Why I'm Voting for Ron Paul in 08

Remove all ads!

Ok, so i've found two videos on the internet that perfectly illustrate the why I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm temporarily changing my registration to republican so I can vote for him in the primaries. The first video, taken from the 1st GOP debate, is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

not only do i agree with his opinions, but also that video shows that ron paul has something that most other presidential candidates lack: courage. He is the only person there who doesnt agree with what all the other candidates are saying, and most everyone there would disagree with him, but he tells the truth anyway. And i think that's the kind of person we need as a president.

the 2nd video which shows a completely separate reason why i'm voting for him can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

this is a far more important reason to vote for him in my opinion. it's something that most people are unaware of too.

so thats the end, please take the time to watch the videos.
RP 08!

[ September 11, 2007, 16:49: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

I think the first question was the most significant "Are you running for the nomination of the wrong party?"

I don't see Paul having any chance of getting the nomination, but then again I'm a "Fred head"

 

I'm voting for him too! I've even contributed to his campaign...Who'dve thought oldskool constitutional republicanism would be radical?!?!

 

Am I the only one who thinks he looks a bit like Ian McKellan?

 

OK, here's the situation. I only have internet access right now from my school, which blocks youtube. Could someone please summarize this Ron Paul's position(s) for me? I've never heard of him before.

 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

 

May I ask what about Fred appeals to you?

 

Interesting fellow. His rhetoric certainly appeals to a segment of the American population. It definitely appeals to me. Were I an American, I'd vote for him. But I don't see him ever taking the Presidency and here's my reasoning:

1: He opposes abortion. That'll alienate a HUGE portion of the American public. I'm of the opinion (correct me if the facts don't bear it out) that most of the U.S. supports abortion, and that those who oppose it are seen as fringe whackos. (Note that I'm one of the fringe whackos, but whatever)

2: He seems to oppose the actions of multinational corporations. Without the $$ support of Big Business, he's doomed to obscurity.

3: He seeks to limit governmental access to personal data, which will make him appear too weak willed to people on the Right.

4: At the same time, his anti-immigration policy and desire to deport illegals will make him unpopular among the Left.

5: His support for alternative medicines and home schooling will make him seem too extreme for middle of the road voters.

All of this is based off the website DR kindly provided me with. If there's anything I'm off base on let me know.

 

Nah. It's about 50/50, really. The fringe wackos are the ones bombing abortion clinics. The ones trying to ban birth control are also seen as extremists. On the flip side, the pro-choicers fighting tooth and nail against reasonable limitations on third trimester abortions are also seen as extremists. EDIT: It should also be pointed out that Reagan, Bush Sr, and GW were all pro-life. In the end, this isn't really an election issue for most people. Sure, you'll find the occasional one-issue voter, but such a sophomoric approach to politics is (thankfully) rare.

I think you underestimate just how many conservatives are unhappy with the Patriot Act. Sure, they passed it, but just like the Democrats who voted in its favor without reading the thing, most of them thought that they were passing something similar to Clinton's version of the bill....which didn't take away civil liberties and violate the constitution.

I don't really think this is an election issue.

[ September 11, 2007, 23:59: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Wow, this guy looks pretty good to me. I like his platform a lot. I especially like his stance on immigration. Imagine, a president who actually respects the Constitution and individual liberty. I'm sure that the entrenched Republicrats will torpedo him big time since this kind of thinking is a threat to their continued consolidation of power.

 

I see Paul as a dark horse for a VP candidate. I think that Mitt Romney may be able to be the poster child for the party. Then turn Ron Paul loose on the Democrat VP candidate...

I love the guy, but I don't see him as a presidential candidate this time around...

 

My view on Ron Paul is that he has a shockingly sensible foreign policy combined with a more than slightly annoying domestic policy.

Which puts him far ahead of pretty much any of the other Rep candidates. Except where it counts--the polls.

 

AMaster, I'm curious, what is it about Paul's domestic policy that you don't like? I can see a lot of things in it that might bother someone, but I'd like to know your specifics.

Gnarff, America will never, ever be able to get past Romney's Mormonism. I'd bet vital parts of my anatomy that no matter what he says or does, he'll be ruled out by that one element alone. Not nice, not fair, but them's the facts of life.

 

@ LKD (and, I guess, Gnarff too),

That's part of the irony of Romney's candidacy. America, by and large, would eventually get over it, I think. The people who are most intent on torpedoing him are the evangelical protestant Christians who make up the current conservative "base" in America. The doom of his candidacy lies in the fact that they're the only constituency he's making an attempt to appeal to.

 

DR hit the nail on the head. Most Americans are Christians, and most Americans don't give a rat's ass as to what particular flavor of Christianity you like to practice. In fact, a good chunk of Americans could care less what religious group you follow, or if you follow any religion at all. However, Evangelical Christians are not included in these groups. That's a big problem for Romney, because the Evangelical Christians vote Republican almost exclusively, and they won't vote for Romney because he's not one of them. While I think you CAN win the presidency without getting much of the Evangelical Christian vote, I think you probably CANNOT win the Republican nomination without the Evangelical Christian vote. So the biggest hurdle Romney faces is getting the support of his own party.

 

Getting back to Paul, then, could Paul take the nomination and have Romney as his running mate?

I can't see Paul and Thompson on the same ticket as that would be too "southern" -- for balance they would want someone from another area of the country, right?

 

Theoretically, he could - but there's virtually no chance he'll get the nomination. Paul is running at something like 3% in most polls right now. Plus, he's been against the Iraq war from the start - seemingly a deal-breaker with the GOP vox populi. Nader had a better chance than Ron Paul does at this point. Which is kind of a bummer since, though I don't like all of his policies, he is a fresh voice and remarkably more sensible on some policies than his rivals. His message should be heard by a larger audience.

 

I'm not a fan of libertarianism.

That said, if it's a choice between libertarians and the right wing authoritarians who currently dominate the GOP, I'll take the former in a heartbeat. I don't like libertarianism, but I do respect it. In contrast, I loathe RWA.

 

He'll never get the nomination. He's too much like a libertarian. The powers that be definitely don't want someone who would actually use the Constitution of the U.S. as his guide in running the country. No, it'll be some shyster like Giulinai who will be nominated. Paul would upset the status quo; the Republicrats would never stand for that.

As an aside, I find it amazing that Romney is able to be both a Mormon and a politician at the same time since the two seem to be diametrically opposed to each other morally.