Who is this Ron Paul?

[SoEnchanting]

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SoEnchanting

Anyone else see homemade Ron Paul signs EVERYWHERE in their town?

My mom said she's seeing the same thing up in Virginia. I'm wondering if it's like that everywhere. I don't remember ever having seen such grassroots support like this before...

All I know about him is a) he won't win... yeah I'm sure about that... and b) his people are very annoying on the internet and appear, at least to me, to be failing in "getting the word out" and succeeding at "annoy the crap out of people so they won't vote for him even if they liked his platform which they won't read now because they're annoyed"

Or something like that.

[EE-BO]

He has some very good general notions- but on economics he is an absolute moron, and his simplistic view of foreign policy is troubling.

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10. He has some seemingly good ideas that resonate with the simple-minded average voter at an emotional level- but he does not even comprehend the intelligent and discretion required of the office to which he aspires.

I think support for him has been so strong because a lot of the Republican base does not like Giuliani's more liberal views on social matters and because an intelligent and progressive society is never going to put a Mormon nutjob (Romney) in the Oval office.

If Huckabee looks to be the winner of the nomination- or even Giuliani (who I support)- then Ron Paul will become "Ron Who?" pretty fast.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10.

Exaaaaaaaaccctttllyyy.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

He has some very good general notions- but on economics he is an absolute moron, and his simplistic view of foreign policy is troubling.

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10. He has some seemingly good ideas that resonate with the simple-minded average voter at an emotional level- but he does not even comprehend the intelligent and discretion required of the office to which he aspires.

I think support for him has been so strong because a lot of the Republican base does not like Giuliani's more liberal views on social matters and because an intelligent and progressive society is never going to put a Mormon nutjob (Romney) in the Oval office.

If Huckabee looks to be the winner of the nomination- or even Giuliani (who I support)- then Ron Paul will become "Ron Who?" pretty fast.

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.

[Tom Earp]

One never knows? Stranger things have happened in past elections.

The 50/50 is a good analogy!

50% agree and 50% do not follow his reasoning!

It will be an interesting grass roots effort won't it?

Have not really seen anyone I would trust to run the country anyway!

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While I agree with a lot of the sentiment here (and the Perot comparison is pretty apt, as well), Paul's leanings are actually very Libertarian, and I really don't see either the aim nor the ability to resonate with "stupid" average voters. In fact, outside of his desire to be rid of the IRS (which is a view shared by about half of the major GOP candidates), most of his views would seem very fanciful to most average Americans - think about his view on drug policy, for instance.

He's about half of the perfect candidate and half complete miss for someone like me, who aligns well with the Libertarian/state's rights view on social policy but desires fiscally conservative government. However, he just misses the mark badly on some issues - being rid of NAFTA? OK, possibly - low governmental spending? OK, well, that's a great concept . . . eliminating the Federal Reserve under the guise of a strict construction of the Constitution? Well, now we're pretty far off the reservation, and I've never really heard a good defense of why he wants to do this.

And it's like this over and over again - he has pretty sound views on health care, but no plan to implement those ideas and no structure beyond "do not socialize" (which, admittedly, is a good start). His views on immigration and war are draconian and incredibly inflexible, while his views on state's rights and education seem like the most uniquely American ideas I've ever heard.

He's about 50% fantastic candidate and 50% horribly awkward - this pretty much adds up to Drolefille's "no chance to win" for the most part, but it really is fascinating to watch. Since McCain and Romney have been absolute stiffs in any sort of unscripted environment and Giuliani has struggled to gain a foothold with casuals and hardcore right-wingers, it'll be interesting to see how Crazy Ron fares in the debates today - especially if Huckabee gets drilled about his amazing half a million in reported gifts as governor and has to get defensive. It would be completely sick, but I could see him bouncing out as the winner . . . he might be the only guy who can't beat Hillary.

Well said.

My comment about the "simple minded" voter is reflective of my feeling that he too often comes up with overly simplistic ideas and promises that have a lot of initial emotional appeal- but just won't work. It is a style of campaigning that appeals to one's impulses- and it is really kind of insulting since even the average person can readily see where his ideas cannot work as presented.

