Ron Paul Cheering Entrance California

[FlipPro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm6D9VenmmE&feature=player_embedded

Something for you guys to chew on.
The man is picking up steam!

From a political junkie perspective, Obama vs Ron Paul in 2012 makes for an epic election.

Edit: I am seriously about to consider switching my party affiliation just to help RP out.

[1713489306]

1713489306

[1713489306]

1713489306

[1713489306]

1713489306

[1713489306]

1713489306

[bbit]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

[FlipPro]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

[ineededausername]

FlipPro: Protip... RP stands for another Republican presidential candidate as well
I think Perry's going to end up winning the nomination and if he gets elected I might just move to Canada.

[bbit]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

lol I hear you. I mean there are some good things he does say but this idea that churches would support the unemployed is just crazy lol ..... My only other fear is its democrats who are pulling for Ron Paul to win because he would get wiped clean if he went up against Obama

[bbit]

FlipPro: Protip... RP stands for another Republican presidential candidate as well
I think Perry's going to end up winning the nomination and if he gets elected I might just move to Canada.

haha ...Perry is defiantly a "cowboy"  I think Mitt is going to win I'm pulling for him.

[Rassah]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

Lucky for us, Congress only tends to allow Presidents to do at most 30% of the stuff they want to do

[FlipPro]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

Lucky for us, Congress only tends to allow Presidents to do at most 30% of the stuff they want to do

Ron Paul with a totally liberal house/senate could be a very interesting thing to watch

[Rassah]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

Lucky for us, Congress only tends to allow Presidents to do at most 30% of the stuff they want to do

Ron Paul with a totally liberal house/senate could be a very interesting thing to watch

End the wars, legalize marijuana, and legalize gay marriage for states that chose to pass it? Yeah, would be interesting

[MoonShadow]

lol I hear you. I mean there are some good things he does say but this idea that churches would support the unemployed is just crazy lol .....

Why is that crazy?  That's exactly what commonly happened before the New Deal.  It was the role of the Church to guilt the rich into funding the missions that supported the poor.  It still happens, just not to the same degree.  The government has mostly muscled the charities out of the charity business.  And not just religious groups, either.  Before the New Deal, fraternal societies were enormously important social organizations; providing benefits to their local memberships that were hard to come by for middle class families by any other means until the 1950's.  Such as group health and life insurance coverage.  The American model of unionism is directly based off of the fraternal orders, and is the primary reason that unions don't function the same way in most other countries.  Those fraternal orders were, for the most part, forced to stop providing member benefits by the increasing regulations imposed by governments.  Many of those orders only existed for the purpose of collective social benefits, and thus simply faded out of existance.  Of course, many were racist by their nature, refusing to accept members who didn't look like them or pray like them; but every race and social group had their own order, so that didn't limit options much.

[The Script]

Just wondering what is the appeal to Ron Paul ?  He is so far out there with his thinking how could he possibly win?

I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

What is he nuts on?

Edit: I am seriously about to consider switching my party affiliation just to help RP out.

Do it.  Ron Paul is waaaaayyy better than Perry or Bachmann or anyone else. 

[jwzguy]

Usually when people say one of Ron Paul's statements is "nuts" it's out of ignorance - either of the full meaning and context of his statement or of the situation he's talking about.

No offense to anyone who thinks that, it's a common reaction to something that sounds completely out of line with what you are familiar with, and that's exactly how the media constantly tries to frame everything he says. Regardless, listen to what he's really saying, and not sound-bytes, and you will discover that he is a mostly rational guy (mostly - he believes in God, which I do consider crazy, but that's the only kind of person this country will elect.)

The good news is that regardless of Ron Paul's completely honest answers about his ideals, he is not "nuts" enough to try and destroy a system just because he doesn't agree with it. He's said this a million times. So no one needs to sweat it.

For instance, he doesn't want anyone hurt whose been told to pay into SS their entire life by yanking the rug out from under them. Rather, he'd prefer to let people opt out now and slowly phase it out of existence, rather than let it completely collapse (which is where it's currently headed.)

The one thing Ron Paul would do to make significant change is to pull our troops our of all these ridiculous undeclared wars and stop trying to police the entire world. Then regardless of your positions on social programs, at least we wouldn't be trillions of dollars in the hole and continuing to pile that debt on at a breakneck speed every day. He's said many times - it doesn't hurt so much to pay a few dollars into social programs that he disagrees with when we have money to throw around.  Right now we're BROKE.

Another thing he'd do is pardon all the non-violent drug offenders in federal prison and work to end our "second prohibition", which has caused thousands of times more damage than the first prohibition and done absolutely nothing to "help" anyone except druglords and gangbangers.

Other than that, he doesn't believe a President should do things outside his constitutionally endowed powers, and so he wouldn't. Because he's a man of principle, which I know, sounds "crazy" for a politician, right? "Nuts."

[Elwar]

how could he possibly win?

He is beating Obama 51 to 49% in a national Harris poll.

http://harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/870/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx.

[Elwar]

Also this PPP Poll:

"This may be the most positive poll for Paul that we've ever conducted- he leads by 15 points with independents (against Obama) even as the rest of the Republican candidates trail Obama with that voting group."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/florida-close.html

It is the independents that choose presidents.

[SgtSpike]

how could he possibly win?

He is beating Obama 51 to 49% in a national Harris poll.

http://harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/mid/1508/articleId/870/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/Default.aspx.

Wow, I am shocked.  He might actually have a chance.

[Rassah]

Also this PPP Poll:

"This may be the most positive poll for Paul that we've ever conducted- he leads by 15 points with independents (against Obama) even as the rest of the Republican candidates trail Obama with that voting group."
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/09/florida-close.html

It is the independents that choose presidents.

But it's the crazy fringe that choose candidates 

[onesalt]

You do realise a cheering entrance to anything is a complete moot point because people who like a particular candidate will travel from across the country to cheer for them.

[NghtRppr]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

[The Script]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

[NghtRppr]

What is he nuts on?

Abortion. I'm still voting for him though since it's unlikely he can change the current abortion laws.

He wants to leave the abortion issue to the States instead of having the Federal government intervene.  He's pointed out that before Roe v Wade doctors would perform abortions anyway for certain cases (rape, certain harm to the mother, etc.).  I guess I fail to see how that makes him nuts.  But you're right in that he doesn't believe in a president exceeding constitutional powers and so is unlikely to be able to change something like abortion without congressional support.

The fact he's against abortion is what bothers me. The fact he claims to be a libertarian yet doesn't understand that a woman removing a baby from her womb is her right also bothers me.