Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[Evo]

This is a seriously flawed argument. You are assuming that Gore was an acceptable alternative to Nader voters.

I guess you failed to read this. I'm not assuming anything, you are telling political analysts that they're wrong. google any political anaylsis of Nader's negative impact on Gore.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

 

[Evo]

By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.

:rofl:

Keeping this discussion current, anyone want to talk about the fact that Paul is now polling in the lead in Iowa? The media attacks?

Paul is losing to Romney by 5 percentage points as of yesterday's Rasmussen poll. It's posted in this thread. Did you read it? If you have a new mainstream poll from today, please link to it. I don't see one.

 

[Galteeth]

:rofl:


Paul is losing to Romney by 5 percentage points as of yesterday's Rasmussen poll. It's posted in this thread. Did you read it? If you have a new mainstream poll from today, please link to it. I don't see one.

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/new-poll-shows-paul-ahead-in-iowa-but-not-by-much/

 

[Evo]

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/new-poll-shows-paul-ahead-in-iowa-but-not-by-much/

Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hjqSelHet5Ma3y2HPRXuGFn8nY7A?docId=CNG.e2eaa3a1d5b6df35ac9841bb3a6ef85b.a1

And overall, Paul is really trailing.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

 

[Astronuc]

I think it will be Romney vs Obama.

Paul and Gingrinch are adept at self-destruction.

 

[turbo]

I think it will be Romney vs Obama.

Paul and Gingrinch are adept at self-destruction.

Their pasts and their past positions will come back to haunt them. IMO, the resurrection of Paul's past racist/homophobic remarks along with assertions that the introduction of colored US banknotes is designed to track the spending of US citizens will sink him. Gringrich will sink himself. He seems unable to stop spewing garbage. A couple of days ago, he was urging the House GOP to pass a two-month extension on tax cuts and unemployment, and today he was slamming the fact that it passed the House.

The GOP is self-destructing in the run-up to 2012. I'm not happy about this, because we need 2 viable parties if we have to be governed by a 2-party system. Paul can't realistically be nominated by the GOP, and if Gingrich is nominated, female Republicans will stay away from the general election in droves because of all the baggage.

 

[Dotini]

Here is candid assessment of Paul and his chances, and near-total condemnation of Romney and Gingrich from Timothy Egan in the pages of the NY Times. You will all love it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Astronuc]

George H W Bush endorses Romney -
http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/12/23/george_h_w_bush_endorses_mitt_romney_not_fellow_texan_rick_perry_for_gop_nomination.html

 

[mheslep]

Here is candid assessment of Paul and his chances, and near-total condemnation of Romney and Gingrich from Timothy Egan in the pages of the NY Times. You will all love it.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/soldiers-choice/?hp

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

How is that you see the author condemns Romney, and do you see support for his assertion?

 

[ThomasT]

How is that you see the author condemns Romney, and do you see support for his assertion?

I would guess this quote:

Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented “an astonishing failure.” True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury.

Not much of a 'condemnation' given the 'elasticity' of most politicians. But negative, imo, wrt the way I suppose that most people might assess it, nonetheless.

My own opinion is that I like a person, especially somebody in a leadership position, to change their mind on stuff as they learn more. Unfortunately for Romney, he just seems like a slimey political opportunist to me -- ie., a person with no real vision or plan for America (ie., he seems to me to be the sort that will say pretty much anything just to get elected).

 

[ThomasT]

By the way, Nader has thrown in with Ron Paul.

Well, that's it for me then. Unfortunately, I vowed some time ago to never again vote for either a Republican or a Democrat candidate.

 

[ThomasT]

I think in case anyone forgot what Nader was like. You have to admit he was a character.

Just FYI, a lot of (maybe most) Americans, at least wrt my limited experience, have no idea who Ralph Nader is. And we can thank the corporate media for that, imo.

