Ron Paul. Some say he's nuts. Some say he is our only hope?

Question

For those of you who say he's nuts or some other equivilant. Can you specifically say why? I see a lot of people just writing him off, but never with any reason.

He believes in the Constitution, the free market, and he's anti-war. He believes in a smaller government. What do you disagree with him on?

Answer 1

Ron Paul can't run a grocery store, much less the executive branch.

Answer 2

in response to time_wounds_all_heelz
---
I just thought I would help you understand Ron Paul's stance on a few things. He is against the CIA and the FBI in their *current* state. He is all for intelligence gathering, but that's not all the CIA consists of. He is of the belief that they do things which damage our relations with other countries, which in turn causes others to dislike us. I'm not trying to make you like Ron Paul, but I just wanted to clear that up. FOXNews knows his actual stance, but them bringing it up with limited time is a great way for people to only look at the surface, like you did. I don't fault you for it. FOX knows exactly what they're doing, and they're the best at it.

Here is where Ron Paul was on Bill Maher discussing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU

In regards to Dr. Paul's last question...
It was posed in a way to corner him, if you think that's silly, then you really don't understand FOXNews. The question stated that economic sanctions were put on Iran but they refused to authorized force. If the international community doesn't feel force is necessary, the next obvious course of action is to see what the Congress thinks. That's *exactly* what he said. He didn't dodge the question. He then gave a similar example where force was not necessary. That is not dodging the question. It was him presenting a case why force is not always necessary.

"His plan to let Al Queda dictate to us"
You seriously bought the junk that Chris Wallace said? Can you get a more loaded question? Wallace used what's called a strawman argument. That's not at all what Paul was implying. Ron Paul is not against war. He's not against building a strong defense. He is against going about things illegally, which is what are doing right now in Iraq.

Answer 3

even with the answers given, you can tell there is an agenda with some of them. a little research would tell you that he is NOT cutting and running. A little research will tell you that he does not want to get rid of the cia/fbi.. but he does want to get rid of the IRS -- He believes its YOUR MONEY. If government wasn't so careless with its spending, you could enjoy the fruits of your labour. Read this quote whenever you hear people saying he is a nutjob or whatever.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him. - Johnathan Swift

Answer 4

For the same reason that nuts think a sane person is nuts..

A lot of Neo-con brainwashed people will think he's nuts. America has been fed with hogwash for so long that people think the constitution is just a piece of paper. They believe in welfare, big government, and agressive foreign policy - these are the Neo-con lemmings.

I wouldn't even try reasoning with Neo-con lemmings. It's a waste of time. I talk to people who can think independently instead of those who succumb to groupthink (peer pressure).

Answer 5

I am arguing that (Republicans) have lost their way. Right now, on the surface, a lot of Republicans in Washington will be critical of my positions, saying "I don't support the president or the party," but if you look at our platform, our state platforms, our policy positions, I would say we have lost our way. And quite frankly, I have not seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that's actually offering to stand up and stand for the principals the Republican Party has been built on.

In the past six years, when the foreign policy really changed, when we accepted the notion of pre-emptive war, a strong violation of our personal civil liberties, (we) at the same time (became) the party of entitlements, doubling the size of the Department of Education, McCain-Feingold. These are all things that Republicans used to criticize and not support, and all of a sudden we accept them. In essence, we have accepted what has traditionally been the Democratic platform -- increase entitlements and foreign intervention, getting involved in quagmires abroad.

IRAQ:

The president, if we are attacked or there is an imminent threat, has the authority to go to war. That's been clearly understood since the Constitution. ... The president, as commander in chief, can defend his country in times of emergency. But you know what? That has never happened in all these years. Even with the Soviet threat. ... Under today's conditions, the policy has significantly changed for the worse. That is, we now have established that our policy is to pre-emptively strike a country that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us. We just want to go in and have regime change.

We ought to look to the Constitution. ... We should only fight when there is a declaration of war, when there is an extreme circumstance. We should not have all options on the table to attack Iran when they don't have a weapon.

We shouldn't finance bad policy or unconstitutional war.


Ron Paul: A Conservative Study in Contrasts
IMMIGRATION:

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the top issues in this country. ... People are really, really disgusted with it. I think the immigration problem is in some ways a symptom. And my position is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we subsidize and encourage illegal immigration. It started in the 1980s when amnesty was given after illegals came here.

Amnesty, ... I don't like that idea; I don't want to reward those who are already here. I don't think anybody has an easy answer about what to do with those who are already here. I think we ought to enforce the law, but what kind of an army would you need to round them up?

I also don't support a pathway to citizenship. They cannot get in the front of the line; I would not reward them in any way whatsoever.

I would also get rid of all the mandates from the federal government that say the states must provide free education, medical care and benefits to illegals. That is another reason they bring their families over here.

I believe we should beef up the borders, and I believe it should be civilian, not military. I believe we shouldn't be worried about the border between North and South Korea after 50 years or about the border between Iraq and Syria. I mean, that's where all our money and personnel is going. I think we should bring the troops home and getting them out of the war mode and probably be using the resources … to beef up our borders without adding any cost to the budget.

SPENDING:

I don't think there is one single budget you can't cut. Politically, the easiest budget to cut is the overseas expenditures. And then you deal with other problems as time goes on. I certainly would not be signing a bill that would double the size of the DOE or increase the size of the entitlement system or a drug company-promoted prescription drug program. That's where we as Republicans have fallen down, and that is the reason our base was very unhappy last September.

TAXES:

We lived in this country a long time without income tax, but then we had limited government. I don't think we need an income tax. I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position. My slogan at home has always been "the taxpayers' best friend," and most people like that regardless of what party they are in.

CAMPAIGN STRATEGY:

I felt good about every trip I have taken. We always pick up support and enthusiasm, … and the reception has been good. We don't have $100 million in the bank; we are not supported by wealthy special interests, so we are not polling. ... We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four or five early states, but the pressure is to have everybody together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever.

Republicans sometimes get intimidated that they have to follow the party instead of the platform and our promises in the Constitution. My job … is to make conservatives feel comfortable on any number of issues for really following through on what they believe in.

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

GOLD STANDARD:

I don't exactly say, 'Let's go back to the gold standard,' and you may chuckle a little bit, … but the question has to be turned around. What is it that possesses anybody to think that governments, which (are) not trusted by anybody, should have the power to create money out of thin air and create runaway spending and allow the politicians to not worry about deficits in order to buy reelection? And allow them to police the world and allow them to provide all these big benefits? ... That is the most astounding philosophy in the world, and it has never worked, … and now we are in the process of a failing dollar. ... So, yes, I want to restore integrity to the money, not be a counterfeiter. My proposal is not to close the Federal Reserve down and go back to the 19th century, it's just to legalize that which the founders consider(ed) very important.

Answer 6

So did David Koresh.... Forget this wing nut and move on. I'm in the party, & nobody is following this guy. He's the Gop version of Kusinich or Al Sharpton.....

Answer 7

They label him as being nuts, because he is the only one that thinks and speaks with common sense....no other candidate either democrat or republican has acknowledge the consequences of US foreign policies over the last 20 years.....only he has.....and for that his Party attacks him by saying that he is unpatriotic.....its typical republican spin machine at work....Ron Paul is the only candidate that speaks with sincerity and facts.

Answer 8

i think of there are 2 obtainable -- no, make that 3 obtainable the reason human beings could desire to evaluate Ron Paul to be bonkers. a million. detrimental perceptions and prejudices against the guy -- on the component to liberals and protection tension interventionists, say, who oppose some areas of his platform. Unthinking opposition to the guy on the component to different liberals & protection tension interventionists who think of that they "be attentive to" what Paul stands for, even while they don't. 2. Ron Paul's very own habit and public statements, which strike many observers as being ridiculously incorrect. 3. "Guilt by ability of association," the tendency for some human beings to mistrust Ron Paul basically through employer he retains, through ideals of his supporters. as an occasion, i think of I even have reliable motives to have faith that a minimum of a million individual writing in protection of Paul, in replying on your question, is a committed white racist, a individual who has published Qs and As in Yahoo Politics that demonize black human beings. properly, if this individual likes Paul and needs to preserve his suggestions and his checklist, I as an anti-racist ask myself: How solid can he be, extremely? Guilt by ability of association is somewhat a logical fallacy, no remember who does it. it extremely is probable basically as unfair to decide Ron Paul's politics by ability of the racist perspectives of a few of his supporters as that's for conservatives to decide President Obama harshly through fact of what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has stated in his greater extreme statements. needless to say, Ron Paul could be a very good individual and adversarial to racial bias, even with the perspectives of a few of his supporters, and clearly, Obama could be a very good individual even with grotesque issues that Rev. Wright has stated. yet "guilt by ability of association" is the way that a lot of human beings's brains easily paintings, and that i'm particular it reasons some human beings to dislike Ron Paul through fact we've faith his maximum popular supporters are biased & keen approximately racial fears.

Answer 9

...I'm not buying anything coming from anyone connected to Texas/Bush/Cheney/etc.There are alot of reasons Americans should be suspicious of the power elite in this country.They hav become very clever when it comes to getting what they want at the expense of American kids lives and our tax dollars...it's criminal.
....So,NO-I reserve all opinion about everyone running because we the people are burned almost every election.We need a new round of men and women whom are less "connected"...in Washington.The rich man's club has got to go...now.

Answer 10

Here you go:

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.# Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress.Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox.