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

[Char. Limit]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?

The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected. He doesn't even have a chance of winning the Rep nomination.

No, I would never support him. His views range from interesting, to extreme, to nutty.

 

[skippy1729]

In the Republican primary I think (and hope) he has less chance than Newt of Herman Caine. I would never vote for him in the primary. He is too isolationist. I would vote for him in the general election against Obama. If he ran against Hillary I would have to give her a second look.

Skippy

 

[daveb]

He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him. The Daily Show ran a great piece about how he came in third for the straw poll, and the media mentioned the 1st and 2nd place winners, then skipped 3rd (who was Paul) to talk about the 4th place It was hilarious (can't find a link to the piece though).

 

[Freye]

His chances of winning the republican primary alone are extremely small, given that his libertarian convictions are only semi-accepted by the majority of people. Being a fiscal conservative with socially liberal tendencies generally means neither traditionally liberal or conservative voters will be entirely apt to vote for him.

I live in Canada, but if I was an American and if he somehow managed to win the primaries, I would vote for him in the general election, as I am on similar ideological footing with the man

 

[MarcoD]

His chances of winning the republican primary alone are extremely small, given that his libertarian convictions are only semi-accepted by the majority of people. Being a fiscal conservative with socially liberal tendencies generally means neither traditionally liberal or conservative voters will be entirely apt to vote for him.

I live in Canada, but if I was an American and if he somehow managed to win the primaries, I would vote for him in the general election, as I am on similar ideological footing with the man

Uh, social liberalists are not liberal socialists or libertarians (I am getting tired of myself here too .)

Social liberalism is what I am inclined to too (nice it exists in Canada), mostly because of lack of other progressive parties. Having said that, I agree also with about everything the guy wants, because his basic principle is maximizing freedom too. I differ a lot on economy, though.

 

[Freye]

Uh, social liberalists are not liberal socialists or libertarians (I am getting tired of myself here too .)

Social liberalism is what I am inclined to too (nice it exists in Canada), mostly because of lack of other progressive parties. Having said that, I agree also with about everything the guy wants, because his basic principle is maximizing freedom too. I differ a lot on economy, though.

Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that Ron Paul was an actual social liberal per say. The point I was trying to make was simply that his views on social issues are generally more liberal than most conservative voters are willing to accept (such as drug legalisation, gay marriage, immigration, etc.), and that this tends to alienate many potential Paul supporters. Although please don't interpret that as me suggesting that he should compromise his views for accommodation's sake; that would merely destroy his integrity.

You are another excellent example of the semi-enthusiast I'm talking about. You agree with his social tendencies towards maximising freedom, but your economic ideologies don't align.

 

[MarcoD]

No need to excuse for anything. I didn't feel any offense anywhere.

 

[phinds]

He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him. The Daily Show ran a great piece about how he came in third for the straw poll, and the media mentioned the 1st and 2nd place winners, then skipped 3rd (who was Paul) to talk about the 4th place It was hilarious (can't find a link to the piece though).

Yeah, I think if it had been a 2-man race between, say Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul had won, then much of the media would have run headlines along the lines of "Romney takes strong second place, Ron Paul comes in next to last."

I give the man great kudos for consistency, unlike any other current politician I am aware of, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to agree w/ Ivan that he's just too extreme. I think a lot of his ideologically pure ideas would be a disaster in the real world.

 

[ThomasT]

The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected.

He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him.

The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?

Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.

 

[phinds]

The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?

Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.

I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect. You seem to want to not believe that the media marginalizes him because he is unelectable and to believe the reverse instead. I don't think that works.

 

[daveb]

The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?

Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.

This is an interesting idea, and probably somewhat true. After all, Fox News popularizes far right candidates, and MSNBC popularizes far left candidates. I doubt either of these extremes would be as popular if the media didn't cover them.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect.

We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.

You seem to want to not believe that the media marginalizes him because he is unelectable and to believe the reverse instead. I don't think that works.

I'm asking how it does work. Are they marginalizing him because he's unelectable, or because, for whatever reasons, they don't want him elected? How can they possibly know that he's unelectable? One thing seems certain, if they marginalize him, then he's unelectable.

 

[BobG]

I give the man great kudos for consistency, unlike any other current politician I am aware of, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to agree w/ Ivan that he's just too extreme. I think a lot of his ideologically pure ideas would be a disaster in the real world.

(bolding mine)

Yes, I think his views are interesting, but unworkable in the real world.

And interesting isn't even the same as desirable. It's something to give some thought to, but what comes after that can vary from person to person.

