Ron Paul 2012

Paul is an idealist, and you have to give him credit for being one of the least bullshit politicians out there. Yes his stances on issues are complicated, but if you have a glimmer of intelligence it doesnt take much to understand his points. Issues like same sex marriages and taxes cant be boiled down to two second news clips or be made out as black and white as the media and other politicians make them out to be. This is from the wikipedia page about his political stance on dont ask dont tell, for me it really epitomizes his position:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[196]


Again, idealist and a radical departure from the norm in Washington, but honestly... are you happy with the norm, even with a 'good' president? Why should idealists be labeled idealists anyways, and discounted as too crazy to elect no matter how good their ideas are? The only thing thats radical about his ideas is that nobody's had the guts to actually propose meaningful and shit-clear legislation recently.

I agree with you and that is a good summary of his position. His voting record speaks for itself. The main stream media labels him as a "cook" but only because he is unpopular with the status quo. Anyone following politics the last decade knows that the status quo doesn't really know what's going on or what they are doing in general.

Yeah, he was pretty good on Hell's Kitchen too.

as an avid supporter of what Paul stands for.
he will never be president. let alone get the GOP nomination.

you only have to watch the whole debate to understand paul doesnt stand for the right, or the left. he stands for reason.


his best moment was when he was asked about legalizing drugs and he showed how his stance on that one issue is actually indicative of his entire world view.

he wants to get rid of the department of education and the department of agriculture. i will not vote for that

why not?

BRILLIANT

im not about to get into the whole tax things but ron paul is certainly not against same sex marriage

what he's saying is that marriage shouldn't be in the hands of the government, its not the governments job to say who and who's not "married"

marriage is subjective, it doesn't matter if the government says that a couple is married...if you believe that their marriage is not valid for whatever reason then some paperwork isn't going to convince you otherwise.

samesex (or whatever other kind) marriage should be legal, trying to force people to agree with it should not be.

ok, department of education i don't care about as much, but i would like to see some sort of nation standard of public education. My worry is that by allowing states to completely dicate their education system that some states will fall behind others. I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we cut the department of education?

What do you think?

i realize that, but arguably the most influential document written after the constitution was the federalist papers, we need a strong central government. thats also why we have a 14th amendment, which makes constitutional amendments applicable to the states.

without the federal government dragging the states, kicking and screaming, toward social progression we would still have segregation, and many of roosevelt's new deal legislation would have been rejected by individual states.

what i'm getting at here is that i agree with paul on a lot of principles, however if we are going to end or seriously reform the drug war and legalize gay marriage, thats going to take a federal initiative. some states would of course change more quickly than others, but do we really want to allow the southern religious states to keep gay marriage illegal for another hundred years? no, so we have to get the federal government to do it.

I'm not too politics savoy, but i really agree with pretty mush all of his responses.  America needs to stop trying to be the World police and let other countries deal with their shit. It really suck how much other countries depend on us, and i agree how we need to stop doing that and make them figure all their own shit out rather than having problems not related to our countries bringing us down.

I think its important to balance state and federal though, and one could make a pretty convincing case for there being an imbalance on the side of too much federal right now. Consider how hard it is for our government to pass meaningful legislation, like healthcare reform. Consider how over budget the system is every year and how much debt we've accumulated. If you really think our federal government isn't too hulkingly and hopelessly bureaucratic at present... Really?

Paul Ryan should join in there as a Candidate....dude is a straight G

If you are a federalist, then it might be the most important document written after the Constitution. There are a lot of people who disagree with Hamilton and Madison mostly over the "necessary and proper" clause and that the executive branch wielded too much power. I do agree with some points in the Federalist Papers.

Hey, I feel like your heart is in the right place so I'd like to point a few things out. Mostly that the societal ills you brought up are/were enforced by government, both state and federal. It takes laws and police (both government) to enforce segregation, the war on drugs, and the illegality of same sex marriage. The most simple, direct, and lasting solution is to simply have no government. Creating a larger government to fix smaller government is a bit silly. Though you didn't mention it, I might as well point out that war is impossible without government.

people are fucking retarded and the bipartisanship of our country is full proof of that. oh and look trump had no intentions of running for president and was just using it for publicity for the release of his new book... shocking. sucks the media and people had to be dumb ass suckers for his bullshit PR stunt.

>america