Ron Paul

I've been noticing some things about Ron Paul lately. Well, more accurately about his followers. Some of my friends have gone over to the dark side, and it seems that most of the followers I've spoken to seem to focus on the fact that he wants to pull out of Iraq and dismantle the IRS...and not so much on the fact that he wants to replace all taxes with, well, nothing but tarriffs and also wants to dismantle public education. Most of these Paulistas are also extremely passionate. So early in the presidential race, the only candidate whose bumper stickers and signs I've seen around have been Paul's. Of course, I also see a lot of dopey college kids wearing Che shirts, and we aren't going communist, so I could be making faulty connections here. However, he did get 8% of the vote in New Hampshire's primary. Admittedly, some New Hampshirites I know have told me that their state has a higher concentration of lolbertarians than usual, and even that there was some plan by the Paulistas to move 9,000 supporters down there to vote in the primary (only 250 ended up moving...haha). Still, 8% is very close to Giuliani's 9%, and Giuliani is widely seen as a candidate who has a chance.

Do you think this guy has a chance of becoming prominent in the presidential campaign? I hope not, but since NH I have to wonder. Also, I've spoken to a lot of liberals who have become Paulistas, again because all they're seeing is his Iraq policy. If he ended up running as an independent, who do you think he would take the most votes from--Dems or Repubs?

I leave you with some final lols.

If he ran he'd take Republican votes. The situation with labels is complicated. He was the Libertarian candidate but to many he's not a true Libertarian because he's a bit too radical. There are a lot of people who vote Republican just because there is never a strong Libertarian candidate. A similar thing can be observed when you see communists voting Democrat.

To me Libertarianism is a lot like Communism except the exact opposite. It's more of a direction towards we should strive and less an actual party platform. I FULLY agree with Ron Paul on nearly everything but not in 2008 but rather 2080 when the world is different and these things are actually something that would benefit everyone.

Ron Paul will get votes for three reasons: because people fear communism, because people are pissed off at Reps ignoring capitalism, because it's cool.

He won't win.

Ron Paul is probably the only candidate in the last 20 years who has substantial support from both parties' voters, liberals and conservatives alike.

However, I am convinced that he has no shot at the Presidency. He will undoubtedly attract voters who are diesenfranchised with the leading candidates of both parties. But in terms of mounting a credible challenge, he will fail.

Consider his main position, withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. As much as the country is opposed to the war, there is a vocal but still minority voice that is calling for the total and immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. President Bush has generally suceeded in convincing the country that the U.S. cannot and will not withdraw or set a timetable for withdrawal in the immediate future. Ron Paul's message will appeal to the disaffected public but that public is not large enough to propel his candidacy.

His other message of abolishing taxes and instituting protectionist tariffs is also appealing but econoimically retarded. If he campaigns on that issue, I can see his opposition countering him with the reality that prices will increase exponentially and inflation will soar. Which will result in increased costs for healthcare and education, two very sensitive issues to the American voter. So I don't see his economic message getting any traction.

His position on immigration will appeal to the Alitards but we all know that they are scattered across the country and constitute a miniscule but annoying percentage of the voting public.

Personally, I don't believe he will win the Republican nomination. He will probably have his supporters conduct write-ins in some states but not in any majority of the states. In the states that he is on the ticket, he will probably cost the Republicans more because, as we've seen from the primaries, Democratic voters are turning out in large numbers. The Democratic nominee can probably withstand any loss of votes to Ron Paul. The Republican nominee, fortunately, cannot.

J6, I'm with you on libertarianism--it's an ultimate goal which we are long away from. If it were enacted right now, the repercussions for the economy and class stratification would be disastrous.

I really doubt he can get the Republican nom, but I still think he may go independent, despite his protestations that he won't. But Rahman, you make a good point. Considering Democratic turn out, his effect probably won't be big enough to hurt the Dem candidate.

Paul is too right-winged to be a president. His support is mainly from ignorant young people and alipac-like people. If he was going to be president, he would've gotten a lot of votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and finish at least third.

he can run longer and keep fund raising...he said on meet the press that he wont run as an independent and Id like to see the republican nomination going to him...

if he can scam a little more money out of the alifucks, I'll sleep better...

anyone who can stop the irs from taking so much $ from us, i like. irs is like a mob boss. you do all the work, he scares you shitless and take a big chunck off of your cookie. they rob us and it's legal, damn irs!

What about Hukabeeee, or Richardson. Are they good candidates?

Well, personally I'm also for the ideals of libertarianism but not Ron Paul's. By this I'm mean, he yearns for a constitutional base government but neglects the constitutional foundation of the fourteenth amendment, also supposedly longs for free trade yet neglects treaties such as NAFTA, NATO, heck even the UN because he saids they represent permanent alliances, lord knows how history has taught us something remember the League of Nations. Hell even his thoughts on abortion make me think, because he wants to leave it to the states, now don't get me wrong I'm also against abortion but just the concept of state law among such issue, might make a thirteen year old run away from a small town on Mississippi to who knows where, exposing her and the child she is bearing to more danger. Still like I said if I was allow to vote I would definitely vote libertarian by this I mean MIKE GRAVEL all the way. This guy ideals truly represent the logic or at least the beauty of libertarianism. Here is a clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yrlnbdkrQc

I love him, but he would kick is out of here in less than 48 hours.