Does Ron Paul have a chance? - Page 2

The main reason nobody really knows anything bad about Ron Paul is that he has yet to lead in the polls. Every politician has their dirty laundry, but the ones who have it aired out in the open are the ones that are viewed as threats. For whatever reason nobody seems to be taking Ron Paul seriously, so no efforts are being made to smear his name.

I don't really have a favorite of the republican candidates. I can respect their fiscal policies (somewhat), but those are attached to the whole "traditional values" ideology that has never sat well with me.

I like that Ron Paul is the only one who consistently gives a shit about the constitution and despises war.

Rick Santorum is a moron and Mitt Romney just seems like a pretty face and good speaker.

quote Styot

Quite a lot when there is a concerted political effort to get science removed from the class room and replaced with theology. Plus if he can't even grasp the scientific realities of the world around him do you really want him running a country. I mean he actually said "it's just a theory". *face palm*

The U.S. public education system is screwed regardless of whether or not the government introduce elements of faith into the curriculum, I think there are bigger fish to fry tbh, and Paul's campaign seems to address that.

quote Byzantine

It's just a good thing that none of these nut-jobs have a snowball's chance in hell of pulling off the election.

I was just thinking that while Paul may not win the nomination, which would be a damn shame, Romney (who I think has the biased media's support, and is also bent over kissing Wall Street's ass) is likelier to take the nomination. And then, it'll be a choice between two career politicians who are clearly out of touch with the kind of measures needed to help the country and are clearly not in line with the average American. Whether you elect Romney (or heavens forbid...Santorum) or re-elect Obama (Paul could make this easier for Obama by playing spoiler), nothing's going to change.

quote Bri

I was just thinking that while Paul may not win the nomination, which would be a damn shame, Romney (who I think has the biased media's support, and is also bent over kissing Wall Street's ass) is likelier to take the nomination. And then, it'll be a choice between two career politicians who are clearly out of touch with the kind of measures needed to help the country and are clearly not in line with the average American. Whether you elect Romney (or heavens forbid...Santorum) or re-elect Obama (Paul could make this easier for Obama by playing spoiler), nothing's going to change.

See, when people say that, I just have to scratch my head in wonder. Off the top of my head, our current administration has done an epic *bleep* ton to help people manage debt, especially student debt. It's also repealed don't ask don't tell, and has brought us an exit from the war in Afghanistan. It has also, despite naysayers, improved the state of our economy. Granted, not as much as is preferable, but it's at least something. It has also brought us in a better direction in regards to healthcare. It too is not as great a step as we needed, but it's at least something. Our forefathers designed our republic to operate very slowly, so with that in mind, it's always so shocking to me that people expect it to be expedient.

It hasn't been a big shake-up, but to say that nothing has changed is just dishonest. It has actually done a fair amount of things despite the partisan predicament it has found itself in.

quote Byzantine

Our forefathers designed our republic to operate very slowly, so with that in mind, it's always so shocking to me that people expect it to be expedient.

From my experiences, I'd have to say that Americans have gotten far too impatient and just want a quick fix that will immediately make everything perfect. Then, when the President doesn't deliver this quick fix they start whining. Any candidate that professes that he or she can do this is a lying snake.

I'm not really a fan of Obama per se but I do agree that he's done plenty for the US during the past four years. He inherited the country when it was in a pretty difficult place. It's like forcing someone to take over for you in a chess game when you're losing - you can't expect any miracles.

As for the Republican side of the race, I must admit I've grown wary of anyone over there just because the Tea Party has made it hard to trust any of them. I know they're only part of the party but they've just happened to be the most vocal. I doubt any of the candidates have views that come anywhere close to matching mine, however, so I suppose it doesn't even matter.

Ron Paul is completely and utterly moronic. He said he doesn't care if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. His logic is to let Israel fight its own battles. What happens when friggen Iran is bombing everywhere with nuclear weapons? Has Ron Paul even read about the Cold War and what Nuclear Warheads can do?!?! Or even the power of the nuke we dropped on Hiroshima?

quote bloodyvamp

Ron Paul is completely and utterly moronic. He said he doesn't care if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. His logic is to let Israel fight its own battles. What happens when friggen Iran is bombing everywhere with nuclear weapons? Has Ron Paul even read about the Cold War and what Nuclear Warheads can do?!?! Or even the power of the nuke we dropped on Hiroshima?

He hasn't said that he doesn't care if Iran obtains nuclear weapons; he's said that you shouldn't engage militarily on flimsy evidence akin to that which was the justification for the Iraq war. Furthermore, he's clearly stated he'd use force if there was evidence of a threat to the U.S. Obviously, if they were bombing everyone with nukes (and they most definitely won't be any time soon), then his feelings would be different. You're taking massive leaps from reality in your assertions: there's no evidence that Iran is even building nuclear weapons, let alone that they're going to use nuclear weapons offensively. <eyeroll>

I'm no Cold War expert, but if I do know one thing, it's that the U.S. response wasn't "INVADE AND BOMB THEM!" That would be a dangerous, reckless, and ignorant response given the lack of evidence.