Ron Paul

How does Sythe feel about him?

In case you don't know who he is, he is running for President in 2012.

Here are some videos of him:

 

Im not American, but this guy looks a bit funny.

 

He's fantastic. His idea's on foreign policy are a bit extreme and I don't think are sound when it comes to executing them. However, he doesn't have the appeal necessary to be a true contender. If he were hypothetically elected, he'd do our nation wonders with his economic policies, drug war policies and his stance on the FR.

 

He's great, but it's irrelevant because he has no chance of being elected.

 

I respect his strong views and his steadfast and unparalleled voting record. However, some of his ideas are just plain absurd when projected to a national level.

 

He could do a lot of good for America but like others said it just feasibly wont happen.

 

I don't know why people say he "can't be elected". I've seen some major polls he's won, I certainly wouldn't rely on the media for anything seeing as they exclude him from naturally everything he achieves. He obviously won his debates on Fox, and CNN. If you look at the poll after on CNN they showed Ron Paul at 0% votes on a poll that they found somewhere, but, if you went on CNN's own website Ron Paul was winning at 85%, with thousands of votes (the one he was at 0% was only 81 votes.) He's won polls by the thousands on Hannity, he won the RLC poll at almost 40% votes. He won the CPAC presidential straw poll, he's raised the 2nd LARGEST amount of donations in the GOP field (and this has been very much hidden on the news.) He won the TIME magazine poll (around 50% or more I believe, once again, thousands of votes.) I've seen him win a Wall Street Journal poll, and so on.

He's the best candidate overall from either party. If people embrace, and like his ideas but say "he'll never win though" then of course he won't win! Because those 100's of thousands of people who said the same thing, and don't bother to help the cause, won't help the cause, and he will end up losing!

Some sources;
CNN: http://turner.mo2do.net/s/18129/2;j...B?optPollOption=Rep.+Ron+Paul/Texas&vote=Vote
CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43357380
WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/community/gro...topics/can-ron-paul-win-gop?commentid=2478519
FOX (31,000 VOTES): http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011...andidate-would-most-like-to-see-debate-obama/
RLC: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-rlc-straw-poll/2011/06/18/AGbz0VaH_blog.html
CPAC STRAW POLL: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41746

The Iowa straw poll is coming up, and if Ron Paul succeeds in that poll, and I add it into here, nobody can tell me he CAN'T win and have me believe it.

 

I know what you're talking about w/ the CNN thing. Also, the TIME Magazine thing was a crock of shit. The winner of the poll was supposed to be on the front page and an in-depth article about them. Ron Paul won, but it was due to "a good campaign on the internet". They also skewed the votes by saying Romney got a lot of mail-in votes. A bunch of BS.

We've got to extend the grassroots effort because the controlled mainstream media has convinced many people that Ron Paul has no chance, but in reality they're scared of us.

 

This^.

Seems way to extreme, some of his views are actually a joke.

 

care to explain? this is SFA after all.

 

If I were an U.S citizen he would get my vote.

 

Lol'd.

He is an isolationist, pro-life, religious nut who has gathered a following of conspiracy theorists, and is also a promoter of pseudo-science. He seems to live in a pre-WWII time, when the gold standard was thought to be a good idea, and non-intervention was likewise thought to be a good foreign policy. All of these positions (with the exception of his views on abortion) are fringe due to the simple fact that they are ridiculous, and their implementation would be deeply damaging to America as a whole. He is a bit better than some of the completely insane Republican candidates (Sarah Palin comes to mind), though definitely not my top choice from among them.

 

The media throws around words like isolationist to make it seem like he wants to be some sort of dictator. He simply does not want to meddle in the affairs of other countries. Non-interventionist like you stated before is the more correct and non-biased term.

I don't like his religious ramblings either but this is America and I embrace the concept of freedom of religion although I am agnostic.

We shouldn't be spending all this money in wars that aren't beneficial to us and is severely bankrupting this country.

