Mitt Romney: Mormon, successful businessman, governor ... fudge packer?

[Pekka]

Ron Paul is the only real candidate.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ron Paul is the only real candidate.

[Pekka]

Well think about it. A lot of people give him the credit that he is the smartest candidate, Republicans and Democrats all included.

So give me the rationale, where the smartest guy shouldn't be the president? It's not like he is so far in his utopias like Kerry was played to be. He's not. He is as practical as any of the candidates, the only difference is, he is a heckuva lot smarter. And he supports freedom more than any other candidate and is responsible.

So... give me a reason why the smartest guy shouldn't be the president?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
So... give me a reason why the smartest guy shouldn't be the president?

He does have one of the finest minds of the 19th Century.

[Pekka]

... and what's wrong with that?

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, seriously. Some really ****ing brilliant people lived in the 19th century.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ron Paul is the only real candidate.

werd.

[Pekka]

But not just in the US. Perhaps in the whole world. I've never liked a candidate so much, including all countries around the world.

Maybe a lot of you guys don't like him and that's fine, but I think he is good. Not just the less worse of the two, but actually a person worthy of action.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Pekka
Ru Paul is the only real candidate.

Fixed.

Ok, not fixed, but more accurate than it was.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Pekka
But not just in the US. Perhaps in the whole world. I've never liked a candidate so much, including all countries around the world.

if there was a politican like ron paul in my country, i'd vote for him, hell i'd probably work for him.

he's the rarest of things in politics. a man who understands what freedom is, and actually believes in it.

[Pekka]

c0ckney, right, that's what I mean. Some people might get pissed off, that I'm here rooting for Ron Paul even though I'm not even a citizen. But a) it's the internet, b) this is what we always do with everyone and most importantly c) I would vote him in here as well. And hell, I would be tempted to join his campagn.

I'm not very political. I can't imagine holding a sign. I can't be bothered to help politicians or work free or even for a fee. But for him, I just might do that.

Besides, it's pretty cool that he has this grass roots level support. He is the #1 candidate on the internet. He has things going for him, like the fact that he is an underdog so people like the underdog, but also he can speak freely. This is such a telling thing from our societies. What do you mean he can speak freely what he really thinks? Isn't that the freaking point?!

He is definitely not a party whore, he isn't allied with anything except his opinions the most. And people use terms a lot, like I support freedom. OK but what do you really mean by that? What does it mean? He says what he means and it isn't like he is dodging difficult questions. In fact, he goes head first and takes on the challenge and IMO is doing very well.

He gets rhetorical BS replies (Giuliani etc) and he doesn't spiral into it. He continues to OWN his opponents and seems solid under fire.

One good thing about him is that he answers to the question. He doesn't answer the question that wasn't asked, but what teh candidates wants to answer instead. It's clear answers and straight to the point.

The only reason I can think a voter wouldn't like him is becasuse the voter is some kind of diehard socialist, and his free market beliefs are strong. Very strong. He doesn't dodge on this one either, he was asked by a member of the audience once if he would support universal healthcare or not. I mean he is a doctor and these kind of question usually translate into very personal ones, as in "so you won't support me getting healthcare".

But he said no. And then he went on about why he doesn't support it. He knows the medical business and doesn't like the suggestion, basically because it would be ineffective and very expensive on top of that. So he wasn't trying to please the person who asked the question at all.

No "I think everyone should have medicine.." blaablaablaa and then "but universal healthcare is not the answer". It was just "No.".. no smoothing, nothing. Just no.

The other reason I think some people will be turned off is his view of Iraq. A lot of people don't like the idea that "we invited them to attack us". Well, that's not what he said. He brings an extremely valid points, that in any common sense would ring plausible and most likely true, parts of it. But people like to cry a lot so they'd rather bastardize the words and get fired up with their candidate, because he is kick ass **** you shut up type of a "leader". You see, these people are the followers. They're locked with their candidate, not because what they say, but because "I just kind of like him. Reminds me of my uncle."

There's two important factors in freedom that I particularly think go hand in hand and not one without the other, and that's freedom of speech and privacy. He is the man for those two. No excuses about 'well something might happen'.

And yes, he actually believes in what he says, that is the words aren't copied from his support group because these speech will kick ass. He says what he believes in, what he has believed in a long time and is being consistent. So basically you know you'll get the guy you voted for. It's another thing if he can deliver promised things, but a tleast you know what he really thinks now and afterwards. This is important. We are voting for a president here, not hiring a manager. The president. It's an important job. Why not choose the best? Why settle for less? It's the PRESIDENT!

[Bosh]

You see, these people are the followers. They're locked with their candidate, not because what they say, but because "I just kind of like him. Reminds me of my uncle."

Yeah, well I'll give Paul that, the amount of fake machismo that's dripping from the rest of the republican field is getting a bit stupid. Its a like a contest to see who can fit the biggest inflatable codpiece down their pants.

It seems that a lot of people who're involved in politics look for a president who can be the kind of daddy that they always wanted, not because they know ****-all about how to run a country.

[Pekka]

Right. Again, it boils down to who would you hire to the #1 position. The smartest guy or the guy that ... has some other attributes you might find attractive, like that he is likeable etc.

I see people not liking his views, I see his free market ideas being too much for some, but if that's not a problem, I just don't see what the other candidates have that he doesn't have and then some. Giuliani turned out to be a one trick pony, I mean I think he sucks at that as well. He has a theme going on, you know, how difficult it is to not **** it up and go overboard every other day? Can you really imagine this guy as a president? McCain is starting to flip flop and just seems to me he wants to ask "so where am I? Who is in the crowd? OK what do these guys want to hear?". I liked him and I still don't dislike him but.. nah.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Pekka
So... give me a reason why the smartest guy shouldn't be the president?

He may be relatively smart, but he sure as hell isn't the smartest in his field. He has some seriously flawed economic issues "Paul advocates... a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency". While he's obviously true to his principles, the amount of social support programmes he'd cut would end up leaving many people in dire straights. I applaud the way he does live up to his principles and on many issues I'd agree with him, but he's way to fiscally conservative, even for the US.

[Pekka]

Not the smartest guy there is, of course not. But in this candidate pool, no one comes near.