Yes, I agree with you that he's a 'character'. And, imho, a really admirable one. He's a person who has committed his entire life to civic responsibility, which is a concept/idea which seems to be totally foreign, indeed condemnable, to most Americans.

Somebody is going to get elected to the presidency of the US. And this will be, imo, a function of appealing soundbites, media exposure, and, ultimately, pandering to the status quo.

A really strong candidate whose message and goal is returning power to the people has virtually no chance of being elected.

The US is a functioning oligarchy. And as long as that's the status quo, then committed people like Nader (and yes, Paul) will be marginalized and riduculed by the mainstream press. And most Americans couldn't care less.

But, to be fair, I do think that Paul is too old to be president. We, not that long ago, elected a really old person to the presidency (Reagan), and he spent his entire second term eating jellybeans and letting somebody else run things, because he was, in fact, senile for most of that time.

 

[mheslep]

I would guess this quote:


Not much of a 'condemnation' given the 'elasticity' of most politicians. But negative, imo, wrt the way I suppose that most people might assess it, nonetheless.

My own opinion is that I like a person, especially somebody in a leadership position, to change their mind on stuff as they learn more. Unfortunately for Romney, he just seems like a slimey political opportunist to me -- ie., a person with no real vision or plan for America (ie., he seems to me to be the sort that will say pretty much anything just to get elected).

I do not see where Romney has changed his position on this one..

 

[ThomasT]

I do not see where Romney has changed his position on this one..

Romney claimed, in November, that President Obama’s decision to bring home all American troops from Iraq was premature and represented “an astonishing failure.” True to his trademark elasticity, Romney has now changed his mind and is fine with bringing the troops home. Perhaps he’s been reading the polls that show that nearly two-thirds of all Americans think the Iraq war was not worth the loss of lives and treasury.

I don't know for sure. Did he change his mind or not? Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, as I've noted. It might suggest that Romney's learning, and not afraid to publicly reveal his changing ideas based on that learning. Or, it might reveal that Romney's just changing his public statements based on polls.

Personally, I think that he's a slimey political opportunist whose primary goal is getting elected. That is, I don't think he has any particular message or vision wrt improving America. I think he wants to be president, and, basically, that's it.

In my view, he's one of the least desirable, but probably one of the most electable, of the GOP candidates. Because he represents the oligarchical status quo. The corporate media isn't likely to marginalize him no matter how silly or slimily opportunistic he might seem to a lot of people. Which means that his gaffs will be glossed over, and most potential voters, not caring to do any real research, will simply go with his obviously 'normal' look and statements -- and vote for him.

As you might surmise. Imho, he's much worse than Paul.

 

[ThomasT]

Apparently Paul is leading in some polls now. But there might be a problem, at least down the road, with his old newsletters. My personal opinion on that is that he should just be honest about it. He's a WASP. No secret there, and it appeals to LOTS of Americans.

We're, all of us, predjudiced and racist to certain extents. If you deny it, then you're just lying to yourself. But now Paul is caught in an interestingly ironic dilemma. He's running for president in the most transparently racist and predjudiced party, and yet he's forced by currently politically correct dialogue to deny his biases.

Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things. I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. But that's changing -- at least it was, perhaps also somewhat ironically, until the more strict enforcement of immigration by the Obama administration. If America goes back to the pre-Obama status quo wrt immigration, then projections indicate that the US will be a Spanish speaking country by about 2070 -- with the WASP population only about 25% to 30% of the total population of the US.

It appears that neither Paul nor Obama would let that happen.

 

[mheslep]

...Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things.

There's little evidence that Paul believes as you suggest, though his campaign staff does appear to have attracted a few who do. Paul categorically denies any association with the racist views written by another in his newsletter.

I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent.

Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?

 

[ThomasT]

There's little evidence that Paul believes as you suggest, though his campaign staff does appear to have attracted a few who do. Paul categorically denies any association with the racist views written by another in his newsletter.
Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?