As such, interesting only lasts so long before it becomes old. And that's where Paul stands now. He's just not as interesting (and new) the second time around as he was the first time around.

If you're only 'out there' on a couple of issues, there's a chance you're ahead of your time and those issues won't be considered so 'out there' the next time you display them. If you're 'out there' on too many issues, then even having one or two them 'ripen' doesn't change the perception that you're a flake. You need to show some judgement and pick an issue or two where you really can make a difference if want to be taken seriously.

 

[Evo]

Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.

his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.

What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone's guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html

 

[Proton Soup]

The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected. He doesn't even have a chance of winning the Rep nomination.

No, I would never support him. His views range from interesting, to extreme, to nutty.

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

 

[phinds]

We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.
.

Well, I got to give you that one.

 

[Proton Soup]

ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

 

[Dotini]

If you are fighting and broke, you will never accomplish a thing.

Ron Paul has been consistently right on the two biggest issues of our time - war and debt - and the others have all been off base.

I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

Another valuable quality of Ron Paul is that he points out the many ways we are not following the Constitution. We should either follow it, amend it, or burn it up altogether. Take your choice and do something, because to say one thing in our highest document and do another in our actual practice is insane.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Ivan Seeking]

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.

 

[Freye]

I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

Even though he is anti-abortion, he's for allowing individual states, as opposed to the federal government, to decide their own rules on abortion.

 

[lisab]

Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html

ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

The results Proton linked to indicate to me that Evo is right. Paul's supporters are more likely to vote in these unscientific polls, but I don't think he actually "won" the debate.

 

[Evo]

ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library

LOL, an online poll. His army of online (followers) do this to every online poll, which is (as mentioned in an earlier article) why the media doesn't mention him. The votes are bogus.

 

[Proton Soup]

Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.

eh, i think there is more to it. there is a bit of an intentional shut-out on Paul in the major media. like here, Washington Post won't even list Paul as a loser. what's up with that? even Newt is up there, and Newt is the guy who's entire campaign team ran out on him recently.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-and-losers/2011/09/07/gIQA2XfpAK_blog.html

 

[Evo]

He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Here’s a pretty safe bet: Ron Paul will win Saturday’s Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll. Or at least he will do better than many better-known and better-financed 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

Why? The Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate almost always does. While his ardent supporters aren’t numerous enough to win him actual primaries or caucuses, they’ve mastered the unofficial straw poll format and they’ve decided those informal polls send an important message.

Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.

“In 2007, when the media was all but ignoring Ron Paul’s candidacy we realized that straw polls were something we could win, and they are really about the only way to get Ron Paul any media attention at all. So we just all start showing up,” said Brandon Yates, an activist who has been showing up to straw poll events on Paul’s behalf since 2007.

During the 2008 presidential election, Paul won small straw polls in at least 10 states. He rarely broke into double-digits in the real caucuses or primaries that year, but he would often win by a landslide in the straw polls — he took 4 percent in the Arizona primary, for example, but swept a Phoenix straw poll with 80 percent of the vote.

This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1XOzYsvrY

 

[Chi Meson]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winning? Would you vote for him?

I already voted for Ron Paul, in 1988. It was the first presidential election I ever voted in, and I essentially cast my vote for "someone else."

Ron appears to be the most Libertarian person in the field, and if all the people who called themselves Libertarian actually were libertarian, he would be the front-runner.

 

[Dotini]

Ron Paul has gained name recognition from and since the '08 campaign. He's doing even better this time around, not least because he's been so right on the war and debt issues, and all the others know it and are trying to co-opt elements of his message. It matters not to him or me if he's nominated or not. The important thing is that mainstream Republicans and thinking Democrats increasingly resemble Paul, jettison the neocons and neoliberals, and return a semblance of sanity to foreign and monetary policy. That's the hope, and that, folks, is the thin reed upon which our future viability depends. We will assuredly get the government we deserve.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Uhm, yeah.

Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

http://www.wctv.tv/wswg/headlines/Ron_Paul_I_Dont_Accept_the_Theory_of_Evolution_128652403.html

 

[Proton Soup]

He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.



This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1XOzYsvrY

well, i see what you're saying, but i'd suggest to you that when media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.

it's going to be interesting to see how the future political landscape develops, as a new generation of americans more and more disconnected from traditional media.

 

[Topher925]

He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.

Whether you like him or not, he has been right about debt issues and all that which was already stated above. I also believe in (most) of his intentions and ideas for improving the economy. I wouldn't say he's my #1 choice for 2012 but I would gladly take him over ANY other Republican candidate right now except for maybe Buddy Roemer, jury's still out on that guy.

