Because of numerous extreme positions he has taken, Paul has no shot at the nomination. He wants to withdraw the U.S. from Nato, the United Nations and from most of its international trade agreements. He has stated he will never raise taxes. Any candidate for office who makes such a absolute statement is a fool. Paul has no clue what the national situation will be like 4 or 5 years down the road. It is foolish for a candidate to say he will never do anything. He wants to disband the IRS and end the federal income tax, but has not given any hint what he will make up the difference in lost income. He wants to abolish most federal agencies - unrealistic to say the least. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal security screenings at airports, the Department of Homeland Security, the federal flood insurance program, the war on drugs, and the Federal Reserve System. He would forbid the federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and other controversial matters, would make any federal decisions on these issues nonbinding on the state courts and would forbid the federal courts from enforcing their judgements. Clearly his understanding of the American judicial system, as well as constitutional law as it applies to the judicial system is flawed to the extreme. He would end most foreign aid. It is one thing to say we need to examine who receives federal aid, but to simply make the carte blanc statement that most should be eliminated is ridiculous. He wants to re-establish gold and silver as legal tender. Again, he does not have a secure grasp on reality. What in the world makes him think that as President he would have the authority to do these things. All of them would require the support of Congress, and some would require constitutional amendments. Paul is naive to the extreme.
It is sad that his positions are considered extreme considering that his ideas are much closer to the original intentions of the founding fathers than the current state of politics. You seem to embrace your position as a ward of the state and expect the federal government to take care of all possible controversies that arise. You should know when drafting rules not every point of contention can be addressed (nor should they, the list of rules would never end). The federal government was meant to simply tie the states together. The further we get from one king making all the decisions, the better, and Ron Paul would bring us much closer to a decentralized power structure than what we currently have. For example, murder is mostly a state issue. Why shouldn't abortion be? Why should the government tax the people to aid other nations? If the people want to aid other nations, why not set up an organization to do so? Why should the government protect our airports when the airports themselves could probably do a better job. A much better job. Ron Paul believes in the free market and knows quite a lot about economics. When he lectured the federal reserve chairman on irresponsible economic practices, experts in the field of economics lauded Paul. He believes that dollar bills should represent some actual monetary value, which is the intention if you've forgotten. Our government has created money out of thin air and we are on the brink of a recession because of it. Ron Paul is intelligent and experienced, principled and not afraid to stand up for the truth. Not everyone can handle the truth and scoff at him because of it because their neighbor scoffs or the news scoffs or Ghouliani, the noble genious that he is, scoffs. I challenge you to point out where Paul's views would require constitutional ammendments (he knows it better than us both). Any argument against Paul's economics would be philosophical and Paul doesn't represent a small segment of economists. Finally, saying that Paul is naive is very uninformed and far from the truth. He is principled, which is unusual in politics, but if you get down to brass tacks I believe you'd find his positions much more sound than you realize. These other guys flip flop and change with the wind and were calling Paul foolish when he opposed the war, citing concerns that have come to pass. Why these other guys are front runners are simply because they refuse to buck conventional wisdom, whether it is rooted in truth or not. They don't rock the boat of their party and are thus being shoved down our throats. I challenge you to research Paul on your own. It could be one the most important things you could do for your country. Please, seriously, do some reading on where the guy stands. What is the risk? Check out some of the links I've posted in my sig and I think you may be intrigued. Ron Paul is very smart and his numbers are growing with little help from the system that's chosen Ghouliani and Romney by default.
I am not a ward of the state and certainly don't look to the federal government to solve all our problems. One of my complaints about Democrats is their lack of confidence in state and local governments to solve problems. But his views are not that close to those of the founding fathers. Yes, they believed in strong state and local governments, but they also believed in a strong central government. Paul wants to emasculate the federal government. In our federal system "one king" does not make all the decisions. Discisions are shared between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Paul would seriously weaken the judicial branch. Frankly, I think the judicial branch has grown stronger than what the founding fathers intended, and that abortion should be left up the the states and have said so. But that is a far cry from telling the federal courts that they have no business getting involved in the abortion issue. The appellate function of the federal court system is one of the most important elements in the system of checks and balances created by the founding fathers. Paul's views are very isolationist. He has taken positions that are simply not compatible with the status of the United States as the leader of the free world. He is indeed naive if he thinks he can take the United States back to what it was 60 years ago. He is also naive if he believes that as President he can get most of his views passed into law on his own authority. Most of his ideas will not pass the legislature, and some of those that somehow did get through would probably not pass muster before the Supreme Court. I believe Paul is sincere in his views, but no more so than most other candidates. People such as Rommney, Thompson and Gulliani believe what they say. That is not to say they have not changed their stances on some issues over the years. Changing your view on one or two issues is not a big problem. You expect open-minded people to do that so long as it is not a consistent problem to where no one know where they stand on issues. But for a candidate never to change his mind is not an example of consistency; it is an example of intellectual stagnation. I have researched Paul on my own as you suggest. That is why I have come to the conclusion that I have.
