroyed by a 30 second sound-byte of him shouting. I wasn't there, but I assume that he didn't start the speech like that. I'd bet over the course of the speech the crowd got riled up and he got riled up in response, and that sound clip was the apex of that speech.

 

 

 

And the media for some reason does have their characters they love to talk about like Guiliani or Clinton. However, the main problem is tht most news programs want to talk about politics for about 5 minutes and then move on to entertainment news. Ron Paul isn't getting kicked out by Guiliani as much as by Britany Spears getting married for the hundred and nth time or the newest rap star going to jail. I don't care about that crap. I don't know anyone who cares about that crap. I don't know why they put that crap on the news, they just do, and because of it they don't spend enough time discussing all of the candidates as they should.

[AstroProdigy]

Rofl I hardly count Kevin Feder!@#$%^&* as a "rap star". He's more like a talentless worthless piece of #@*$.

[Greased_Lightning]

Britney Spears for President!!

 

 

... ugh, sorry i just threw up in my mouth a little

[wub]

wow hes good. glad i heard about him he might get my vote if he was to make it that far

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD9eO7qToTk

Edited June 1, 2007 by wub

[JDS]

laugh at that..

[SeVeR]

I found a short summary that describes in the fewest words possible the most important issues facing America; Have a squint at this:

 

http://www.ronpaulregistry.com/index2

 

I've been saying this sort of stuff for months; The war on drugs and the war on terror being two prime examples. Think what this guy could do for America...

[NBVegita]

He'll never make it as a candidate. Specially not a republican candidate. People are worried about guiliani's moderate views, and ron paul has a mix of ultra conservative, and ultra liberal views together. In essence he has the worst of both parties.

 

I agree with some of what he has to say, I disagree with some of what he has to say, but either way he won't ever make it as a candidate, let alone as president.

[wub]

America is such a pengalim(sp)? society we go from one extream to another.hopeing it will fix are problems. Ron seems to be another extream, and everything 12-16 years another extream president that is different from the rest comes along. But America seems to be happy just sitting and being s!@#$%^&* feed everything they need even if it is killing the economy and making us week.

[ThunderJam]

People are worried about guiliani's moderate views, and ron paul has a mix of ultra conservative, and ultra liberal views together. In essence he has the worst of both parties.

Or the best of both parties, he could gain votes from either side.

[NBVegita]

The problem is, using just some examples, he sides with the more liberal side on the war in Iraq. Yet he is 100% pro life and against stem cell research. So he won't gain liberal support because of his pro life stance, and he'll lose conservative support with his soft stand on the war in Iraq. Paul is against amnesty for illegal immigrants yet is against capital punishment. He support the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes yet he doesn't agree with gay marriage and votes against it.

 

He's an extremist moderate, for each view he has that would gain him support with a particular group, he has views that lose him that same support.

Edited June 4, 2007 by NBVegita

[SeVeR]

Many people (such as myself) consider abortion and stem-cell research to be irrelevent and over-blown issues, hence i would vote for Ron Paul even though i disagree with him on those points. Also, many republicans appear to disagree with the war, with the opinion polls showing such a large degree of national disagreement. Lastly, people can be single minded on one issue such as abortion without caring about the war-stance. Your point is valid though, he doesn't appear to be a common republican. Ron Paul's reply would be something like the following: "The founding fathers advised a foreign policy of non-intervention. The republican party has a history of non-intervention and were typically put into office to end the wars that the democrats had started. The true republican is against war." So in his opinion he is the most republican candidate standing. The changing face of politics isn't exactly pre-requisite knowledge for the right to vote though is it. Edited June 5, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Now the way I see it is that stem cell research is a much bigger issue in the United States than even the war in Iraq. I feel you just hear about the war in Iraq more because you can't get daily updates on stem cell research. You can get day by day updates on the war in Iraq. And as for the war, most republicans are against it, but not as extreme as Paul. In his debate he out right said if he was elected he would pull the troops out next day. A lot of republicans don't agree with the short timeline that is trying to be put on the war let alone pulling troops out immediately. On the abortion topic, maybe because New York is a very liberal state, I know that is a huge issue here. I know plenty of women, it is not such a big deal with men, who would refuse to vote for a candidate who would vote against abortion.

 

Of course this is all just speculation as all politics is. You could be right, I could be right, or we both could.

 

And as of right now I don't see Ron Paul making any kind of comeback in the polls, his ratings are very very low.

[SeVeR]

I'm not sure he will lose voters, because he may well gain democrat votes as compensation while the republican voters settle with the better of two evils.

 

Ron Paul is improving by about a percentage point each month in the polls. What i can't understand is why Guiliani, McCain and Romney are doing so well. Are the people who vote for them robots who don't look beyond a name they have heard about in the media? It's weird how a well-known name is all it takes to get a winning percentage of the votes, and it highlights how important media coverage is. I wonder how certain names get highlighted for no apparent reason...

 

Of course Guiliani has that 9/11 Mayor of New York thing to fall back on, but that means absolutely nothing. McCain just seems to get stories about him left right and centre, or at least he did while i was in America. Romney i hadn't even heard off until a few weeks ago.

 

We don't get a choice anymore. This election could well end up as Clinton vs Guiliani if the opinion polls are anything to go by, and if thats the case then you can wave America good-bye because democracy is dead.

[Greased_Lightning]

One of the late night talk shows awhile back made the funny, and true, points about Romney... an ivy-league, massachusetts, once pro-choice (recently now pro-life), past gun control proponent (now claims to be an avid hunter... of varmints on his property lol), "flip-flopper"... smacks of John Kerry eh? So, imo, Romney's got no shot.

 

Guiliani is unfortunately doing good (although WAY too early to say anything) riding on the 9/11 gravy train. He was a mayor, good for him, but that's a long way from running a country. I hope that his campaign runs out of steam soon.

 

As I've said multiple times over the last year or two, McCain is my horse because he's one of the few people in government today that is willing to sit down with the other aisle and compromise on important issues. If the past two administrations have shown us anything, it's that partisan divisions are only hurting the country and I see McCain as the candidate who has the best shot of being someone who would listen to both sides. Plus, he's the best shot we've got at campaign finance reform.

 

And again to repeat what I've said before... if it turns out Guiliani vs. Clinton... God help us all.

 

 

Edit: Also, am I the only one that is really disgusted that the campaigning started more than 18 months before the actual election? Think of all the money that could be saved if they mandated that they couldn't start until at least a year prior? It bears consideration.

Edited June 6, 2007 by Greased_Lightning

[wub]

i really wish there was atleast 40 people all running for pres instead of just two parties battling it out. so much more to choose from than this current heap of bull!@#$%^&*

[SeVeR]

If 40 people were running for president you'd never be able to review everyones ideas and policies. Also the voting would very divided, allowing a significant possibility for an extremist to come into power.

 

McCain, i'm not sure about, mainly because i don't know enough about him yet. I don't know how right wing he's prepared to go, what his views on the economy are... and i think he's very pro-war right? I could be wrong on that, but at the moment there's nothing about him i like.

 

The campaigning started early but that's not the problem. The problem is you have to pay a huge amount of money to run for political office. Being a respected political figure is not enough, you have to be a millionaire and have the support of big-business. What you end up with is a President who has sold-themselves out to the media, the oil industry and the Zionists.

 

Think about what would happen if running for political office cost absolutely nothing and all you needed was the respect of your political colleagues. Campaign ads and tours would be funded from a government kitty, where each candidate gets an equal and fair share. Makes sense right?

 

Sometimes capitalism isn't the be all and end all.

Edited June 6, 2007 by SeVeR

[Greased_Lightning]

I don't think the government should pay for campaign funds, but I do believe that there should be spending caps. So much money for your total campaign, so much of a cap on individual/corporate contributions, and there would need to be some serious apolitical oversight. Oversight could be funded by the government, but the candidates should also have to provide some of that funding from their own coffers (akin to how meat packing plants have to pay for federal grading out of pocket but federal safety inspections are funded by the gov't).

 

Agreed, too many candidates is a bad idea, and good point on the extremism, since that's how the Nazis gained power in Germany, a three-way ticket where nobody got the majority, just a higher percentage went to them.

 

There are already estimates that campaign costs for the presidential election will surp!@#$%^&* a billion dollars this time around, with at least another billion spent on campaigns for house & sentate seats. Insane.

[AstroProdigy]

Imagine if that money were given to needy children starving to death in Africa.

[Aileron]

Now that I think about it, Ron Paul looks good right now because he's a minor candidate. He hasn't been targeted by critics. He hasn't had to anser questions. He hasn't been the punch line on the Colbert Report. At this stage he can show only his good side.

 

Republicans seem to like running moderates though. The Democratic race seems to be that they are arguing about who is opposed to Iraq the most. They are actively going towards that particular extreme. All the Republicans need to do is nominate a moderate.

 

For instance, Guiliani. I hate his domestic stances. But, if he was running against Hillary or Obama, I'd vote for him.

 

This is exactly how Bush got elected twice, especially the second time. The Democrats found the most anti-Iraq candidate they could find, and Bush picked up everyone who was uncomfortable with Kerry.

[AstroProdigy]

Trust me as a New Yorker, I know first hand Guliani sucks. He reaps off the fame of 9/11, but he really hasn't done anything for NYC. If he were elected he'd be a lame duck like Bush senior.

 

Republicans seem to like running moderates though. The Democratic race seems to be that they are arguing about who is opposed to Iraq the most. They are actively going towards that particular extreme. All the Republicans need to do is nominate a moderate.

I think the moderates are so fed up with conservatives that Republicans have to run a moderate or otherwise only get the base 30% vote and nothing else. The Democratic race isn't extreme either. I see moderates dominating all around. Granted I don't like some of the moderates (Guliani and Clinton) and know very little about Obama, but Edwards seems to be the best bet of major candidates that I'd be willing to vote for right now.

 

Bush got elected the second time by constantly repeating the same tired "flip flopper" ads and shamefully bashing a veterans war record. He got elected the first time by having his brother and campaign chairman run the "who does not vote list" and disenfranchise tens of thousands of African Americans with no criminal record to rig things in his favor in Florida.

 

Trust me; Kerry was not the most anti-Iraq candidate. He called for continuing the war, but with greater international support. The most anti-Iraq candidates wanted to withdraw right away.

[NBVegita]

Lol Clinton is definately a liberal candidate.

 

I'm all about nominating a moderate. Democrat or Republican, as long as they're moderate.