why is Ron Paul so unintentionally hilarious?

They may be batshit insane, but they've come up with some interesting new ways to get around campaign finance laws. That blimp you link to? It's technically shared property, so it's like buying a time share. That means that individuals can donate as much as they want to the Ron Paul campaign, while other campaigns have limits.
 
if ron pauls supporters are insance, then im a fucking nut case.

the reason he has all these crazy supporters is cuz

1. he kicks ass. and people really strive to get the word out about him
2. he isnt corrupt as fuck, so he lacks the $$$ to do convectional advertising
3. the people that do all this advertising for him do it for free, unlike people that do advertising for other candidates. so they have no rules or restrictions
4. im out of ideas
 
Ron Paul is amusing but his ideas are a bit ... loony. For instance, withdrawal from the UN (yes, he really advocates this) would be an absurd idea. His strong anti-big government ideals should have died with the Great Depression. And non-interventionism is simply not a viable or pragmatic stance for a superpower. I think the major candidates would do well to take note of his popularity and what positions are popular, but Paul himself really has no chance when 90% of the media is either liberal or neoconservative.


Now, if you really want to see change - vote for Obama.
 
Why hasn't word of Ron Paul's Rampant Racism gotten out yet? I mean, that title even has a nice ring to it.
 
He has several positions that make him very popular. First off, foreign policy wise, he advocates immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and has opposed the war from the beginning. He thinks that the federal government has overstepped its powers in the war on terrorism, and promises to restore many civil liberties that have been infringed upon. He also wants to eliminate the IRS, scaling back many government services and programs to make this possible. In congress, he votes against any bill that increases federal spending or that he believes to not be in congress' authority to pass according to his strict reading of the constitution (garnering him the nickname Dr. No).

As you might be able to tell, I like some of those policies, mainly his stance on civil liberties, and even considered myself a supporter of his at one point. But as others noted, he simply supports too many other things that would be disastrous, like a return to the gold standard, extreme isolationism and cutting off so many social services.

@God.: I haven't seen any evidence that he is racist. There was one incident that a person working on his campaign printed a racist pamphlet in his name, but he disowned it once it came to his attention. Care to inform me how he is racist?

@Misty: I haven't done enough research on the election yet, but I like Obama the most so far. I'm curious why you seem to support him, it may help inform my own opinion.
 
I don't see what is crazy about his positions. We don't HAVE to be a superpower; in fact, no one has to be a superpower. The idea of a superpower is silly. We are a country that has no business intervening in these other countries, and that's all there is to it. We have nukes; we're safe from real danger before anyone fear mongers about how vulnerable this would make us (not that anyone we weren't funding has attacked us in the past 20 years).

Big government didn't really fix the great depression; war did (though that was a horrible solution). FDR's optimistic speeches really did more than his programs ever did (see how he fixed the banking crisis), and it is pretty clear the Great Depression should not be your status quo for economic policy as it was clearly an incredibly abnormal time caused largely by World War 1 (like pretty much everything bad that happened 1920-1945). The agricultural market certainly benefited at the time, but consider how much things have changed. The family farm is dead, and agriculture takes care of itself at market just as well as car making or anything else like that. We actually need to grow an absurd amount now as we need to grow lots of raw materials for ethanol to replace oil.

I'm not 100% behind Ron Paul; I think he's dead wrong about abortion. I also think we do need some government regulation to protect the environment and to prevent the few natural flaws in the free market system (block monopolies, ensure minimum wages, require safe working environments). However, I think the bulk of his ideas are better than the bulk of anyone else's ideas, and I think he's the only politician in the race who is 100% honest. He has listed what he intends to do, and given the chance, that is exactly what he will try to do. His voting record shows he has an exceptional integrity that is virtually unheard of in any political arena, and that should earn him a lot of credit. I know he doesn't stand a chance at all because of his honesty more than anything else, but I find it very appealing.

On a related topic, some people attack him for not being a fan of social security, but do they consider how ridiculous their attack sounds to anyone under 30 who isn't getting social security benefits anyway? The only difference to me between social security being canceled tomorrow or not is how high my taxes will be.
 
Darthguac said:
@Misty: I haven't done enough research on the election yet, but I like Obama the most so far. I'm curious why you seem to support him, it may help inform my own opinion.
Click to expand...

