Here is a few of Paul's off-the-wall positions. 1) He favors withdrawal of the United States from Nato and the United Nations. While I disagree with a lot of what the UN does, we could not become isolationist even if we wanted to - which we do not. Like it or not the United States is the leader of the free world, not because we chose to be, but because we are the only nation influential enough to handle the responsibilities that come with it. A candidate for the presidency can afford to say and do many things, but he cannot afford to be an isolationist. 2) He has pledged never to raise taxes. A man of his age and political experience should know better than making those kinds of absolute statements. How can any statesman say he will never raise taxes? Paul has no clue what the world situation will be like in the next 4 to 8 years. I dislike taxes as much as anyone, but sometimes taxes are a hard necessity of life. Anyone who paints himself into a corner with that kind of thoughless statement is a fool of the first order. 3) Paul states he would eliminate most federal agencies as well as the Federal Reserve Banking system. I would be the first to agree that we have too many federal agencies, and some probably do need to be eliminated. But most federal agencies? Which ones would he keep and which ones would he eliminate? He never says. Also, he seems to think that as president he has the power to eliminate them unilaterally. I can assure you he does not, and there is no way Congress would approve these draconian methods. It is tough enough to eliminate one agency; to think he could be successful in eliminating most of them shows him to be very naive. And there is absolutely no way he would be allowed to scrap the Federal Reserve Banking system. 4) He supports jury nullification. Jury nullification is when a jury ignores the evidence and delivers a verdict based on political or sociological considerations. Jury nulliification is precisely what got O.J. Simpson acquitted. Ethically and legally, a jury must consider only the evidence presented in court and deliver a verdict based on the evidence. Jury nullification is a travesty of justice and undermines the integrity of the judicial system. 5) Opposes the Patriot Act and domestic surveillance. While there are aspects of the Patriot Act and deserve close judicial scrutany (primarily the idea of warrantless wiretaps), to oppose en toto the Patriot Act and all efforts at domestic surveillance are steps even the most liberal democrats have not proposed. Once more Paul shows himself to be an political extremist. 6) Opposes war on drugs. He does not feel that the drug laws have dealt effectively with the drug problem, and so he would eliminate them. That ought to solve the drug problem. I assume that one of the federal agencies he would eliminate would the the DEA. While drugs still find their way into this country, drug enforcement has been successful in stopping a lot of it and arresting many of those involved in the drug culture. Just because the drug laws have not worked perfectly is no reason to discard them. The solution is not to eliminate the drug laws and agencies, but to make them more effective. There are other odd-ball positions he has taken. This is just a few.
I'm good with this. Taxes are mostly based on percentages. If the government keeps the economy rolling, the people should have higher incomes and therefore pay more taxes without ever raising them. I think a lot of them could be eliminated and nobody would ever know it happened. disagree. I thought just about everybody opposed the patriot act, except those that wrote it and voted for it. Not even gonna pretend to understand this. Not to off the wall really. Different for sure, but not to off the wall. We really need different right now, almost nothing we are doing is working, so why not make some major changes? I don't know if he is the answer. I am far from a political guru, but a lot of this stuff makes sense to me. A lot of stuff many of the other candidates say make sense as well, just using Paul because the way things happened last night.
Yah there are millions of Ron Paul spambots out there to "stuff" the polls.... Maybe RP supporters are the only ones who really care thus get off their lazy ass to actually go and vote in these polls? Wouldn't that make much more sense?
Let's throw out some interesting Romney news where someone whispers during one of his questions.. Nobody has yet to claim where it came from.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NlIMQ31EjY
Paul's numbers are largely inflated. As mentioned, he does have a great supports from his followers, but there just arent hat many. The demographic that gets online and sends in texts go in line with the beliefs of the Paul followers...hence the notion that these polls are skewed.
You disagree that Ron Paul supports jury nullification. But in fact he does. He feels juries deserve the status of tribunals, and should be able to judge the law as well as the evidence. You also claim you will not even attempt to understand his objection to the war on drugs. So I will try to clarify the issue. Paul feels that the anti-drug laws are ineffective and calls for terminating the war on drugs. He also feels the war on drugs is a racist policy against African-Americans. In regards to the Patriot Act, most Americans support it and domestic surveillance as a principle. The issue in question is whether or not he needs to get a warrant before placing wiretaps. But this is just one part of the Patriot Act. You feel if the "government keeps the economy rolling" there should never be any need to raise taxes. First, it is not the government that keeps the economy rolling; it is the American consumer. The national economy is driven by consumer spending; not government spending. Your theory does not take into account inflation, deflation, recession and the like. Also wages don't always rise to keep pace with government spending. If kit did we would all be multi-millionaires. Your theory fails to take into account too many economic realities. But I suspect that getting you to understand the complexities of the economy, you might as well ask Paris Hilton to rewrite the Constitution.
No, I just disagree with his stance on the subject. not that what you said was true. Again, not what I meant. Just meant I'm not going to try to undestand how he can justify that stance. I completely disagree. I can only think of one person I know that supports the Patriot act at all. Maybe we just hang around different types of people. Apparently you take me for an idiot. That is your right, I think 90% of the people I meet in business everyday are idiots. The government does control the economy by their controlling of or being controlled by corporate america. The value of the dollar is the most important thing in controlling the economy and the government has full control or lack there of of that. The overspending and huge deficits are all on their backs, and that is what has us going in the wrong direction. You can try to make it as complex as you want, but in the end it's really that simple.
More than 160,000 votes in 7 states. That is a significant number of people if you consider that the media keeps telling their viewers to ignore him.
Because not all of have the time to follow every single thing that is going on in this big world that we live in. I myself have never heard the name "Ron Paul" in my entire life, and I keep up on politics more than most (although I haven't yet gotten up to speed for this upcoming Presidential election, but I will soon enough). The reason this Paul person is a non-factor, is because most have never heard of him, and you have to be someone most have heard of to be a factor in a popular election.
