[Nemesis6]

I've noticed something when debating his supporters -- The entire foundation of their support seems to rest on the fact that he's against interventionism and, sometimes, against "war on drugs". Happily, they ignore that he's a Neoconfederate anti-federalist whose ideological foundation is laid by the John Birch Society and various other ilks like Alex Jones and Lew Rockwell. It doesn't matter to them that he doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, or that his We the People Act "Forbids all federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion"... it's like they're blinded by his "liberty" rhetoric. He keeps throwing these bones to both the people who are scared of big government, and at the same time, he can appease the religious right. I just don't get how people on the left can't seem to see through this facade. Another example: He's against gay marriage, but gives the reason that he doesn't think the federal government should be involved in the marriage business. Next thing you know, he supports the Defence Of Marriage Act, which codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages at a federal level. Again, he waves the "liberty" banner, blinding his leftist supporters, and appeasing his homophobic republican constituency as well.

Looking at this from abroad is weird, hearing an American politician talk about nullification, states' rights, and the evil of the federal government, because they fought a war over this, and Paul's confederate darlings lost. On top of all of that, it leaves me absolutely perplexed and confuzzled that a person doing this could even be remotely electable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA

Sorry about the tone of this message, but I'd really like you guys' opinion on this guy.

[Scotty]

Obvious troll bait is obvious.  It's not even fun troll bait.  Try harder.

[Grizzly]

Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...

[Nemesis6]

Atleast he has a better sense of what is going on in the world then Rick Santorum...

That's the weird thing - Paul seems to ride on the perceived failure of others, like Obama, but also on the prospect of the potential victory of the really really crazy ones: Rick Santorum like you mentioned, Newt Gingrich, etc.
One rationalization I've seen for this is that if some of his other policies really are that unpopular, one needn't worry about them because they wouldn't have a chance of being passed and so on.

[JCDNWarrior]

Even if you don't agree with his opinions about some things, you gotta give him credit that he won't enforce such ideas and will let states, and individuals, choose things. I certainly don't think anything's wrong with him, he's been a consistent congressman with a very clean voting record. Best to do is to do some independent research, read, watch what he says, compare it to the rest. There's never a fully perfect candidate that you can 100% agree with, unless you run yourself and vote for yourself.

[Flipside]

From what I've seen of him, he does seem to be very forthright and honest about his opinions, a trait that is rare in politics. I don't agree with all he has to say, but he does at least provide his own opinion on why he says them. His supporters and detractors have actually made his shadow larger than his actual presence, but that's how politics works.

I don't think Ron Paul would make a good President, because he's spent too long being rigid that he would struggle to learn how to flex, and that is a vital skill in a changing world, but I do think he is in the unique position of being both vilified far more than he deserves and also being put on a pedestal the same amount.

[NGTM-1R]

Ron Paul has approximately ten good ideas, wrapped up in wall-to-wall Great Galloping Insanity.

[Flipside]

I think the problem is, he sticks to his guns, that's been his policy for the last 2 decades, pick a position and absolutely, resolutely and defiantly stick to it which, as odd as it may seem is pretty detrimental to a political career. The real skill in politics is not a question of using a stick and a carrot, but more about finding a carrot that looks suspiciously like a stick to those who want to see it that way. As you said in fewer words, 'doing what's needed' may be the ultimate goal, but simply leaping in and imposing a load of new practices on the corporate US would be viewed as insanity, the road to fixing things isn't to hit stuff you don't like, but to give it a good enough reason to stop.

[Bob-san]

From what I've seen of him, he does seem to be very forthright and honest about his opinions, a trait that is rare in politics. I don't agree with all he has to say, but he does at least provide his own opinion on why he says them. His supporters and detractors have actually made his shadow larger than his actual presence, but that's how politics works.

