Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

[Terranix]

Ron Paul is an old-fashioned Republican, and the only man left in the race against McCain. A Texan Congressman, he was a medical doctor by trade (specialising in delivering and caring for babies) and he served in the military as a flight surgeon in his youth.

He favours preservation of personal liberties and freedom of choice, abolition of the income tax and taxes on savings, small government, Presidential accountability to Congress and deference to the laws of individual States, sound monetary policy based on something like a gold (and silver) standard, and a peaceful foreign policy based on "peace, commerce and honest friendship".

This post might end up sprawling, so if you don't click up anything else please click up this link for an overview of Ron Paul and what he stands for:

YouTube - Ron Paul at his best...

Even briefer but less helpful is the "About" page from his campaign website:

Ron Paul 2008 › About Ron Paul

Some of his books, one released just the other day:

Amazon.com: The Revolution: A Manifesto: Ron Paul: Books

Amazon.com: A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship: Ron Paul: Books

Issues

On the Iraq War:

We have a lot of goodness in this country and we should promote it, but never through the barrel of a gun. We should do it by setting good standards, motivating people and have them want to emulate us. You can't enforce our goodness, like the neo-cons preach, with an armed force; it doesn't work.

Military force is justified only in self-defence, naked aggression is the province of rogue states and dictators. This is a danger of a new 'pre-emptive strike first doctrine'. America is the most moral nation on Earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use force.

Ron Paul spoke out on Iraq at the Republican GOP debate, and found himself out of step with the rest of the candidates:

YouTube - GOP Debate II: Ron Paul Explains "Blowback" to GOP

YouTube - RON PAUL VERBALLY ASS POUNDS A STUPID REPORTER WITH TRUTH (apologies for the OTT video name, it isn't mine)

Ron Paul is a major proponent of personal liberty and freedom of choice; he might not approve personally of your choices but he does not think he, as President, has the right to take those choices out of your hands. He says of cannabis: "It should be up to the individual, and if you make bad mistakes, you suffer the consequences."

Ron Paul on drugs, homosexuality and prostitution:

YouTube - RON PAUL ON DRUGS WITH JOHN STOSSEL

Paul is very libertarian in outlook compared to most Republicans, clearly.
He takes his cue from the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. He has never voted for any legislation restricting the First Amendment:

Originally Posted by The Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...But he has always voted against restricting the Second Amendment on gun ownership, too. He is also conservative in his views on illegal immigration and abortion (which is perhaps unsurprising given his long career as a "baby doctor").

Ron Paul on gun rights and the Second Amendment:

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Second Amendment (feat. Rachel)

Ron Paul on illegal immigration:

YouTube - Ron Paul on Immigration

Ron Paul on abortion (disapproves) and stem cell research (approves):

YouTube - Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research

His economic views are pretty unique. He opposes the "Federal" Reserve and "fraudulent" money in the shape of credit and wealth created "out of thin air". He regards the inflationary effect this has on currency as a kind of theft, because it makes people's bank account and savings less valuable.

YouTube - Ron Paul on the Economic Collapse!

It's not just "the Fed" he would abolish. He believes in shrinking government accross the board; local State law and government should be respected in most cases.

What seems most appealing about Paul is, whether or not you agree with him, it's obvious he's a conviction politician. He believes strongly in what he stands for. Reassuringly, what he believes in most strongly is that it is not up to him to "run your life" or "run the world", and he has always voted on principle:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
  He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
  He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
  He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
  He has never taken a government-paid junket.
  He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
  He voted against the Patriot Act.
  He voted against regulating the Internet.
  He voted against the Iraq war.
  He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
  He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
  He introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

I'm pretty fond of the guy, but then I guess I'm a sucker for kindly grandfather thing he has going on. What do you guys think?

[F3]

Ron Paul is unelectable.

[Slime]

He's pretty much the only sane Republican left. I'd be surprised if there's anyone willing to stick as closely to the Constitution as he does. While I agree with him in many areas, I take issue with some of his views on homosexuality, abortion, the environment and immigration. But other than that, he'd be the best president in years.

But, like F3 said, he isn't electable. Americans just want more of the same for some reason.

[Cody]

Well, I don't live in America and haven't so kept up with all the propaganda that CCN and FOX spit out at each other, but from what I know based solely on this thread, he sounds like a good choice to me.

[sugarpoultry]

I'm glad he's against abortion, of course he can't completely ban it, but I'm glad he is against it. I'm NOT ok with him against the War in Iraq.

I don't see myself voting for him.

[ARealRevolution]

Ron Paul will never be President, but I admire that hes against the Iraq War when his whole party is in favour of it. And I think he has the guts to follow the Constitution. And he is still in the Republican race, which shows that there is division in the Republican Party.

[Margar]

that CNN interview should be enough for anyone to realize this guy is the only sane republican out there. I have no idea why he is so unfavorable. someone high up there is keeping him down. he's been painted as "crazy"

in fact, I was just watching that interview at work and my boss walked in and said "Ron Paul is crazy!"
WHY? what reason would anybody have for calling him crazy?!?!?
his views may not line up with yours but listen to him speak for 2 minutes and anyone can see that he is clearly honest, sane, and makes a lot of sense.
He is the only republican I would ever consider voting for. It makes me sad that all people need to disregard a candidate is for someone to say "He's crazy!!!" and they just believe it.

SHEEPLE!!!!

[Slime]

Yeah, for some reason it's "crazy" to adhere to the principles America was founded on these days. That's just the nature of politics today, especially in the Neoconservative side of things. The "moral" Right just want complete control. Whether it's your personal life choice or your civil liberties, they want big government to regulate everything. That, and they want to police the world. They're all bat**** insane.

[Aralith]

This is probably the only Republican I'd ever consider voting for. My only real problem with him? His religious agenda. I am just far too afraid that he will let his religion get in the way with politics, which shouldn't happen no matter what religion you are. I wouldn't even care if he was an atheist like me, I still wouldn't vote for him if his atheism was going to get in the way of his politics. If it wasn't for the religion though, man he might actually get my vote. The homosexuality and abortion thing is a little deterring though. Then again, that's kind of what I mean by his religion interfering with his politics, so if it wasn't for that he probably would be at the very least more lax about these issues than he is now. And go him for being the only Republican against the Iraq War. I love old conservatism. I hate neo-cons though. Bush is a neo-con. See what he brought us?

[DarKnite92]

By far the one I'd most likely vote out of the Republicans, but he won't be president for a long time to say the least (considering he won't be alive much longer, also extremely unlikely).

[Terranix]

This is probably the only Republican I'd ever consider voting for. My only real problem with him? His religious agenda. I am just far too afraid that he will let his religion get in the way with politics, which shouldn't happen no matter what religion you are.

I doubt very much that would be an issue for Paul. He's a very strict Constitutionalist, and the Constitution is very clear about favouring or persecuting any particular religion in the First Amendment. This is him giving his opinion on "Church and State":

YouTube - CHURCH VS. STATE, GAYS IN THE MILITARY, IMMIGRATION REFORM

Originally Posted by Slime

While I agree with him in many areas, I take issue with some of his views on homosexuality, abortion, the environment and immigration. But other than that, he'd be the best president in years.

I think you'd likely find him a lot more reasonable on those subjects than you'd think. This video I posted above showcases some his views where homosexuality and immigration are concerned; I think the following is high stance on environmental issues in a nutshell:

The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

• I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
  
  I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
  
  Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
  
  I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

This seems as a good a method of curtailing pollution as any, and, happily, does not involve large, expensive government beauracracies bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on anyone.

And here we have him reluctantly tackling a member of the Christian right on homosexuality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE&NR=1

As an aside, I enjoyed the use of the term "sheeple" earlier in the thread; haven't seen that in ages.

[Nox]

Originally Posted by F3

Ron Paul is unelectable.

A sad but true fact.

I would vote for Paul if more support was given to him.

[Snarwin]

Well, he looks like a reasonable guy, which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians, but he hasn't got a chance in hell of being elected.

I suppose that says something about this country.

[F3]

Warning: The term "sheeple" has been detected in this thread. Current theory suggests that the quality of discussion will now decline.

[ARealRevolution]

Americans had there chance to pick Ron Paul in the Republican primaries but they didnt. Its kinda sad Americans complain but ask for more.

[nighthawkx]

in my opinion he was about the best one could have expected out of a politician.

Originally Posted by Snarwin

Well, he looks like a reasonable guy, which is more than I can say for a lot of politicians, but he hasn't got a chance in hell of being elected.

I suppose that says something about this country.

all we need are a few assassinations and...
I wouldn't do that though. would never consider it.
but only one person stands between him and nomination...

[MustangNicko]

I come from Australia and i LOVE this guy. I wish he'd run for Prime Minister here lol

Wake up America... this is the man

[Asci]

The fact that Ron Paul hasn't yet dropped out of the race is shocking.

[Slime]

I don't blame him. He's got a great message, and as long as he stays in the race, the more publicity he'll get. It's obviously not a lot, since all the media is reporting on is the Obama/Clinton race, but it's better than nothing. If him staying in the race can prompt people to buy his book (which is doing pretty good on bestseller lists) and learn his message, then that's enough. It's not so much about him anymore, but giving people a chance to learn what is wrong with America.

[Nietzsche]

Eh. I don't like him. His economic policies are absolutely insane. It's quite obvious he's just a "pretender" in the race. He knows he can't win. Not to mention he's way too on the fence on important rights' issues. "States rights! States rights! States rights!" That's the bloody mentality that started the Civil War.

[nighthawkx]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Eh. I don't like him. His economic policies are absolutely insane. It's quite obvious he's just a "pretender" in the race. He knows he can't win. Not to mention he's way too on the fence on important rights' issues. "States rights! States rights! States rights!" That's the bloody mentality that started the Civil War.

I always interpretted him as being a proponent of local rights. as in a given county or city would have increased authority.

as should be, inefficient area should not be subsidized by MY tax dollars.

[DarKnite92]

Originally Posted by Terranix

This seems as a good a method of curtailing pollution as any, and, happily, does not involve large, expensive government beauracracies bringing the heavy end of the hammer down on anyone.

The main problem with his enviromental policies are that he wants to drill in Alaska.