So Republicans..Whose your guy/gal???

[Imran Siddiqui]

It isn't just the parties, but the members of each party. The ordinary people don't want their benefits slashed.

[Mojotronica]

Isn't it odd that someone who possesses 0 charisma could run such a successful presidential campaign? A little... suspicious?

Paul is obviously too Libertarian to clinch the Republican nomination. Clinching the nomination isn't really the point of his campaign, the point of his campaign is to move the electorate in the direction of Libertarian ideals. That's why he is comfortable voicing various controversial positions on issues. Paul is probably too old anyway.

His son, Rand Paul, has a promising political career ahead of him, and after a couple of embarrassing gaffes, he moderated his stance on some issues to enhance his appeal to mainstream GOP. Libertarian ideals aren't 100% compatible with the Republican platform/mainstream.

Ron Paul has been successful in raising his profile and in building the grass roots foundation of the Tea Party GOP off-shoot. That's no small accomplishment but I'm sure he knows he has no realistic chance to clinch the nom, and if he clinched the nom he'd be an extreme long-shot to win. That's why he is free to take stances that Romney (for instance) can't.

[giblets]

It isn't just the parties, but the members of each party. The ordinary people don't want their benefits slashed.

That just shows libertarians are often also greedy *******s.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That just shows libertarians are often also greedy *******s.

Well that's just obvious.

[OzzyKP]

Paul is obviously too Libertarian to clinch the Republican nomination. Clinching the nomination isn't really the point of his campaign, the point of his campaign is to move the electorate in the direction of Libertarian ideals. That's why he is comfortable voicing various controversial positions on issues. Paul is probably too old anyway.

His son, Rand Paul, has a promising political career ahead of him, and after a couple of embarrassing gaffes, he moderated his stance on some issues to enhance his appeal to mainstream GOP. Libertarian ideals aren't 100% compatible with the Republican platform/mainstream.

Ron Paul has been successful in raising his profile and in building the grass roots foundation of the Tea Party GOP off-shoot. That's no small accomplishment but I'm sure he knows he has no realistic chance to clinch the nom, and if he clinched the nom he'd be an extreme long-shot to win. That's why he is free to take stances that Romney (for instance) can't.

I don't think he is nearly as much of a long shot as people repeatedly say. For either the nomination or the general. Now, I doubt he'll win either, but I put his chances above plenty of other candidates who were regarded seriously at one point or another. Your analysis is mostly correct though. I'm sure I'd be rather disappointed/frightened if Ron Paul was actually the guy sitting in the Oval Office. But his direction is the right direction to be headed in, which is why I support him and plan to vote for him.

[kentonio]

Paul is one of those people who you can listen to and think 'yeah that makes loads of sense!'. Then you start to think about what those 'sensible' things would mean in practise and you realise that it would mean millions of people being left in poverty and almost certainly thousands more deaths, and those who have a heart then realize that Pauls libertarianism is not a reasonable answer.

[DanS]

But his direction is the right direction to be headed in, which is why I support him and plan to vote for him.

I think this is the way to go, if you believe that. Tactical voting doesn't make any sense to me.

[Felch]

Paul is one of those people who you can listen to and think 'yeah that makes loads of sense!'. Then you start to think about what those 'sensible' things would mean in practise and you realise that it would mean millions of people being left in poverty and almost certainly thousands more deaths, and those who have a heart then realize that Pauls libertarianism is not a reasonable answer.

Not invading countries causes thousands of deaths? Are you G.W. Bush by any chance?

[Hauldren Collider]

kentonio the neocon...jesus, it actually makes so much sense for him to be one...

[kentonio]

Not invading countries causes thousands of deaths? Are you G.W. Bush by any chance?

I agree with Paul on a few things, but even on military action he goes too far. We can all go 'Yeah Iraq was BAD m'kay!' but how about Pauls position that he wouldn't have ordered US troops to intervene in the Holocaust? Paul deserves points for standing true to his beliefs (except on abortion where he's a ****ing hypocrite) but what he proves time and time again is that those beliefs are extreme.

[kentonio]

kentonio the neocon...jesus, it actually makes so much sense for him to be one...

I was a conservative when you were still ****ting in your diapers.

[HalfLotus]

Newt v. Ron on housing and GSEs

Newt Gingrich, April 24, 2007, at a meeting for Freddie Mac employees:

"Certainly there is a lot of debate today about the housing GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises], but I think it is telling that there is strong bipartisan support for maintaining the GSE model in housing. There is not much support for the idea of removing the GSE charters from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. And I think it's clear why. The housing GSEs have made an important contribution to homeownership and the housing finance system. We have a much more liquid and stable housing finance system than we would have without the GSEs. And making homeownership more accessible and affordable is a policy goal I believe conservatives should embrace. Millions of people have entered the middle class through building wealth in their homes, and there is a lot of evidence that homeownership contributes to stable families and communities. These are results I think conservatives should embrace and want to extend as widely as possible."

Ron Paul, July 16, 2002, before the House of Representatives:

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB)...

"One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital...

"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing...

"However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."

http://www.dailypaul.com/190096/wow-newt-v-ron-on-housing-and-gses

[Lorizael]

I agree with Paul on a few things, but even on military action he goes too far. We can all go 'Yeah Iraq was BAD m'kay!' but how about Pauls position that he wouldn't have ordered US troops to intervene in the Holocaust? Paul deserves points for standing true to his beliefs (except on abortion where he's a ****ing hypocrite) but what he proves time and time again is that those beliefs are extreme.

Uh, we never ordered troops to intervene in the Holocaust.

[Hauldren Collider]

Paul believes in protecting people's rights--so his position on abortion is totally consistent.

Right to life

[giblets]

So, then, would it also be consistent for him to support a military intervention that is supposed to stop a genocide? Or invade a country in order to protect its population's rights from some dictator?