Frodo -- 'scuse me, I mean, Ron Paul lives!

[GreyICE]

The same would be the case if votes were weighted by the voter's IQ.

Gah. There are lots and lots of things wrong with Ron Paul. His policies. His ideas. His reactionary stances. His opinions of the IRS. I don't love the man.

Also, I am much much happier to have him in the house than the presidency. He does what he does best when he gets to attach riders to various things and sponsor bills that actually make sense, and the house acts as a filter for his crazier ideas (which, in fairness, is probably at least half).

Seriously, read this list, both people who love him and people who hate him. You'll find a lot of good stuff, and a lot of bad stuff, but it should pretty much stop anyone from one-dimensionally supporting or opposing his ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

Also, please note WHY he does things (like his resolution to declare war on Iraq, which he said he would vote against, but he doesn't like the fact the President can effectively declare war)

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Yeah, like who, Ralph Nader? Whoever the libertarians have... I'm not even going to finish that sentence.

I'll write his name in.

I still don't understand Paul-mania. What is it about him that you love so much?
He's racist, homophobic, pro-corporate...he's an extreme Republican on most issues, except for the war, and free trade.

 

[GreyICE]

I still don't understand Paul-mania. What is it about him that you love so much?
He's racist, homophobic, pro-corporate...he's an extreme Republican on most issues, except for the war, and free trade.

Did I ever say I loved the man? No. I don't WANT him as president.

But how can you not at least respect someone who sponsors bills like this:

To repeal the Military Selective Service Act. HR 424, 2007-01-11, originally HR 1597, 2001-04-26, cosponsored since HR 2421, 1997-09-05. Abolishes the Selective Service System, prohibits reestablishment of the draft, and forbids denial of rights due to failure to register.

National ID (amendment): Prohibited funding for national identification numbers.[2]

Sunlight Rule. HRes 63, 2007-01-12, originally HRes 709, 2006-03-02. Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon. Prohibits votes on legislation from occurring until ten days after its introduction, with the intent of giving lawmakers enough time to read bills before voting on them; allots 72 hours for House members and staff to examine the contents of amendments. Paul charged his fellow legislators with voting for the Patriot Act in 2001 without reading it first; more than 300 pages long, it was enacted into law less than 24 hours after being introduced.[14]

P.S. For anyone who claims to love him, I can provide a similar list of crazy garbage he's done.

 

[Cleon]

Yeah, like who, Ralph Nader?

Nader's running as an independent. He's probably got my vote, though I seriously doubt he'll be on the ballot here.

Whoever the libertarians have... I'm not even going to finish that sentence.

Bob Barr. Born-again Conservative before he became a born-again Libertarian.

I'll write his name in.

Your choice. Seems silly to me, but then I'm voting for Nader.

 

[Alex Libman]

Whoever the libertarians have...

B O B

B A R R

​

 

[Richard Masters]

Uh, you know Ron Paul's out of the race, right? He's not even going to be on the ballot - John McCain's name will appear on the Republican slate.

If you want to "send a message," at least vote for one of the third-party candidates who are still running.

I think voting for Ron Paul sends a stronger message than voting for one of the third party candidates, for that very reason.

 

[GreyICE]

Nader's running as an independent. He's probably got my vote, though I seriously doubt he'll be on the ballot here.

You know, I used to like Ralph Nader. I have signed copies of some of his books, I respect what he did.

Screw Nader. He's just in it to see his name in the papers at this point. I have no other explanation. The man used to be fighting the good fight, now he's fighting because he's forgotten how not to take a swing.

 

[Cleon]

You know, I used to like Ralph Nader. I have signed copies of some of his books, I respect what he did.

Screw Nader. He's just in it to see his name in the papers at this point. I have no other explanation. The man used to be fighting the good fight, now he's fighting because he's forgotten how not to take a swing.

If you're still pissed about Nader for 2000, perhaps your ire would be better focused at the incompetent Democrats who ran a crappy campaign.

 

[Alex Libman]

I think voting for Ron Paul sends a stronger message than voting for one of the third party candidates, for that very reason.

No, because many states don't bother counting write-in votes unless they make up a significant percentage, so the MSM would never report on it. But building up a third party would could pay off in the future.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, because many states don't bother counting write-in votes unless they make up a significant percentage, so the MSM would never report on it. But building up a third party would could pay off in the future.

That will never be allowed under the one party two faction system we currently have in America.

The laws are designed to keep the two factions in power.

 

[Richard Masters]

I still don't understand Paul-mania. What is it about him that you love so much?
He's racist, homophobic, pro-corporate...he's an extreme Republican on most issues, except for the war, and free trade.

He is an extreme Republican on most issues, except the war, and free trade, and civil liberties; he thinks homosexuals should be treated the same as heterosexuals when serving in the military (i.e. as people), would not criminalize personal and consensual behavior ranging from drug use to gay marriage, would treat other nations (even supposed enemies) with respect (something which Obama apparently never learned). Unlike most Republicans or Democrats he would not approve of or fund wars which do not involve self-defense. And unlike most of the candidates, he can give intelligent explanations for his political positions.

He is way off when in comes to NAFTA, and the unlikely consequences of an NAU. He is also off on the gold standard and just about anything to do with religion.

The other candidates? They can all be described as dogmatic and inconsistent regarding most of their positions.

So while Ron Paul is not a perfect candidate, the net effect of his presidency would result in either neutralizing Congress through vetoes, or forcing the two parties to get their act together.

In short, few new policies, little additional spending, and the issues that *really* matter, like foreign policy, can get addressed by a commander in chief who won't start or prolong wars out of political convenience.

Granted, Obama is close enough on foreign policy to address this issue well, but he's got other shortcomings, too.

 

[Richard Masters]

No, because many states don't bother counting write-in votes unless they make up a significant percentage, so the MSM would never report on it. But building up a third party would could pay off in the future.

Some states like Nevada may get a significant number of write-ins. A 5+% for Ron Paul in Nevada (as a write-in) says a lot more than 1.5% for all third party candidates combined.

And if it's not reported, everyone will wonder if Mickey Mouse got 5%, but they'll know it wasn't Bob Barr or Ralph Nader, because their votes will be counted separately.

 

[Alex Libman]

Bugs Bunny would be a way better president than Mickey Mouse!

(But either would be better than McBama, that's for sure...)