Ron Paul

[jmbarnes101]

Unfortunately many of his ideas, like ending the Fed, are deemed insane when they're actually pretty sensible (when, for instance, you consider what really prompted the creation of the Federal Reserve System - see Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism - and its pretty abysmal track record in "protecting" currency).

.
Even better when you realize that the Federal Reserve isn't a US governmental entity but owned by private bankers of the world, not to mention Constitutionally illegal, and is supported by a federal government tax that is also Constitutionally illegal. Yep, his ideas sure are crazy.

[jmbarnes101]

I don't see why I should trust a state government any more than the federal one.

It opens up more options at least. If you don't like what one state does, there's 49 others to choose from.

Moving is a HELL of a lot easier said than done. I'd rather have a centralized government than 50 loosely affiliated separate countries with open borders.

I understand the reasoning behind 'states rights', but god don't you think you're being awfully fringe when you seriously think we should leave something like Civil Rights up to each state? (I am not accusing anyone of taking this position in this thread btw)

If you want to legally change something that effects every state in the nation than you need to create an amendment. It's that simple. Anything else is a violation of the compact between the states and your rights as a citizen particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights.

[J T]

Ron Paul is a scary candidate to me. He has managed to woo a lot of people I normally side with politically with his anti-war messages (which I agree with), but I think my friends are not seeing the full picture of all of his views. There are too many strikes against him (like those mentioned by dsheinem) for me to get on board with his campaign, despite having some positive aspects to it.

[dsheinem]

So you don't believe in the US Constitution as the rule of law in our country? Every one of his "crazy ideas" come directly from the Constitution of the United States of America. The federal government has only the powers given to them in the Constitution which are meant to be severely limited. The vast majority of presidents since the early 1900's have done everything in their power to limit the Constitution and create an illegal grab of power away from the sovereign states and towards the federal government. It's views like this that take away our freedom and liberty and will essentially turn our country into the next socialist state.

The Constitution was created out of a struggle between founders who wanted more power for the states and founders who wanted more power for the federal government. It is a document of compromise and, to this day, a living document: one that is itself quite open to interpretation, revision, and debate. People who claim "the founders wanted this" always pick and choose which founders they want to cite, and the people who claim "the Constitution is clear" on some topic where it obviously isn't are ignoring the idea that the document can and should be a living, changing one.

Paul strikes me as a Constitutional literalist who wants the 1787 version of the document, as interpreted by those founders who favored more state power, to be the law of the land in 2012. While I admire that he (by in large) shows the courage of his convictions, I am also glad that his ideas about governance are not mainstream.

[Erik_Twice]

Obviously, something written 240 years ago can't be wrong

[Hatta]

If the Constitution is outdated, the solution isn't to ignore it, but to amend it.

[dsheinem]

If the Constitution is outdated, the solution isn't to ignore it, but to amend it.

And it has been, many times...often to take power away from states who are being oppressive in some fashion or another. The Civil Rights Act is the perfect example, but Paul is/was against its passage on principle.

[saturnfan]

I like Ron Paul, and would happily vote for him, particularly due to many of his more controversial standpoints.

but since I wont get the chance, I guess it's a moot point anyways.

[BoringSupreez]

I don't like Ron Paul, and he's my last choice of all the Republican contenders at the moment. His fiscal policy is great, but I have serious problems with his foreign policy. Not to mention that he seems to attract the worst followers. I've known three Ron Paul supporters IRL, and one's one of the original '60s hippies, one is very into conspiracy theories, and the third is one of the most selfish people I've ever met. Plus, Paul himself is as slimy a politician as those he claims to be better than. He always seems so cagey, like he's afraid to say what he really thinks.

I'd vote for him over Obama, but there are several other Democrats I'd pick over Paul.

[flex wood]

Thanks ds for the response. Seems like most of his supporters are just going by the few things that sound attractive to them and choosing to ignore his crazy shit. But then again that is no different then the majority of voters in this country.

This actually will be the first election I can legally vote in and I'm really thinking about just doing a write in for joke vote for shits and giggles. Seven0seven in the white house 2012?