Apparently my idle conjectures are inconsistent with empirical reality. But maybe not. Regarding the newsletter, of course Paul denies the biased views printed in it. And I don't want to believe that he ever held those sorts of views. But the problem is that it was his newsletter. It went out to the public bearing his name ... supposedly following his perusal and consent. So it seems a bit lame for him to deny that he was aware of its contents.

Regarding the biases of WASP (and WASC) Americans in general, yes, Obama did get elected. Maybe the biases of those groups have been affected by a few generations of increasingly more egalitarian modes of thinking in contrast to what I experienced growing up.

 

[AlephZero]

Remind me, how did the current guy get in the White House again? How did Herman Cain manage to lead in the GOP polls for weeks?

Most probably, the same way as other "successful" politicians: get your message across to the 50% of the electorate who are below average intelligence and you are most of the way there already.

Some people have a natural instinct about doing that, others work hard at it. I couldn't possibly comment about where Obama and Cain fit on that sliding scale.

The rise and fall of New Labour in the UK, from Michael Foot through Kinnock, Blair, Brown, and the "two Eds are better than one" (Balls and Millipede) would make an excellent case study.

 

[Dotini]

..."successful" politicians: get your message across to the 50% of the electorate who are below average intelligence...

What would constitute success for Dr. Paul? Neither his most ardent supporters, we here at PF, the mainstream media, nor Paul himself actually anticipates a President Ron Paul, I'm sure. Yet here he is threatening to win the Iowa caucuses, now less than a week away.

If it comes pass that Paul does well enough to get the consideration of Austrian economics and other libertarian ideas into open, legitimate public discourse, then likely he will have already won.

"End the Fed" (central bank) is now well-accepted among the Republican candidates. So that is early evidence that Paul is making history.

Many of his most ardent supporters are the college kids and others who are internet savvy. So his movement can only grow. To be a survivor after New Hampshire will tell us a lot.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[D H]

"End the Fed" (central bank) is now well-accepted among the Republican candidates.

If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.

We are often taught that George Washington was the first president of the United States. That depends on what you mean by President and what you mean by the United States. In a very real sense, Washington was the eighth president, preceded by John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, Nathan Gorman, Arthur St. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin. So why don't we here of Washington's predecessors? The answer is simple: The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment. We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.

Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.

 

[Dotini]

I should have said "audit the Fed".

 

[mheslep]

If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.

It's not; they won't.

The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment.

Yes. However, there is no little evidence the USA has realized many of the objections raised by the anti federalists. They might argue that the USA is a failed experiment: over large and over extended military, over large and mounting debt, taxation grown far beyond anything announced or intended at the founding or even the 1916 income tax, federal programs run by an aristocracy of sorts, state police powers assumed by the federal government.

We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.

The separate European nations did not fail prior to 1992 and Maastricht. The failure is now in the Union and in particular the adoption of a common currency across sovereign nations, which was predicted to fail by many at its inception. They should have stopped at free trade among the several nations and left well enough alone.

...Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.

Paul does not call for the end of the Union; one existed for some time prior to the creation of the Fed. The insanity here is to look abroad at the consequences of debt and overspending, see our own debt and overspending and continue business as usual. Paul has some nutty ideas about the Fed and currency. But his clearly announced spending cuts, or something like them, is the only sane path forward.

 

[JonDE]

It's not; they won't.

Yes. However, there is no little evidence the USA has realized many of the objections raised by the anti federalists. They might argue that the USA is a failed experiment: over large and over extended military, over large and mounting debt, taxation grown far beyond anything announced or intended at the founding or even the 1916 income tax, federal programs run by an aristocracy of sorts, state police powers assumed by the federal government.

The separate European nations did not fail prior to 1992 and Maastricht. The failure is now in the Union and in particular the adoption of a common currency across sovereign nations, which was predicted to fail by many at its inception. They should have stopped at free trade among the several nations and left well enough alone.

