And I'm tired of people saying "Oh well Paul got his money from the internet". Who the F cares, the internet is full of PEOPLE. In fact their were over 40,000 people that donated to Paul's cause. Last time I looked McCain was borrowing money, and Romney was injecting his own funds into his campaign. Paul is thriving because his message is strong with Americans. Put any candidate head to head with Paul and he would shred them alive with facts. Not mud-slinging. That is why they are afraid, he is not in it for the politics.
Bush sent troops to Iraq under the War Powers Act authorized by congress. Just as he did in Afghanistan, and Presidents have done since the Korean War.
That doesn't make me feel any better. The president has more power than he should and the congress continues to give it to him. He gets 5% with no help from the media. The most consistent reason given for why Paul won't win is because "he really doesn't have a shot, he's a second tier candidate." But the media has taken notice, and so have the people. Most are sleep walking through the process and those who haven been awakened by what Paul has to say are by far more passionate than the followers of any other candidate. For all the rationality behind the other guys, all the comparative polling and the winability of a candidate, a growing number of people are beginning to really hear a message they can get behind and that is the message of Ron Paul. It sounds like your mind is set. That's disappointing, but it is your choice. Who do you back, by the way?
Yah the 5% that actually give a damn about this country and where it is heading. Paul gives solutions to problems. Everyone else simply runs their mouth.
That ain't proof, chief. Try again. The word is "losing." The value of the dollar is based on supply and demand, period. There is not enough gold in the world for each nation to back up its currency. It's a long outdated concept. We owe China a little over a trillion dollars and we have plenty of money left. It's the largest economy in the world.
My problem is not with what Ron Paul says, but with what he does. If he followed the libertarian principles he preaches I'd be all for him.
I'm no economist, but it seems the value of currency shouldn't fluctuate. It seems the value of goods should fluctuate. Repeating a point I made in a post earlier in this thread, I may not be an economist, but I do know that a lot of economists responded favorably when Paul questioned the practices of the fed chairman to his face. The fed chairman didn't seem to defend his position too well, either. He looked rather uncomfortable. This is the conclusion that you've come to and I think you are basing it on minor academic differences; an argument in philosophy. If you are willing to vote for another candidate whose shortcomings will far surpass this philosophical fork in the road, I think you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I won't even think about voting for Ron Paul because I feel his foreign policy ideas are extremely short-sighted and flawed. And that is all I will say on the matter.