I don't think Ron Paul would make a good President, because he's spent too long being rigid that he would struggle to learn how to flex, and that is a vital skill in a changing world, but I do think he is in the unique position of being both vilified far more than he deserves and also being put on a pedestal the same amount.

I don't know about that. I would like a President with a backbone--especially when they actually try to protect our rights. We had jellyfish like Bush (his entire foreign policy) and Obama (on all of his civil rights campaign promises) in office for the last 11 years now. I don't want someone like Romney or Santorum or Gingrich either--Romney has been caught flip-flopping many times on many issues, Santorum admits to playing D.C. games (and I think his views on presidential authority especially in connection to the legislation of morality are very dangerous), and Gingrich was the first Speaker ever formally reprimanded. While Gingrich's reprimand could have been purely political (Nancy Pelosi was on that committee, after all), I do not trust him any more than Romney.

That basically leaves Obama and Paul. Obama failed on many of what I think were his most important campaign promises. Paul, on the other hand, has a 20+ year record of votes--perhaps the longest & most consistent record of any sitting Congressperson. While I don't agree with all his points, I agree with many more of them than Santorum or Gingrich. I can't agree with much from Romney because he's run a mostly content-free campaign.

Paul's flip-flopped on one thing--capital punishment. The reason he gave for that is because he believes that minorities are sentenced to death far too frequently. Some of those have also been found to be innocent after their deaths.

[Flipside]

The problem he would face is approximately the same one Obama faces, I think. The fact that it is not simply the Senators that he would have to get his ideas past, but also the deeply entwined Corporate interests of the US Banks and Stock Market, as well as probably not sitting too comfortably with the Military or Environmental lobbyists either.

Without being prepared to at least make a few sacrifices to earn external support, I think he would have a hard time getting anything done. Not his fault personally, any more than Obama is really to blame for his failures, but that is what the system has become. Ron Paul is an idealist, and I actually think on some subjects he genuinely understands the US Founding Doctrines far better than most Senators,  but if he gained the power of Presidency, I don't think he would be able to do many of the things he feels need to be done. He would, I think, end up in much the same boat as Obama, crippled by Bureaucracy and left with a lot of voters who feel vaguely disappointed.

[cloneof]

Well I can't really comment that much, for one being from Finland.

But I can say it would be a nice change to see a president of the United States who doesn't seem to flip-flop on every issue. Even if as president he would be running against huge odds, at least from that experience it could be said what exactly is the problem with modern USA democracy against the influence of corporate power.

[Mr. Vega]

Libertarians, in the case of the modern American definition of Liberarianism, are people who are vehemently opposed to tyranny in theory but are fine with in practice. Even old-school right-libertarians like Hayek accepted the role of the state in protecting the free market from monopolistic attacks. The modern ones are basically actively advocating de-facto feudalism. It would be another thing if they actually took Libertarianism seriously. It would be fantastic actually.

"A consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."

[Sushi]

All true Libertarians like haggis.

[Bob-san]

The problem he would face is approximately the same one Obama faces, I think. The fact that it is not simply the Senators that he would have to get his ideas past, but also the deeply entwined Corporate interests of the US Banks and Stock Market, as well as probably not sitting too comfortably with the Military or Environmental lobbyists either.

Without being prepared to at least make a few sacrifices to earn external support, I think he would have a hard time getting anything done. Not his fault personally, any more than Obama is really to blame for his failures, but that is what the system has become. Ron Paul is an idealist, and I actually think on some subjects he genuinely understands the US Founding Doctrines far better than most Senators,  but if he gained the power of Presidency, I don't think he would be able to do many of the things he feels need to be done. He would, I think, end up in much the same boat as Obama, crippled by Bureaucracy and left with a lot of voters who feel vaguely disappointed.

The type of bureaucracy Paul would be most limited by is that of built-up federal agencies. Passing bills that would redefine the role of various departments or agencies or even dismantle them would be tough, especially considering each party's sacred cows. I don't think he'd be worried about reelection at all--he'd probably even step down--either by resigning his office to the Vice President or refusing nomination for reelection. Even if he ends up in the same boat as Obama, he'd play things very differently and I doubt he'd stop speaking publicly about the issues, instead using the bully pulpit for better or for worse.

Look--he's been in office 12 terms and he's still one of the least welcome people in DC. He's stuck to his guns--an idealist as though he may be, he's been tested many times and passed with flying colors. If some other Neocon had as consistent a voting record as Paul's, they'd already have cinched the GOP's nomination. In selecting a nominee, he's checked every box except Status Quo--a far better record than his 3 competitors.

[Mars]

It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul

[Bob-san]

It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul

The right to vote is absolutely protected. All citizens (18+) not convicted of felonies or in an active rebellion have the right to vote. And further, which civil liberties protections are you talking about? Society has changed--we're not the 1960s anymore. While some racists would crawl out of the woodwork to go to a "whites only" business, by in large the opposite would happen--you'd have people protesting that business and its customers and partners. Any optional relationships would probably be severed as well. Right now, I think the real issue is protection against the government. So much legislation has worn down our protections--just look at how DHS/TSA has advanced in the last decade. And what do they have to show for it? The TSA at least never foiled actual terrorist plots--those plots were foiled by the CIA, FBI, or the terrorists themselves. Further, look at the PATRIOT Act and its many extensions. Then look at bills like NDAA 2012 that codify or reaffirm language used in past bills that infringe on such basic concepts as a timely trial and due process.

I don't know if civil rights would go UP under Paul, but I certainly know they wouldn't go DOWN. Our rights were eroded under Bush. Santorum supported it then and still supports it now. Our rights are being eroded under Obama. Romney is silent; Gingrich endorses such actions.

[General Battuta]

the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed

ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective

[Bob-san]

the reason people are constantly disappointed by presidents is because the american president has very little power to actually push through a legislative agenda; this is how the system is designed

ronpaul would be no different, possibly actually even less effective

I'm still more disappointed by their broken veto pens. One past president I admire is Grover Cleveland--who vetoed a LOT of legislation. Hundreds of bills, in fact. The President can only veto, the Vice President can only break ties, but ultimately our representatives are there to represent us--not their own interests or the interests of their lobbyist friends.

[BritishShivans]

Whenever someone talks about Ron Paul, the first and only thing I say is:

Pon Raul.

Then I proceed to ignore the possible Pauldroid.

[Mars]

It's all well and good to "cede rights to the states and individuals" but then you realize that most civil liberty protections are held at the federal level. Some states would continue protecting women's rights and basic sufferage. . . but does anyone really think that civil rights would go UP under Paul

The right to vote is absolutely protected. All citizens (18+) not convicted of felonies or in an active rebellion have the right to vote. And further, which civil liberties protections are you talking about? Society has changed--we're not the 1960s anymore. While some racists would crawl out of the woodwork to go to a "whites only" business, by in large the opposite would happen--you'd have people protesting that business and its customers and partners. Any optional relationships would probably be severed as well. Right now, I think the real issue is protection against the government. So much legislation has worn down our protections--just look at how DHS/TSA has advanced in the last decade. And what do they have to show for it? The TSA at least never foiled actual terrorist plots--those plots were foiled by the CIA, FBI, or the terrorists themselves. Further, look at the PATRIOT Act and its many extensions. Then look at bills like NDAA 2012 that codify or reaffirm language used in past bills that infringe on such basic concepts as a timely trial and due process.

I don't know if civil rights would go UP under Paul, but I certainly know they wouldn't go DOWN. Our rights were eroded under Bush. Santorum supported it then and still supports it now. Our rights are being eroded under Obama. Romney is silent; Gingrich endorses such actions.

His whole basis is to severely curtail federal power, so while laws would still be on the books, enforcement would not be.

That is, in a theoretical world where presidents did have significant legislative power.