Paul does not call for the end of the Union; one existed for some time prior to the creation of the Fed. The insanity here is to look abroad at the consequences of debt and overspending, see our own debt and overspending and continue business as usual. Paul has some nutty ideas about the Fed and currency. But his clearly announced spending cuts, or something like them, is the only sane path forward.

No it is not the only sane path forward. His spending cuts are dramatic. In the current weak economy, the only thing that laying off 2M military personel would do is cause another recession. Almost any cut at all in government spending would effect real people. Real people getting laid off further weakens the economy.
By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy. The projected future deficits are around 600B per year, meaning 900B of the current deficits are because of the weak economy. While I agree that cuts will have to be made, and we can start with them now, drastic cutting will only make our situation worse.

 

[Vanadium 50]

By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy.

Ah, but which part of the economy? Harry Reid, for example, has said that the private sector part is doing just fine, and that it's the public sector that needs the jobs. Clearly the two parties have two different viewpoints.

 

[mheslep]

No it is not the only sane path forward. His spending cuts are dramatic. In the current weak economy, the only thing that laying off 2M military personel would do is cause another recession. Almost any cut at all in government spending would effect real people. Real people getting laid off further weakens the economy.
By far the most important factor to reducing the deficit is to grow the economy. The projected future deficits are around 600B per year, meaning 900B of the current deficits are because of the weak economy. While I agree that cuts will have to be made, and we can start with them now, drastic cutting will only make our situation worse.

It is the spending increases that have been dramatic. Returning spending to the levels of 3-5 years ago is not.

 

[JonDE]

Ah, but which part of the economy? Harry Reid, for example, has said that the private sector part is doing just fine, and that it's the public sector that needs the jobs. Clearly the two parties have two different viewpoints.

Fine is obviously an overstatement. Its doing "ok", but not good. The private sector will probably finish the year adding around 300k jobs more then population growth, while the governments (federal, state and local) will probably shed around that same number. So from that perspective its doing ok. I think I read that normally the "governments" add around 12k jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. So the government is one of the weak sectors of the economy, but by no means is it the only problem plaguing us, as I think Reid was insinuating.

 

[Woopy]

ron paul is awesome, that is all. He's such a lunatic that he wants to end a war that has been running on for 10 years, hell if Ron Paul was president in 2008 we would of been out of Iraq in 2008. He's so loony that he doesn't want to dictate people's personal behavior...oh yeah. He's so loony he wants to follow the document that gives very specific details to what the federal government can and cannot do. He wants to end a federal reserve that isn't even in the constitution, and get rid of agencies that aren't in the constitution. He's such a lunatic man.

 

[JonDE]

It is the spending increases that have been dramatic. Returning spending to the levels of 3-5 years ago is not.

2008 federal budget was 2.9 trillion. 2012 is set to be around 3.7T. If you adjust 2008's budget for inflation and population growth at a fairly conservative method of 4% per year you end up in 2012 with 3.39T. So from your perspective, increased government spending is only about 300B of the problem, which doesn't differ too far from my previous post, when I said 900B was because of the recession. Which would leave about 300B to being the problem of taxatation.

 

[mheslep]

2008 federal budget was 2.9 trillion. 2012 is set to be around 3.7T. If you adjust 2008's budget for inflation and population growth at a fairly conservative method of 4% per year you end up in 2012 with 3.39T. So from your perspective, increased government spending is only about 300B of the problem, which doesn't differ too far from my previous post, when I said 900B was because of the recession. Which would leave about 300B to being the problem of taxatation.

In the latter part of 2008 the large jump in deficit spending had already begun. The inflation corrected 2007 spending of $2.73 trillion becomes $3.0 trillion in 2011, against the $3.6 trillion that was actually spent, an increase of $600B over inflation in a time reduced revenue, large debt loads, and entitlement obligations. I don't know why population growth must correlate with, say, defense spending. So as I said above it is the spending increase that is dramatic.