 

[Dotini]

Uhm, yeah.

I'm glad you partly agree!

If we were electing the Scientist-in-Chief it would be another matter. But evolution, abortion and drugs pale in significance to war and debt. Remember, if you are fighting and broke, you are going nowhere fast.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[Evo]

I disagree Evo. If there's one thing the media has proven, its that the media is dumber than Ron Paul's followers. I believe the reason Paul isn't being recognized is because he's an outcast in his own party and has no support from the other side. The GOP and its associates refuse to recognize him as a candidate which just so happens to be the same GOP that owns/runs/commands the majority of the news networks. I think they are trying to quietly defeat him by not allowing him to have any kind of popularity.

Conspiracy theory? You know that's against the rules.

I'm glad you partly agree!

Lol, I was being dismissive. But you know that.

 

[ThomasT]

... media outlets devote more time to certain candidates and call them the front runners, that this serves as political advocacy. this political advocacy then influences public opinion and the public then believes that the only viable candidates are the ones that the media tells them are viable. it's free commercials, more or less.

This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no more so than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?

 

[Freye]

This seems to be how it works. It isn't clear to me why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul (not that he shouldn't be marginalized, just wondering why). Sure, he's a somewhat willfully ignorant religious wingnut, but no more so than any of the other republican candidates. So, why does the corporate media like, say, Perry and Romney, but not like Paul?

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

 

[Evo]

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution

Ron Paul: I Don't Accept the Theory of Evolution

In a YouTube video of Paul addressing what appears to be a town hall meeting, the Texas representative said that asking about evolution during a recent debate between GOP rivals in Iowa was "inappropriate" and went on to clarify where he stood on the issue.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," he said. "I think it's a theory...the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory. But I think the creator that i know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."

see my previous post on this

And for more on Ron Paul's religious views

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=Ron+Paul+religious+quotes

 

[ThomasT]

When have you ever heard Ron Paul spouting religious nonsense when he's either interviewed or in debates? I think he does an exceptional job of staying away from the conventionally conservative religious views that generally colour the GOP, regardless of what he actually believes (which is unknown to me even as someone who watches and reads many of his interviews), and sticking to his constitutional guns.

That's how I thought about Paul for a while. But my opinion of Paul changed a bit when I went to a website that had all the candidates positions on various issues (from debates, speeches, interviews, etc.) going back a few years. It seems, from what I read, that his judgement is somewhat tainted by his theistic religious views, in line with what Evo posted in reply to you.

But I'm still curious as to the real reason why the mainstream media is marginalizing Paul. Which one(s) of his positions is (are) the deal breaker(s)?

 

[DoggerDan]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state. A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

 

[Freye]

He talks about his religious beliefs a lot. Even going so far as the say that he doesn't believe in evolution see my previous post on this

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I do remember seeing this interview with him, I had forgotten about that. However I have to agree with DoggerDan's post, that is, a president's religious beliefs, even if they are exceptionally silly, are largely irrelevant to his success as a president, especially when he also believes very strongly in the constitution, which is where the separation of church and state is explicitly laid out. As a libertarian, I strongly doubt that Paul will be attempting to push a creationist agenda, or any agenda at all into the school system by abusing his presidential powers.

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

 

[turbo]

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

 

[Proton Soup]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

looks like the source of a lot of this is articles at lewrockwell. and of the couple that I've perused, it's a little different from your characterization. they're more of the standard libertarian views of the federal government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

 

[Proton Soup]

The media does not follow those nuts because they are electable. They follow them because there is a small sub-set of voters that want to pretend that those idiots are electable, absent polls to the negative.

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

 

[turbo]

so, following your logic, why do they not follow ron paul with the same enthusiasm?

How does Ron look in a short skirt?

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[Freye]

Read his quotes in the wiki quote link where he wants to get rid of wonen's rights, it's against his religious views, get rid of separation of church and state, it's against his religious beliefs, he's against homosexual marriage, it's against his religious beliefs, and on and on. Of course he would want to change government to fulfill his religious beliefs, but he's not a viable candidate and never will be. He's just a loon, IMO. Let's move on to scarier currently viable candidates like Perry.

Proton Soup is right; although he is clearly pro-christian, his point is that he wants the state to tolerate and accept religion, instead of being what he sees as "hostile" towards it. He may be a nut when it comes to religion, but he's a libertarian, and that means he's strongly against using the government to promote an agenda. So no, he would not "want to change the government to fulfil his religious beliefs."

 

[Evo]

Plus, Trump has a a dead golden marmot on top of his head. Who can compete with that for the nursing-home vote?