The balkanization of America would be an unmitigated disaster. Because it benefits us in many ways. We get access to markets and resources as well as allies in foreign policy and bases for our military. Moreover we counter the huge amounts of money being funneled to third-world nations by our enemies, the Chinese and the Islamists. You can't be this naive, commercial airports are government entities. Paul's idea would leave wealthy and large cities with good security, while smaller, poorer cities would have only the security they could afford, leaving gaps in our armor. Prove it. Paul advocates "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution." This is patently absurd as well as naive. The Constitution sets up a govermental framework only. It actually establishes a legislative body and authorizes them to legislate whatever they feel appropriate and their constituents wish. Paul cannot forbid any legislation on Constitutional grounds, only the Supreme Court can . . . and The President cannot dictate to the Supreme Court.
He wants to emasculate the federal government? Wow. He'd have to cut a lot to get us to that point and I think he realizes, as you point out, that he needs a degree of consensus to enact change. The government needs trimming, I think you agree, and I don't see any danger any time soon of the government being too lean. Paul would work harder than any other candidate to streamline the government and of course there are high priority items he would focus on first. As cuts became more contentious I think he would spark true debate and introspection, but I think it is silly to think that he will be able to, in one fell swoop, totally gut the government and leave us choking on blood. I think there is a lot less risk of that than the alternative we would get with the other candidates. Paul believes the judicial and executive branches have overstepped their bounds. I don't think he wants to abolish the judiciary branch, he just wants to curb the activism of the courts. I believe it is a waste of our federal resources to set exhaustive guidelines on morality. Why do we need the federal government to impose the final word on controversial subjects that will not go away? I don't think we should set the big machine of federal government in action unless there is a real reason to believe it will amount to something that will stand the test of time and reason. Do we really need our president to lead the free world? If you haven't noticed, our own cup overflows with issues that need to be addressed. We should get off our horse and stop thinking we know what is best for the world. We need to treat other nations with respect - instead we are condescending. Not that we should ignore the world, we just need to pay more attention to our own homeland and strive to be a more sound republic. They scoffed at him when he opposed the war though his arguments then have come to fruit. Of the other candidates, I like Ghouliani the least, but they all represent varying degrees of what we have now. I believe the strength of their convictions also vary, but I also believe everything they say is calculated to be least offensive to those they perceive to matter. Hearing them waver when confronted about uncomfortable issues lowers my opinion of them and I haven't seen Ron Paul do this. To say that Paul is a purveyor of intellectual stagnation astonishes me, especially when compared to lack of intellectual depth in most of the arguments against Paul. These other guys are playing politics and I don't understand how you don't see that. They are puppets of the mainstream and refuse to present the cold truth to the people in lieu of votes. Is that really a threat? The balkanization of America... how much more rhetorical can you get? We are so far on the other end of the spectrum we could use a healthy hedging of the federal government. I don't believe Paul would transform Washington into a brittle shell of its former bloat, particularly not over night. I believe Paul wants to keep trade with other countries open. The US is an attractive trading partner. He is against maintaining a military presence around the world and I don't see much of a problem with that. As far as funding third world nations, one must wonder about the return on our investment as well as where exactly that money ends up. If people want to donate to charities they can do it on their own dime and even take initiative and stand for their own cause, but why charge across the board, why charge unwilling parties? BR's airport security is on par with larger airports? I don't think Paul is going to sit by and let terrorists through the gates in BTR and lesser airports. Is this a key point of contention? Inflation... the Fed adjusting rates to ease pressures... I'm not an economist but quite a few economists seemed to appreciate Paul calling out the Fed chairman to his face for his questionable economic decisions, something the Fed chairman seemed to have little response to. The constitution can be seen as a philosophical guideline, particularly for a proponent of small federal government. Are you leaning toward a particular candidate, Red? Is that something you feel like sharing? I don't claim to know everything but I feel like Paul is what he says. I feel like of the candidates with a chance Paul will be a more principled leader than anyone else in the field. I still believe there is a chance that even those entrenched in support for their traditional allegiances or the many victims of indifference will be inspired by Paul's movement.
Bengal you keep saying Paul can't do most of those things without Congress. Which he makes a point of saying everytime he says what he wants to do: "..with the help of congress" Yet you are not mentioning that our current President went to war without a declarition of war from Congress. So I'm wondering where your loyalties lie?
Bengal not to mention calling him an isolationist further proves that you have no idea what you are talking about. Paul wants no nation building and no foreign entaglements. He would rather trade and have peace with ALL countries. It is economics that makes the world go round not military bases ALL over the world.
Why not just watch the news. The dollar is not loosing value b/c our economy is bad. The dollar is loosing value because their is more printed money than gold to back it. Hence why we owe China Trillions of dollars. We don't have any left.
Security in airports right now is a joke. The point trying to be made is that the Airlines should have the duty to protect their investments. And if this were the case the security would be much better because without the investments then the companies would go belly up. Thus creating better security. It's called a free market. Why do you think the wealthy protect their stuff so well, because they can. The airlines would do the same.