He's the only "electable" candidate with an intelligent mix of idealism and pragmatism that shows a real grasp on the issues. Everyone else is running on ideology or is way too pragmatic (see: Clinton). Granted, his idealism may not be correct, but I think people, both locally and globally, will respond to it, and that's powerful in and of itself. Call it a "Kennedy effect", I guess.


As far as our position on the world stage, remember that, until China gets to our level in 2040, or the European Union becomes a coherent federation, we will continue to be the major power in the world. We have a great deal of influence, and I think we should use it, for the betterment of the planet. This includes leading on issues like global warming, nuclear proliferation, and encouraging the end of authoritarianism.


Ending a recession is an art of paradox, because the promise of intervention is more effective than the intervention itself. But you have to be able to actually do the intervention, to give people faith. It's fairly likely that we're going to hit a recession sometime soon from the housing crisis, and we need a forceful leader who is ready to do something big to get the economy in the black. This is why a Democrat is likely to be elected if the crisis deepens quickly - Democrats are quicker to intervene.
 
@God.: I haven't seen any evidence that he is racist. There was one incident that a person working on his campaign printed a racist pamphlet in his name, but he disowned it once it came to his attention. Care to inform me how he is racist?
Click to expand...

Oh, the "only 5% of black people have valid political opinions" thing that was printed in his newsletter under his name, which apparently is not his, because he does not write or review his own newsletter?

And don't forget how in Freedom Under Siege he quotes an essay that basically says "Segregation ruined the public school system because the blacks scared all the decent, God-fearing white people into private schools."

Amazing Amphrose said:
The only difference to me between social security being canceled tomorrow or not is how high my taxes will be.
Click to expand...

Well I guess you have absolutely no foresight, then.
 
Being 'electable' or not is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy, mostly dictated by who the mainstream media sells to people who don't care about politics... I like his anti-war and anti-PATRIOT Act stances, but that's about it when those policies are coupled with his latent Christian conservatism and support for complete economic deregulation, which is made for big business yet sold to the middle class with rhetoric about 'freedom'. I'd chose Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel over him easily, although the fact that he has a more resolute anti-war stance that the top Democrats is embarrassing. On a side note, I also find it odd that someone who opposes net neutrality has such a strong support base on the internet...
 
I don't really see how any Democrat can like Ron Paul. His constant introduction of the We the People Act is just that ridiculous. One policy is not enough to vote down a candidate on but I don't trust anyone with the reigns of the executive branch who is constantly pulling attempts like that to move power from the federal to the state level. We need movement of power from the state to the federal level, not the other way around.
 
I would say 99% of Ron Paul supporters know very little about the details of Ron Paul's beliefs. The other 1% are crazy.
 
I disagree with a lot of his policies, but as naturally good people, he and Mike Huckabee seem like the best candidates.
 
can we vote blank to show actually every possible candidate sucks? That's what I would do. I don't like any presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican: and that's because the American system to me is really fucked up. The big problem is that the people who want to be in charge are never the people that should be in charge. So until someone is in charge that doesn't want to be in charge (not going to happen), it's useless to vote for someone seeing as it's a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.
 
I've been reading about our generation and how it looks at politics, and I just read an article about a different candidate who really highlights some of the issues: Stephen Colbert. Yes, Colbert's faux candidacy generated so much interest among younger voters because it was so different from the status quo - not just another boring politician running for interest groups and not voters.

That really shows, to me, why Ron Paul is popular - he's so different. Even if voters don't agree with him, they see someone who is honest and different, which is the antithesis of the absurd political system that's in power now and has nothing better to do than bicker endlessly about alleged left-wing or right-wing conspiracies.
 
Well part of American political culture is distrust in politicians, and general dissatisfaction with government. I'd say right now America is politically no better or worse off on the whole than any real modern, major country has ever been.

Altmer, who exactly would your ideal President be, then? There's a fairly diverse group running and when someone says "THEY ALL SUCK" I'm more inclined to think it's a more or less ignorant product of culture than the result of actual research and dissatisfaction with candidates.

Young people are also disenchanted with politics because they are not catered to, because on the whole they do not vote.
 
a president with common sense e.g. no more stupid lawsuits, good education and public healthcare, no more elitism, etc, someone who realises that money isn't more valuable than human lives in general

such a president does not exist, however. good thing I only have to vote for the Dutch government. which is bad, but less bad than US.
 
Altmer said:
a president with common sense e.g. no more stupid lawsuits, good education and public healthcare, no more elitism, etc, someone who realises that money isn't more valuable than human lives in general
Click to expand...

what turns you off to john edwards, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top