 

[ThomasT]

I'm not sure what a candidate's personal religious beliefs have to do with the price of tea in China in a country that practices separation of church and state.

If we vote enough religious fundamentalists into public office, then maybe they won't be practicing what the constitution preaches, even though of course they'll say that they are.

A presidential candidate has the same right to their religious beliefs as anyone else, including those who vote.

People have the right to base their beliefs and judgements on theistic religious doctrine, but not, imo, as public officials. Basing judgements regarding public policy on religious beliefs betrays the sort of willful ignorance that prompts me to screen out of consideration such candidates.

Meanwhile, the question in people's minds should be "Will he make a good president?" One's personal religious convictions have rarely been a determining factor in the success or failure of a President's term of office.

How do we judge the success or failure of a president's term of office? Was Bush a good president? Can we point to at least of couple of considerations where his judgement was apparently based on his theistic religious orientation? How about various religious governors and state and national congress persons? We've got lots of silly laws and public practices based on New and Old Testament doctrines.

For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

 

[phinds]

... For me, Paul isn't a viable candidate precisely because he's admittedly a devoutly theistically religious person, and some of his positions regarding public policy are clearly based on that orientation.

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts which is really saying something.

 

[chiro]

The one thing I like about Ron Paul (among other things) is consistency and specificity.

The consistency comes from the fact that he sticks to his principles. He does not change his stance to match the flavor of the month, and that gets a lot of respect for me. This character trait shows that he walks his talk: it takes a real person to take a stand and stand up for what the believe in especially in the midst of any kind of negative response which he was endured a lot.

The specificity is something that separates him from his contenders. When he states his view and responds to questions or ridicule whether it be in the form of a debate, or some other event like an interview on TV or radio, he actually gives specific information to support his argument. When he is either asked nicely or challenged, he delves into various data to support his argument which spans topics from history to economics.

One other thing I like is the view he promotes of letting people have the right to say what they want and to practice lifestyles that do not hurt other people in the way that they want to. One important facet of free speech for example is to let anyone voice their views no matter how insane you may think they are. You can't make exceptions and remain unhypocritical. The fact that some groups want some things to be completely taboo, while having other things being acceptable is completely hypocritical, ignorant, and generally stupid: if you want what the constitutions regards as free speech, then you need to respect everyone's right for that no matter how inane or ridiculous that speech is. This demonstrates that he is really serious about his stance about being a constitutionalist and not changing his stance just to be politically correct.

With regard to him being covered and whether that implies anything about how good a candidate he is, make up your own damn mind. If you use the TV as a basis for making the majority of your life decisions, then IMO you need to broaden your sources for information and exercise more critical thinking.

 

[ThomasT]

Have you ever seen the polls on the percentage of Americans who SAY at least that they are (theistically) religious? I mean, dude, it's actually HIGHER than the number who believe in UFOs and ghosts ...

Yes, from the poll data that I've seen this seems to be true.

... which is really saying something.

It's saying that there are more Americans who say they're Christians than Americans who say they believe in ghosts.

This is understandable in that it's (from what I've read, and in my personal experience) more acceptable to say that you're Christian than that you believe in ghosts.

Everyone has the right to believe what they want, for whatever reasons. But that doesn't make what they believe right, especially if their beliefs are based on socialization and intellectual and emotional comfort (which is the basis of willful ignorance) rather than modern standards of rationality and critical thinking.

Ron Paul seems to be a man of integrity, and intelligent and knowledgeable in many areas. However, I don't want to vote for a candidate who I think might base an important public decision on his/her religious orientation, regardless of what most Americans say they believe.

 

[DuncanM]

So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?

No, I don't think he'll win.

However, I do like the fact he is a libertarian, and he has proposed some drastic measures for dealing with the economy. Many of these drastic measures have gotten him the "zany" label but drastic measures are exactly what are necessary. The establishment needs a shake-up. (Isn't that how America was founded in the first place?)

Seriously, everybody else is pretty much same old same old. They are all afraid to state that drastic measures are required. And anybody who does is automatically disqualified as being "zany". This ensures that the right thing will never be done:

The right thing to do is "Policy A".
Focus all media attention on politicians who promote any policy except "Policy A".
Label anybody who promotes "Policy A" a nutty fruitcake.
Ensure that "Policy A" is never implemented and policies that created the mess in the first place continue like business as usual. Or until the country declares bankruptcy.

Let's be honest: even if Ron Paul is not the right person, things cannot go on in the same manner. Like Einstein said: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different outcomes.