Ron Paul

[gleek]

Any chance he wins the GOP nomination?

[MP]

I thought he was the GOP backrunner last I remember.

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

[MFAWG]

The 2 most compelling guys (Paul, Gravel) don't have a shot.

Then again:

Anybody remember who the presumptive nominees in 1999 were?

[stroh]

I was thinking this thread was about Ru Paul.

[Aske]

I was thinking this thread was about Ru Paul.

 

[hobbit]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

[Walfredo]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

Forgive my stupidity but to whom are you referring?

[Blader]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

Forgive my stupidity but to whom are you referring?

Way back when, he was one of only 6 republican congressman to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

[hobbit]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

Forgive my stupidity but to whom are you referring?

Uh.... Ron Paul 

[Walfredo]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

Forgive my stupidity but to whom are you referring?

Uh.... Ron Paul 

  I thought MP and you were talking bout someone else.  Now I get it.  FWIW, I checked out his website.  He doesn't sound too bad for a repub so he definately won't win the nomination.  And what is up with the Gold Standard thing.  Kind of hard to take him seriously after that. 

[Blader]

I'm really not prone to the whole "cult of personality' mindset when it comes to handicapping political candidates, but Ron Paul sort of reminds me of what Ross Perot would be if he were a history professor, except Ross Perot is much more like a crack addict.

[gleek]

FWIW I like a republican who doesn't like his president.   

He's only a republican in name; his heart, viewpoints, and voting record are more libertarian than anything else (many people refer to him as a libertarian too).

I would support him if it wasn't for his crusade against the Federal Reserve system and wanting to go to a 'gold standard'.  There are reasons to dislike or distrust the Fed, but the gold standard is a horrible 'solution'.



Oh - and he likely has no shot at the nomination.  He's not 'republican' enough - which is a good thing IMO; but won't win the hearts, minds, and most importantly - the pocketbooks, of traditional republican benefactors.

Forgive my stupidity but to whom are you referring?

Uh.... Ron Paul 

  I thought MP and you were talking bout someone else.  Now I get it.  FWIW, I checked out his website.  He doesn't sound too bad for a repub so he definately won't win the nomination.  And what is up with the Gold Standard thing.  Kind of hard to take him seriously after that. 

I think that's just part of his ideology (i.e. that the government shouldn't be able to print money willy-nilly without having anything of intrinsic value to back it up), but IMHO he's pretty realistic about how much change he's going to be able to bring to fruition in 4-8 years. One of the primary sticking points with "libs" might be his pro-life stance, which is based on his rather pedantic position on individual rights. Unlike pro-lifers who believe that it's simply evil to kill fetuses, Paul is more interested in protecting the rights of the fetus. In addition, I think he doesn't believe that the federal government should even have a position on the pro-choice/pro-life debate.

I really love that he's a staunch "constitutionalist" and is adamantly opposed to big government, but some of his positions almost make him sound like anarchist. Still I think he's a realistic about whether or not he can do away with the IRS in his first 100 days.

Edit: BTW, I don't know *8==>* about this guy other than what I've seen on YouTube. I'm really just talking out of my ass at this point. It will be really interesting to see if a guy can win the nomination and eventually the presidency through a true grassroots campaign on teh internets. This will speak volumes about the power of technology (and YouTube/Google).

[Blader]

His positions are far too liberal to mobilize the goosestep conservative masses, and far too conservative to suck support from the reality-based voter bloc

In the end, Paul will prove that even youtube has its limitations

[1puttpar]

I was told by a wise old man, many years ago:

"Don't trust anybody with 2 first names."