Ron Paul Supporters

[morpheus]

I was wondering how many people on this site are Ron Paul supporters. I would imagine that a lot of INTJs would be drawn to Ron Paul and his views because of our desire to know the truth and ask the question does it work.
It infuriates me that most politicians seem to ignore Ron Paul when he is always right and explains things in such an easy to understand way. He was once again right about the bailout not working but I bet you won’t hear about it from the press or congress. You would think that a logical person would listen to Ron Paul after the first two or three times he was able to predict the outcome of a major event like the collapse of the housing market and the fact that the bailout made no sense because you can’t solve a problem that was caused by over spending with more spending. And now he is warning of the collapse of the dollar and what do they do? They spend more money we don’t have and seem to do all they can to make the dollar collapse faster. Are these people out of their minds!

[Santana28]

Count me in. I traveled to Iowa several times last summer to campaign, and i recently attended the Rally for the Republic in St. Paul Minnesota.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Paul, his family, Kent Snyder (RIP), and many others associated with his campaign.

Definitely NOT politics as usual.

The problem with our society? People do not WISH to think. They accept any answer that provides them with the ability to sleep at night without having to comprehend anything above the most basic level. Thinking frightens alot of people - and "thinking" politicians scares the crap outta people.

Go Ron Paul! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. :)

[Doppelbock]

I like Ron Paul, too.

[Avid]

I don't agree with everything he says, but Ron Paul has my vote. I was also interested in Kucinich but he never got anywhere.

[fearlessphoenix]

I adored Ron Paul, actively campaigned for him in Missouri. I am writing his name in on my ballot, more as a matter of principle than any hope that he has a shot. People are terrified of not only tinking but by they are terrified to be help accountable for the end result of their thinking . . .

[SShack]

I liked Ron Paul as a symbol, but I think he'd probably actually make a horrible president. I believe a lot of what he said is certainly true (I'm a libertarian) but following his campaign, I never really got a sense from him of how to get from A to Z when it comes to trying to actually bring libertarian philosophy to bear in Washington. It was all theory and analysis and little actual strategy. Hell, he wouldn't have even had a campaign without his devoted supporters doing much of the organizing for him.

Maybe it's the ENTP in me. I see the idea of increasing the influence of libertarian politics in government as a project, not just a dream.

[dragonsscout]

Gak! I don't get him. He is like a libertarian, but he voted for some stuff which hardly qualifies him as such. Libertarian ideals are fine. I don't agree with all of them, but I see where people are coming from. I suppose a combination of what SShack said and his devoted followers being a little too devoted and going around at 11 pm with megaphones bugged me.

[TheLastMohican]

I wish Paul had been the Republican nominee.

[AJB]

I wish Paul had been the Republican nominee.

I would have voted for him over McCain. Plus, the debates and campaigns between Paul and Obama may have had more substance.

I like Ron Paul's no-nonsense approach to most things. I especially like his shtick about moving back to the gold standard.

[TheLastMohican]

Plus, the debates and campaigns between Paul and Obama may have had more substance.


Indeed. I think he would have mopped up the floor with Obama in a proper debate. Here's a clip from Bill Maher's show:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[DrEast]

Ron Paul wasn't a Libertarian, not purely. He was a libertarian constitutionalist republican, all lower-case. His kind (known more purely as the "Old Right" or paleoconservative) is exactly what the name "neoconservative" was set up as against. It's the branch of the GOP that was jettisoned by W and company, one of its oldest branches and the part most appealed to by the rhetoric of Reagan ("Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.").

This branch of the GOP used to be considered the essential, populist branch. Most voters fall into one of two broad camps... vehemently anti-governmental intervention and vehemently pro-governmental intervention. "Shades of gray" and "populist" don't often go together.

That said, anywhere you see a shade of gray you usually smell corruption. This populist branch lost much of its fervor with the fall of the USSR in the early 90's. Without a clear and present Enemy (the Terrorists of today's GOP), they lost a lot of their political coherence, and consequentially lost their voice in the GOP. Politicians, no matter what party, tend to not really want to lose power, as that makes it hard for them to grow corrupt (a process politicians find quite pleasant, because it rhymes with "get really stinking rich").

So both the Republican and Democrat parties are Big Government now, and members thereof literally consider the likes of Ron Paul insane. The U.S. government is, after all, the greatest achievement of mankind in its entire history. Who would have the mental incompetence to question its awesome magnificence and perfection?

[Deliberator]

I love Ron Paul's philosophy, although a lot of it sounds like a pipe dream. When I saw him in the debates I realized he wouldn't make a good president though.

I particularly like his economic policy and his views on healthcare.

[Avid]

Not a good president? I think compared to Bush just about anyone would be a "good" president. My dog could be a better president. Anyway, the man has integrity and the most solid voting record. His dreams might seem a little out there but most of them are possible and the way things were intended anyway (depending on which dream we are talking about exactly).

[SShack]

Not a good president? I think compared to Bush just about anyone would be a "good" president. My dog could be a better president. Anyway, the man has integrity and the most solid voting record. His dreams might seem a little out there but most of them are possible and the way things were intended anyway (depending on which dream we are talking about exactly).

Having good ideas is only one small part of being a good leader. If by some fluke Ron Paul actually got elected president, I'm hard-pressed to imagine how any of his platform would ever actually become reality. He spent his campaigns essentially explaining parts of libertarian philosophy. But -- and I'm sure somebody can correct me on this -- I saw nothing that indicated that he knew of any way to or had any strategy of pushing any significant governance changes through a Congress full of skeptical big government Democrats and Republicans. One of McCain's own top advisers dismissed Paul supporters and told them to go vote for Obama.

In other words, I think we need an extroverted libertarian leader, and those seem to be hard to come by. Perhaps it's part of the whole "leave me alone" philosophy.

[White Raven]

I liked Ron Paul's ideas...the man himself struck me as a tad unstable. Definitely would have voted for him, though.

Has it struck anybody that a co-presidency might be a good check-and-balance policy if you had a workable way to implement it? :P