Even under a flat tax or consumption tax, the IRS will remain in place- and they will have a lot of work to do. The agency may shrink in size with attrition, but it would still be there. If a consumption tax were created, for example, you can bet it would be applied to internet sales as well- watch out eBayers. Getting all that set up and enforcing it would keep the IRS busy for the forseeable future.

And pulling out of Iraq overnight would not work either. Candidates can say what they want- but whoever wins will, I expect, find very quickly that there is no easy next step to dealing with our current foreign policy situation. Hillary herself sees this and is very responsible about not making promises she cannot keep, even if her base wants to hear those promises.

Ron Paul would have had a real shot here- but he has been too activist in his public speeches. I think he makes a great advocate for a given position in his current role, but this is not someone who can lead a diverse nation where fast and easy solutions to problems are few and far between.

As for Hillary- I think Guiliani could beat her. Maybe Huckabee too as he attracts more attention- but only if he survives the intense scrutiny that is coming now that he is seen as a more serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

I do not think any of the other Republicans can beat her. And truth be told- while I do not agree with many of her domestic policies- in terms of competence and the potential for being a consensus builder, I think she is the strongest candidate of any party by a wide margin. I always thought she was smart, but she is really looking "Presidential" to me these days. And she certainly does not have any "gray past" issues that would make her any less desireable than the leading Republican candidates. All of them have a few pause-giving things on their record.

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

Hillary's "game face" has, to my mind, taken people by surprise - I agree that she's taken to the role quite well, better than I thought she would at the least, and I don't think anyone can question her intelligence or drive on any level.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

.

Care to explain the lack of congressional record a bit?
One could ask for just what you mean and/or looking for from her as well as any other current candidate.
Remember not all current or past candidates or POTUS even had Congressional records to show.
Just to help:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2...llary-clinton/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16123860/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/can...y.clinton.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/youd...index.html#c=6
http://www.reuters.com/news/globalco...hillaryclinton

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Wait, seriously? Didn't Hillary participate in several stock schemes that made Martha Stewart's trading look like small potatoes? Besides this, her absolute lack of congressional record will certainly be a sticking point should one of the more experienced GOP candidates rise to the fore.

As far as competence, you're really short-shifting Romney - I don't personally like his social policies (and their inconsistency) and would shy away from voting for him, but I think he's clearly incredibly intelligent and puts on a solid (if not "businesslike") front, but only in scripted situations at this point. In terms of economic matters, I would probably take him over all the others - and that's with fully recognizing how lucky he got to gain the massive MA tax surplus when he balanced the budget there. And what are the skeletons there?

Also, I'm not sure the Mormon issue isn't a wash with the female issue, especially since the same kind of mentality will have problems with both, in my mind . . .

Hi KSig,

I am actually in the brokerage business. We don't deal in commodities, but I have some insight there. The kind of money Hillary made is small potatoes in that high stakes game. That story has been in press a lot, but the sole focus has been on the profit she earned based on a cash investment (which is also meaningless since in commodities a cash investment is most often used to secure or margin a far larger actual investment), and never has there been any substantive proof of wrongdoing. So I don't let that enter my mind.

Every candidate will have something that "looks" funny in their life if it is portrayed in a certain way- same would apply to any person on the planet.

And every candidate will at times "speak to the base" and get a little aggressive and superfluous with their language.

But Hillary has been noticeable restrained and intelligent when it comes to talking about Iraq and the Middle East. She understands that there are not easy solutions to this, and I think she has a great respect for the fact that she cannot make fast and easy promises with American lives, Israel's security, the flow of world oil supplies to us and our Allies and the long term future of a key region at stake. This is why she impresses me. She talks the rhetoric and does her thing, but she stops short of making irresponsible statements. PLUS she has a ready defense when she changes positions on something. This is key. "Flip-flopping" is not always a bad thing. She has been able to articulate a change in position on key issues based on the evolution of related events- and she is not afraid to do so. It is truly exciting to see someone that courageous.

As for the Mormon issue- Romney cannot win because he is a Mormon and deeply involved in the church.

The Mormon faith is a scary thing- and I am one of the majority of Christian believers who do not accept the Mormon Church as a legitimate denomination of the Christian Faith.

The Jeffords case is a key example. It took the Federal Government to track him down and arrest him, but never has much issue been made of the fact Jeffords got away with all he did with the blessing and participation of local police and court officials.

The Mormons own and control Utah- and like no other religion since the Catholics in the 1200s-1700s, the Mormons abuse the powers of State and local economic opportunity in order to shield and protect the most fanatical members among them. The Feds got Jeffords, but that town and many others have yet to be cleansed of goverment officials who support and participate in the statutory rape and molestation of underage women, and the abuse and abandonment of young men who pose a threat to town leaders marrying multiple women.

I would hire a Mormon to work at my company tomorrow and not think twice about it. I would shop at a Mormon store. I would visit Utah.

But a devout temple-worthy (aka temple-recommended) Mormon in charge of the most free and diverse nation in the world? Never.

There is a good reason why Romney does not utter the word Mormon and why he has done a lot of press conferences about "faith" and whether America can handle a President who is strong on "faith".

There is also a good reason why Pat Robertson- total nutjob that he is- endorsed pro-choice Giuliani over Romney.

In a recent poll, just over 50% of Americans said they would never vote a Mormon into office. I think the actual number is much higher because poll questions like that are somewhat intimidating to people who want to be fair despite their nagging concerns. This poll alone proves Romney could never win. There have been tons of Hillary polls asking if people would never vote for her under any circumstances- and she has never pulled the thumbs down like Romney does.

He has no chance and he never should. The Mormon Church is the only major faith in modern America that actively uses it influence to abuse the powers of State to protect religious practices that a free and intelligent society finds abhorrent. A man who is a follower of that faith has no business even thinking he is prepared to lead this country.

I challenge any Republican who wanted to impeach Clinton over an extra-marital affair to explain to me why a key national player in a religion that has actively abused the powers of State to protect child molesters should ever set foot in the Oval Office.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

He has some very good general notions- but on economics he is an absolute moron, and his simplistic view of foreign policy is troubling.

You obviously are not familiar with Austrian economics, and its "godfather", Ludwig Von Mises, whom Ron had studied economics under, and which serves as a cornerstone of the Libertarian movement.

Ron Paul in 2008 is Ross Perot in 1992 x 10. He has some seemingly good ideas that resonate with the simple-minded average voter at an emotional level- but he does not even comprehend the intelligent and discretion required of the office to which he aspires.

Or it could be that most American are clueless to the true state of our country (read: sheep).

I think support for him has been so strong because a lot of the Republican base does not like Giuliani's more liberal views on social matters and because an intelligent and progressive society is never going to put a Mormon nutjob (Romney) in the Oval office.

Actually, support for him has been so strong and fervent because if RP does not win the White House, then America as we know it is toast. It will be game over at that point. The RP supporters are trying very hard to avert that from ever happening.

If Huckabee looks to be the winner of the nomination- or even Giuliani (who I support)- then Ron Paul will become "Ron Who?" pretty fast.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.

Anyway, we'll see what happens.

[Drolefille]

Doomsday politics sell papers but don't win elections.

[1908Revelations]

There is a house here with a lit up Ron Paul sign. I am sure it took them quite a while to make it. It looks like a huge lite brite.

[Tom Earp]

Ron Paul while having some radical ideas, he is also the only one who would like to downsizing the Federal Government.

It seems that most of the others just want status quo and go on the same old way. Do not upset the perks given to the incumbents.

Running this country into the ground, it sure seems so.

Less expendable monies, housing with sub prime tates, credit card interest rates going up with a higher % rate and less monthly payment period.
Holiday shopping will be one of the worst in history, American Express is losing money by the fist full.

Using the Government as a cash cow when it is our money and is wasted not on the war in Iraq, but the usage of lining contractors pockets at a lose of life.

No where do I see any one of the candidates who say and do help the American peoples. Lets help illegal imagrants first and the help with the populous.

Charlie Wilsons War, maybe a good movie, but it is so true as saw a 2 hour about the real guy!

Lived high on the back of us and spent it hand over fist.

We as citizens have only so much monny that can be taken from us!

[nittanyalum]

EE-BO, you're a Mod, I have a question. What does it actually take to rid the boards of a troll? Do they have to cross a particular line, or is obvious and repeated trolling reason enough for a ban? (e.g., see above)


ETA: Troll edited post to sound more sane...