BTW:

laying off 2M military personel ...

Nobody is talking about laying off 2m military personnel. The size of the active duty US military is ~1.5m, another 1.5 m in the reserves. Paul's proposed 2013 defense budget of $500B is still greater than Reagan's (in today's dollars) at the peak of his defense spending in the cold war. Also note that the military downsized 12 million to 1.5 million in 1945 to 1947 without putting vast numbers in the soup lines.

The projected future deficits are around 600B per year...

The 2012 deficit is forecast as $1.1 trillion per the White House's OMB. Predictions further out are hand waving bets on the economy and reflect no spending reforms.

 

[fashizzle]

If that's true, that is yet another reason the Republicans may well get squashed 10 months from now.

We are often taught that George Washington was the first president of the United States. That depends on what you mean by President and what you mean by the United States. In a very real sense, Washington was the eighth president, preceded by John Hanson, Elias Boudinot, Thomas Mifflin, Richard Henry Lee, Nathan Gorman, Arthur St. Clair, and Cyrus Griffin. So why don't we here of Washington's predecessors? The answer is simple: The US under the Articles of Confederation was a failed experiment. We're seeing a repeat of that failure right now in western Europe.

Repeating those failed experiments a third time (at least a third time) would be insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

That insanity is exactly the path along which Paul and the Tea Party want to lead us.

Not sure how this is relevant to the "End the Fed" quote in your post. The U.S was doing just fine before the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. Ever heard of the depression of 1920, and how it was dealt with as opposed to the tactics pursued by the Fed with the Great Depression?

 

[Galteeth]

Apparently Paul is leading in some polls now. But there might be a problem, at least down the road, with his old newsletters. My personal opinion on that is that he should just be honest about it. He's a WASP. No secret there, and it appeals to LOTS of Americans.

We're, all of us, predjudiced and racist to certain extents. If you deny it, then you're just lying to yourself. But now Paul is caught in an interestingly ironic dilemma. He's running for president in the most transparently racist and predjudiced party, and yet he's forced by currently politically correct dialogue to deny his biases.

Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things. I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. But that's changing -- at least it was, perhaps also somewhat ironically, until the more strict enforcement of immigration by the Obama administration. If America goes back to the pre-Obama status quo wrt immigration, then projections indicate that the US will be a Spanish speaking country by about 2070 -- with the WASP population only about 25% to 30% of the total population of the US.

It appears that neither Paul nor Obama would let that happen.

As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.

The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.

The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.

 

[mheslep]

So how does Ron Paul invest his money?

...Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different [from other Congressmen]. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. ...

about which, an investment manager says:

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

:rofl::rofl:

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/12/21/the-ron-paul-portfolio/

 

[ThomasT]

As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.

The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.

The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.

Thanks for your research. and your assessment (which is, imo, reasonable, and which I adopt in lieu of supported info to the contrary). I do remember Paul saying, to his credit, that he was still "responsible" for the content of the newsletters during the period when he apparently wasn't paying attention to that content.

Personally, I don't think Paul is anywhere near being a racist. I think that, like most of us (I'm assuming), he has a natural affinity for his own culture and maybe has some sort of personal ethnic identity. But, like lots of us, but maybe not most (again, just assuming), I think that he's aware of how this could bias his judgements and therefore tries consiously to not let that happen.

So, for me, the newsletter thing isn't important (though, as you mention, if he does become a serious contender, then he's going to have to "address the issue thoroughly" -- probably on national tv). Imo, there are other, much more important issues wrt which Paul's positions, while consistent with libertarian values, are contrary to the well-being and improvement of America.

 

[ThomasT]

So how does Ron Paul invest his money?
( ... snip interesting stuff from post #242 ...)

Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?

 

[MarcoD]

I like a lot of Ron Paul's idea, but my main beef with libertarianism is that it sometimes equals, and shouldn't equal, lack of taking responsibility.