ron paul=awesome/kickass?

[FORD]

I'm surprised that So called "progressives", especially here, aren't giving Paul more support. I mean, President Obama has certainly proved himself to be an "establishment" politician; much like Mittens.
Paul, while far from perfect, is the only candidate who is even remotely anti establishment and therefore more progressive. He's the only one who will even consider shaking things up.
I'm noticing that the liberals seem to be just as partisan as conservatives. This tells me that both Dem and GOP supporters are pretty much supporting the status quo.

If we had a congress made up with at least a 67% majority in both houses of actual Sanders/Kucinich/Feingold/Grayson style Liberals, I would vote for Ron Paul as President. They would agree on the good things, like ending the stupid wars which have nothing to do with this country, the war on drugs, and the out of control private mafia bank called the "Federal" reserve.

But without that kind of Congress, Paul is too big of a risk. His Randtard fairytale agenda, with a teabagger congress to pass it, would literally be the death of this country. The last 30 years of BCE policies may have seriously wounded it, but there's still hope of recovery if the damage is reversed.

Ron Paul wants to do MORE damage.

[kwame k]

I don't think any of us so-called Liberals have given Obama a free pass on anything and I defy you to find someone who hates Reid and Pelosi more than I do.

The problem is.....not one candidate is better than Obama......so what choice do I have?

[lesfunk]

I don't think any of us so-called Liberals have given Obama a free pass on anything and I defy you to find someone who hates Reid and Pelosi more than I do.

The problem is.....not one candidate is better than Obama......so what choice do I have?

I agree that you guys have not sucked on Obama's asshole very hard since he's been President; and that's fair. Where we disagree is that I do believe that Paul is a better candidate than President Obama. If Paul does not receive the GOP nomination, and he probably won't, I ain't gonna bother voting for Obama or Romney either because I don't think there's much of a difference.

[LoungeMachine]

OMFG

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

[Pink Spider]

The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.

If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.

[kwame k]

I agree that you guys have not sucked on Obama's asshole very hard since he's been President; and that's fair. Where we disagree is that I do believe that Paul is a better candidate than President Obama. If Paul does not receive the GOP nomination, and he probably won't, I ain't gonna bother voting for Obama or Romney either because I don't think there's much of a difference.

Look, I'm as pissed as anyone that the spineless wonders were too much of a pussy to pass anything when the Demos had the majority.......the Health Care Bill, which effects every single American and with costs spiraling out of control couldn't ram a decent Bill down the Repukes throats.

The Repukes ran a good fear campaign with Death Panels and mandatory jail sentences.....while the Demos just caved in. They paid the price by losing the majority.

Mitt is running away from his progressive past and I think there are huge differences between him and Obama.

Out of everyone running.....Obama is the best there is. I'd love a viable 3rd option but there isn't anyone.

What......vote for Nader?

[kwame k]

The Democratic party is a party of war now. I would say that they're just as much of a risk as the GOP. If you vote for Obama, you support a guy who's foreign policies, drug policies, etc are in sync with Mitt Romney.

If you don't like Paul's domestic policies, then you should vote 3rd party. It's what I've done in past years. At least I knew that I didn't vote for any of this draconian stuff.

I threw away my vote when I voted for Perot back in the day.......which actually helped defeat Bush, so it worked out OK!

I did like the idea if he got x percentage of the vote he'd get national funding for his party. He was actually the last hope for a viable 3rd party. All the other 3rd party groups today are just too fringe for my taste and it'd be throwing my vote away.

There's too much at stake to have a Repuke president.

The Democratic Party are the ones bringing our troops home....while the Newt is saying he'll send them back to Iraq. Obama pledged he'd do it and has. Took longer than promised but at least we're getting the fuck out of Iraq.

If the Repukes have their way.....we'll be back in Iraq and invading Iran. No fucking way am I letting that happen.

[Nickdfresh]

I can't answer for why other people like him, but I can for why I like him.

I'm not on board with every one of his points of view, but I do believe that he's the only candidate that represents an actual different direction for the nation. I don't think he'd be able to do everything he wanted but I do believe he'd be better than Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry or Newt.

Fair enough. But downward is an actual different direction....

I don't believe a word the other candidates tell me. They are in this for themselves, and they will lie, cheat, steal and manipulate things to get into office. Obama lied to people. We have to accept that. I thought he would take things in a different direction, but in a lot of ways, he's been worse than Bush was. In other ways, not as bad. But on the balance, it's more of the same.

Funny, but Obama is often seen as not ruthless enough rather than a Machiavellian politician saying anything to anyone to get elected. He's seen as weak in the face of a bulwarking, mindlessly partisan congress more interested in a masturbatory orgy of the teabagger mentality thwarting actual governance. You can argue he isn't taking things in a different direction, but I would seriously debate that. I'm no Obama sycophant, but it is hard to argue that at the very least he hasn't changed our course and pulled us out of Iraq, is working to get out of Afghanistan, and has rolled back at least a little of the corporate shilling by the Bushleaguers...

Santorum, Perry, Newt ... those guys would be just as bad as Obama in different ways. None of them want to change the course we're on. None of them would even try. Things would simply get worse, slowly and inexorably.