I don't totally agree with the concept of going back to the gold standard, but if you do that, then you take away the power of the Federal Reserve which is probably the most single important issue of our time.

Not to mention he's probably the only candidate that isn't part of the political machine.

 

Yes, I incorrectly equated the terms with one another, though non-interventionism is still ineffective, and has dangerous potential (WWII being its most infamous failing).

Yes, and why is there freedom of religion? Because the first amendment very deliberately erected a "wall of separation between Church and State" (Jefferson's words; not mine), a concept that Dr. Paul doesn't accept.

Wars promoting republicanism, given that we do live in an Empire of Liberty (again, I reference Mr. Jefferson)? I doubt that Ron Paul would even vote for something like the Louisiana Purchase if a similar situation arose today, on the grounds that it's unconstitutional. In order to hold any of his views on the Constitution, you have to hold an extreme amount of contempt for what would be the incompetence of the Supreme Court (and therefore the Constitution which vested it with judicial power).

Again, with the conspiracy theories. There's a reason he was referenced in the widely-discredited film Zeitgeist, and far-right loons like Alex Jones are his fans.

In the sense that he's adopted fairly extreme positions, sure. Why is this a good thing?

 

He wants to promote peace through free market, and trading to other countries. What's wrong with getting out of 130 countries we have no business being in? He agrees with countries being able to defend themselves from being attacked.

He believes abortion is a right for each individual states to decide upon.

So, because some conspiracy theorists decide to endorse Ron Paul, then we're all conspiracy theorists? Some socialists support Obama, are all Obama supporters Socialists? He also believes, once again, parents in local areas should decide what to teach their children, not the government, if that's where you're heading with pseudoscience.

He believes in a free market, let the people decide what they want as currency. I'll admit he would enjoy America adopting gold as a popular form of currency, but, it's up to the people in the free market to decide what will be used.

Why is a non-interventional foreign policy bad? Do you like using aggression, force, and intimidation on innocent people? How will this help us being involved in over 130 countries?

Oh yes, we find it so ridiculous to relate to the principles this country was founded on.

 

While I agree that our military budget is a bit much, Ron Paul would not simply cut back some of our excessive spending, but would rather inhibit us completely from promoting peace and freedom throughout the world.

Which is contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court.

I didn't say that, but conspiracy theorists make up a much more significant portion of his base than they do for any main-stream candidate that I've seen. The truth is not subjective, and his disbelief in evolution qualifies as a pseudo-scientific position.

It allows tyranny to flourish, and no, I don't.

I'm in favor of the principals of the founders. Regrettably, Mr. Paul is not.

 

Why is it our job to force our views on others? Communists think they have a beautiful Utopia that also promotes "peace and freedom", how would you feel if the U.S.S.R was still in existence, and they had military bases in the United States because they are "promoting the peace and freedom communism provides".

Can you prove to me make up a significant amount of his followers? So according to you if conspiracy theorists support a person, then that person should be discredited? Why should he be discredited over an influence he has no control over?

So you don't agree he has any right to believe in something you disagree with?

So then how do you support our foreign policy?

[/QUOTE]
I respect your opinion, and I would never in my wildest dreams use force or violence to take that away from you. I disagree, though, wholeheartedly.

 

Imo, I think he could honestly win the presidential election. However, I'm not sure how the implementation of his ideas would actually pan out.

 

He won't win the election.
In the first video, he seems very wise, but at the same time, he seems somebody who will be thrown out, because America is often "Trigger Happy", and he looks like somebody who would try and eradicate the ability for America to stay that way. I wish he was elected, he looks good, but I seem to doubt it's going to happen.

He looks very strong, but we all know how presidential candidates work- They lie about their "Goals", or speak of half-truths.

He does look like a genuine person, and I don't appreciate the bias against him in the media.

Good luck to him, but I still believe it's unlikely that he'll be elected.

 

His damn good, but the chances of him getting elected are slim :/