I'd say they're vastly worse than Obama, and run the gambit from hypocrite to completely delusional. Obama has at least a modicum of palpable intelligence whereas all save Newt are just a bunch of fucking dumb guys too stupid to be selfconscious as to how moronic they actually sound...

For me, that leaves Paul. I look at him, read about him, watch his positions now and in older interviews, and the guy is consistent. I don't agree with all of his points of view, but they are logical and thought out. And he believes it. I know what I'm getting. I know what he'll try to get done. And a lot of it is good.

You can't be a libertarian and be against a woman's right to choose. And much of his foreign policy is anything but "well thought out," bordering on being unworkability insane IMO. One of his main advisers just left him on this basis alone...

I don't care about abortion, so that isn't a disqualifier for me. I don't care about this racism nonsense, either. Every single presidential candidate gets accused of being a racist. Obama, Perry, Newt, Paul, Romney... all of them.

Read above. You may not care about abortion, but it is still a litmus test as to someone's commitment to true libertarianism. You either believe that gov't should be off our backs, or you don't!

I do care about the nations budget and finances. I do care about how much we go to war (without authorization) and push the rest of the world around.

Pres. Obama didn't go to war without authorization, the party that Paul belongs too did...

I do care about the expanding intrusiveness of the federal government, spying on me, telling me what I can and can't do, exerting more and more control over my life, and now, being allowed to arrest me and hold me indefinitely.

It's a shitty bill that was rammed down our throats by a dickish congress as part of a defense bill, but the gov't cannot just hold everyone without charge if they are Americans....

Obama and Bush and all the other douchebags that have served in the congress. Do you think Romney will be any better? Perry? Do you think Obama will suddenly say, "no, this is wrong, we have to change it?" Those ships sailed a long time ago. They are lying to you.

Isn't Paul in the Congress?

You can call Ron Paul a nutbag all you want, but consider this:

When did it become "crazy" to say that we should only have the federal government do what it's allowed to do in the Constitution? If you want to give the federal government more power, amend the constitution. Give all the states the ability to say yes/no. Don't let the federal government legislate itself an every expanding set of powers.

Um, it was a document written over 200 years ago that couldn't possibly spell out all of the intricacies of modern technology, society, economy, etc.

In that case of absolute literalism that extremist right winger sometime argue, we should disband the U.S. Air Force, because the Constitution says nothing regardings the provision of it!

When did it become "crazy" to say that we don't want to go to war all the time. How many wars do you want to see happen in your lifetime? When is enough, enough? We can bring our troops home, use that money domestically (or here's a shocking idea, we can stop taking it from our citizens) and improve the situation here. I don't believe for a second that we wouldn't be able to get back into a conflict if we needed to anywhere in the world. But it would take something that drove the entire nation mobilize and push congress to declare war ... no more presidents just deciding they want to drag us into yet another conflict. What is so crazy about that?

Um, Obama did bring the troops back from Iraq, though...

I don't believe for a second that Paul would get everything he wanted. But he would do something Obama doesn't do. He'd start saying "no" and start arguing for a different direction. With that platform, he could change the mindset and direction of the country. We could make some actual progress. I thought Obama would do that, but he's nothing more than a liar. I am a lot more skeptical about politicians as a result. Obama is a failure. Paul is consistent and you know what you'll get.

That doesn't sound crazy to me at all.

Ron Paul's policies would paralyze the gov't, and it is way to early to proclaim Obama, a president whom inherited one of the worst economies in history, a "failure." You may feel that way, but I think his policies averted a much greater catastrophe and an economic Depression. With Paul, you'd get an erratic, unworkable statesmen. We WOULD have been in a severe depression had that guy won in 2008...

Furthermore, Paul masks himself behind the feelgood rhetoric of an economic, property-rights libertarian while his policies would actually aid and abed the REAL problem, the further down-slide into a plutocracy with gov't being gradually castrated as any sort of check on the powers of multinational corporations, and their seeming course to mindlessly annihilate the middle classes...

[ELVIS]

OMFG

RON PAUL WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

Is that what Faux news told you ??

[kwame k]

Is that what Faux news told you ??

What's Beck telling you?

[ELVIS]

I don't listen to Beck...

[kwame k]

Must be Rush, then...........

[LoungeMachine]

Is that what Faux news told you ??

No, common sense.



What does baby jesus tell you?

[Headly1984]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama

Keep an open mind and realize congress will keep the balance - 1 thing Paul won't do is invade a country w/o congressional approval or abuse executive mandates

The guy is a constitutionalist - which is great ! A concept most modern politicians cannot comprehend. Maybe you like the idea of a constitutionalist candidate but don;t like the wrapper this one comes in - oh well, it is what it is

A vote for Mitt or O is a vote for the lobbyist swayed politician who operates behind closed doors and issues executive orders appointing people to office when congress is out of session

Ron Paul will give the government some transparency - & he would also audit the Federal Reserve - we don't need our bank operating outside of our best interest

[LoungeMachine]

Ron Paul has the best chance to beat Obama

: