Students for Sensible Drug Policy question presidential candidates

Discuss

77 Responses to “Students for Sensible Drug Policy question presidential candidates”

  1. millie fink says:

    Kinda nice, but SSDP should look closely at the rest of Paul’s policies before they “fully support” him.

    • novium says:

      You know, I’d never ever want to see him in high office, but I really think I’d enjoy having him in the general election debates. Even as a third candidate. Just because it’d be nice to have opinions like, “hey, so how about we don’t assassinate american citizens without trials? ” up there, instead of arguments over whether oh, assassinating american citizens without trial was either too soft or just the right amount of ruthless.

      • Ito Kagehisa says:

        I think he’d do fine in higher offices.  There’s these governmental paradigms we used to call “checks and balances” that all previous presidents have worked hard to eliminate – I really do think Ron Paul, for all his unworkable economic theories, would do his best to restore them.  For instance I don’t see Ron Paul fighting wars without a legal declaration and clear casus belli.

        I’ll never get a chance to vote for him for President, though – the rest of my countrymen are too intimidated by the very idea of a person whose ethics aren’t dictated by this morning’s poll figures.

        And frankly, anybody who would want the job of US president is a nut case, so he’s not alone in that.

        • chenille says:

          Ron Paul wants to cut military expenditures and reign in the federal government. He also wants to destroy social programs and let states discriminate however they like, as his remarks on disaster relief and civil rights show.

          Given that he will face opposition and it will be difficult to do all of these, do you really think he’s most likely to accomplish the first two?

          • Amphigorey says:

            Exactly. This is what people miss when they yearn for a Paul presidency: that his awful policies are vastly more likely to be passed than his few good ideas, because it will have to go through Congress, and Congress is *conservative*. There’s no way Paul would be able to end the war on some drugs without approval from Congress, and he’d have a hell of a time getting us to stop funding other wars.

            Social programs, though? Those would be easily and readily cut. And you’d be damn sure that any Supreme Court appointee from Paul would be virulently anti-woman.

      • startrekkie says:

        @Millie Fink. (Oops! Hit reply to the wrong person!)

        Yes, while I agree, let’s run through who Mr. Paul is. He has been in Washington for decades, voting no on nearly all legislation. He is an Old Right conservative who takes the oath to the constitution quite seriously. He is part of the generation that grew up during the Depression and World War II. He studied in medical school before abortion was widely accepted. He was spurred to enter politics when Nixon closed the gold window. He is a husband of 53 years, a father of five children, a grandfather and great-grandfather.

        He has never admitted to being a progressive. Nor, as I have already stated, is he a member of the baby-boom generation. Nonetheless, he is able to connect well with young, internet-using Americans. He is not a power-hungry gentleman. He’s not hateful, per se, but he may not be the most informed with the social tolerances and advancements of the last few decades.

        In the end, Paul is a mortal man, but has some good character and a healthy ego, considering he is a politician, a Texas Republican who has to worry about elections and well-funded challengers and the media and public opinion and personal integrity and lobbyists.

        Here in New Hampshire, voters like to look candidates in the eye and talk to them in diners, the old-fashioned way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Mj7z3VHGs . I am a proud voter of Paul in the January 10 primary. Still have my yard sign up.  I think he earned my vote.

        • nate says:

          “He’s not hateful, per se, but” he believes that “95 percent of the black males in [DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” which I guess is just an old-timey quirk, nbd.

          • Ender Wiggin says:

            Ending the war on drugs (which turned 90% of those blacks into criminals) would do a hell of a lot more in one swoop to help the black community, than any other  potential president would do, including Obama.  I don’t really give a rats ass what his “personal” feelings are.  Unlike the rest of them he’s proven that he’s not going to legislate by his feelings, (unless by “feelings” you mean, “liberty” or “personal freedom and social responsibility”) but instead by his view of his oath, and the constitution.  Thats more than you’re going to get anywhere else mate.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Racism is hilarious! If you’re white.

          • nate says:

            Antinous, ??? I’m not sure what the substance of this response is [EDIT, I am an idiot, see below, sorry!] — uhh, thanks for the finger-wag, maybe? — but I am a cracker and I still find Ron Paul’s racism to be non-hilarious.

            Ender, congratulations on having decided what is best for the black community! I happen to agree with Ron Paul’s position on the drug war, but I hope you can appreciate that many people don’t relish the thought of giving the launch codes and the 101st Airborne to a guy who published paranoid screeds about the coming race war.  Like, recently.  Ron Paul’s conspiracy tendencies and racism aren’t “personal feelings” — it’s not like the guy dislikes spinach or something — they are political beliefs and we should probably assume that they’ll influence him if he’s, like, the most powerful political leader on the planet.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            I was agreeing with you, not snarking at you.

          • nate says:

            startrekkie, the 95% line, though drawn from one of the newsletters published under Ron Paul’s name, came up in a 1995 TV interview.  He didn’t deny authorship then — rather, he defended the statement as factually inaccurate.  Although possibly the interview wasn’t by Ron Paul, but rather a guy wearing a Ron Paul mask? Seriously, when a public figure publishes some crazy shit, gets called on it, and gives two mutually exclusive explanations (“I was 100% right!” and “Someone else wrote that, I never believed it!”), you can go ahead and believe the one that sounds worse.

  2. jdollak says:

    I don’t know if they should characterize Romney’s response as “freaks out.”

  3. Sagodjur says:

    I know it’s not that simple, but Rick Santorum actually managed to assuage my fears of Ron Paul getting elected when he spoke of Paul’s proposed changes vs. what he would actually do if elected.

    I was worried that the rational things that Paul supports, such as a sensible drug policy, would not actually happen despite his ambitions, but that the crazier things like getting rid of the Department of Education (instead of reforming it) would happen.

    But Santorum asserted that if Paul were to be elected, all the “bad” things that Paul stood for (which, coming from a kooky conservative like Santorum, means that I would inversely think they’re good thing) would happen on day one and all the “good” things (which when translated from Dirty Santorum speak into rational language means bad things) would not happen.

    Like I said, I know it’s not that simple, but I feel less worried about Paul getting elected than say, Gingrinch or Dirty Santorum.

  4. orwell says:

    ron paul is the only candidate running who “gets it.”  i also feel that he’s probably onto something, as its painfully obvious how little air time he gets from the media in regards to the likes of mittens, grinchy and snor’em…  if big media is pointing the camera at these other yahoos, there’s gotta be a reason…

    • MrEricSir says:

      That’s because he only “gets it” when it comes to drug policy.  His economic polices are about as insane as they come.

      • orwell says:

        please elaborate… reducing taxes, less military spending and a balanced budget are insane?

        • MrEricSir says:

          Balanced budgets are a horrible idea — anyone who’s paid attention to the Euro crisis would have realized this by now.

          But let’s also not forget that Paul’s got many solutions in search of problems, for example returning to the gold standard.  His view on the federal government would involve firing just about everyone, which would not only reduce GDP substantially but would cause unemployment to rise to catastrophic levels.

          • orwell says:

            is this sarcasm?  seriously…  balanced budgets are bad?  debt is good?  so the ridiculous, never-ending, ever-growing national debt, in your eyes, must be marvelous?

            firing the government is a bad idea?  i’m not saying we don’t need some government, which is what paul is saying, but please show how government employees contribute to the GDP?  what product do they produce, sell and profit from, other than our blood, sweat and tears as taxpayers?

            your logic dictates then that greater GDP and employment would be achieved through hiring more government workers?  who’s actually going to be left to do the work, generate dollars and pay for these people?

            sorry my friend, i disagree strongly and will leave it at that…

          • Wow… just… wow. I fear for our children.

          • MrEricSir says:

            Orwell, I never said debt was “good.”  Debt is a tool used by every sensible government, business, and individual. By making it out to be good or evil you’re missing the point of what it is and what it’s for.

            If you don’t think government employees contribute to GDP, then you simply don’t know what GDP is.  Do you know what country had the second highest GDP in the world during much of the 20th century?  Hint: that country did not have private industry.

            Disagree with me if you want, but do yourself a favor and actually study the things you’re talking about before forming an opinion.  Being ignorant and opinionated is dangerous.

          • Crashproof says:

            If you think debt is inherently “bad,” try buying a house with cash.  (Or building one.  Or starting  a business capable of employing people, so they can save up enough money to buy a house with cash.)

            Government is generally a service rather than a product — but that service is nothing less than the infrastructure upon which everything in civilization hangs.  If you want to live in a world with no laws, police, firefighters, teachers, roads, a social safety net, safety standards, technological standards, publicly funded research, and no doubt a dozen other vitally important things that we take for granted on a daily basis, be my guest.  
            Everything from the internet down to the standards used for timekeeping, from the fact that companies can’t sell you rat poison in a box labelled “sugar”, to the fact that 8 year old kids are no longer dying in mining jobs, to the fact that you can read, is the product of “government employees.”

  5. GIFtheory says:

    Oh Ron Paul, if only you weren’t a crazy, racist old man hell-bent on bringing about the new American Libertarian caliphate dys^H^H^Hutopia, you’d have my vote.

    • orwell says:

      so who would you vote for?

      • Ito Kagehisa says:

        I usually vote for my mom.  She could totally do any governmental job.

        But recently my state has decided to give up pretending to be any sort of democracy and has eliminated the counting of write-in votes.

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      He has religious beliefs I find repugnant, particularly concerning sexuality, but so does every other candidate for president.  He’s also old and crazy, as you’ve pointed out, but so are most of my friends.  I’m interested in hearing more at his supposed racism – is there anything other than those ridiculously over-hyped newsletters?

      So far, I look at every piece of so-called “evidence” and see nothing that cannot be easily and convincingly explained away by Paul apologists.  And the people claiming he’s a racist are often themselves rabid extremists of one sort of another, who have skeletons in their own closets – which does not inspire me to sign on to their ad hominem bandwagon.

      Where’s the real evidence?  Who has the man hurt or discriminated against based on race?  When?  Where?  Where’s the picture of him standing around with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms in the Klan fitting room?  I’m really not buying the racism angle.

  6. Daniel Smith says:

    It really is too bad we can’t make a candidate that is a chimera, made up of all the best qualities of the fatally flawed candidates available and discarding all of the dross. Unfortunately, even though most candidates have at least one idea I can agree with, all of them hold opinions too odious to overlook. It is a sad state of affairs when the choice is the least bad rather than the best.

  7. It’s fascinating how we go from feeling that the Corporations control everything and it’s all rather hopeless, to thinking that ONE person will be able to make  a difference, investing all of our hopes in them. I agree with a lot of Dr. Paul’s ideas, especially re: the Fed and our foreign policy…..but even if he were to get elected, look at the way Obama has been stymied. Now imagine if it was President Paul.

    • Cowicide says:

      It’s fascinating how we go from feeling that the Corporations control everything and it’s all rather hopeless, to thinking that ONE person will be able to make  a difference, investing all of our hopes in them.

      I’ve never determined that corporations control everything and I’ve certainly never thought just voting in a president will change everything.

      I remember when Obama was elected and many people around me were literally jumping in the air with excitement (Paris on the Platte in Denver).  I sat with my rosicrucian friend and discussed why this was a bunch of irrational exuberance because Obama would be neutered because of the retarded American public’s failure to enable the dude.

      The American public screwed up hard by not putting a large enough majority of democrats in the House and Senate.  Merely electing Obama was pretty dumb.  This gives the democrats the “excuses” they need to blame the republicans for not being able to do jack shit for the American public.

      Put in a much larger majority of  good democrats (none of those bluedog DINOs) within the House and Senate and then let’s criticize Obama et al for shitting on hope if they don’t accomplish anything past that point.

      Once you remove the excuses and the responsibility all lies upon them, then the democrats tend to shine even if it’s for no other reason than to keep their asses in office.

      I wish there was a challenger to Obama right now or at the very least the American public wises up and enables him with House/Senate sweeps in November.

      • Yeah I seem to recall that the Dems controlled all 3 branches of government for a while. Of course there is a bottomless well of excuses as to why the Obama administration was a total failure, but not a single one of them has anything to do with the Obama administration. Funny how that works.

        • Cowicide says:

          Yeah I seem to recall that the Dems controlled all 3 branches of government for a while.

          What’s your point?  Not under Obama, which was/is my point.

          Of course there is a bottomless well of excuses as to why the Obama administration was a total failure, but not a single one of them has anything to do with the Obama administration. Funny how that works.

          You speak in lots of absolutes, so it makes it difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.  But, oh well, here goes..

          Total failure?  So Obama has accomplished nothing?

          No problems are caused by the Obama administration?  Who said that?  Not me.

          Sorry, I don’t live in a black and white world of absolutes.  Try again.

          • davidasposted says:

            You are wrong, Cowcide. Democrats controlled the 110th Congress when Obama became president (during its second session) and for the entire 111th Congress, a period of two years from 2008-2010.

          • Obama had two full years to make good on his campaign promises with the majority support from the House and Senate. Do you know how rare that is? He completely squandered it.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Obama had two full years to make good on his campaign promises with the majority support from the House and Senate.

            Are you not aware that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate since the filibuster has become so popular as a way to halt government?

          • Cowicide says:

            you’re too stupid to talk about politics

            Attention dense people…

            My POINT (you missed) should have been made clear to you when I previously said:

            ” … by not putting a large enough majority of democrats in the House and Senate. “

            and…

            “Put in a much larger majority of good democrats”

            Democrats did not control the Congress nor Senate.  While they had a majority, the did not have enough of a majority to overcome republican obstructionism especially when you consider bluedog DINOs that infest the place (hence my point in bringing them up previously as well).

            You guys should also look up this thing called filibusters and how many votes are needed to thwart them. And, please note the republicans’ record usage of them while you are at it.

            Educate yourselves.

            And some of you may not realize this, but there’s another branch of government called the Judicial branch.  It’s infested with too many conservatives as well… hence, the horrific Citizens United ruling.

            That was my POINT.  Hopefully, you’ve now been spoon-fed this concept properly.

            salparadise23, you are free to turn in your comment card and your critical thinking skills card at any time.  Or, continue to be dense, daft or otherwise.  It’s up to you.

            If I still haven’t broken your density barriers, then I implore you to educate yourself at this link here:

            http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers

            (Warning, it’s “by the numbers”… it uses facts… ouch)

          • Cowicide says:

            @twitter-14602517:disqus 

            Please read my previous post and especially check out the link at the bottom.

            While I agree there’s plenty of times Obama has dropped the ball and I am very upset with his current inadequacies (as I’ve already stated before).  That doesn’t free me from facts.

            My points stand because they are backed up with facts.

            Repeat:

            ” … The American public screwed up hard by not putting a large enough majority of democrats in the House and Senate. .. ”

            Self-responsibility.  The American public needs more of it.

          • Ok, so you’re saying that the next time we put a weak-kneed Democrat in office, it’s not enough to merely have a majority control in all three branches. We should pick up the Congress building and shake it out like a vacuum cleaner, and then it fill it completely with Democrats. That way we don’t need to have any debates or checks and balances about even the stupidest bills passing because there will be no form of recourse left.

            Got it, thanks.

          • Cowicide says:

            Still speaking in absolutes, I see. What a bore.

            I said far more than that and (unlike you) I presented links/facts to back up what I’m saying. You’re full of hyperbole, moving goalposts and misrepresenting what I said as well (or just making things up as you go along, either way).

            In other words, you’re wrong (and you’ve been proven wrong) and it’s eating you up inside (and you can’t deal/cope with it).

            Bye.

  8. Mr_Smooth says:

    Excuse me, but I was led to believe I would see Mitt Romney freaking out. I would like a refund, please.

  9. n8zilla says:

    according to the bureau of prisons ( http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp ), the Feds have 216,361 people locked up… that’s a small percentage of the more than 2 million people jailed in this country. Ron Paul is just fine with the many hundreds of thousands of people sitting in state and local lock ups for drug crimes… how the hell does that translate into being against the war on drugs?

  10. Marc Mielke says:

    Opposition to gay rights and abortion — stands completely opposed to the rest of his beliefs — exposes Ron Paul for the shrewd opportunist he really is. 

    • So let me get this straight, he’s the only candidate openly campaigning to end the Federal Reserve, shut down the Dept. of Education, end lobbying as we know it, and retract all occupying troops overnight… and he’s a “shrewd opportunist” because he personally stands against abortion and wants marriage laws to remain under state control?

      In both of those cases he’s said that he would not deny the states the right to choose their own laws. That means if your state decides to allow abortion and same-sex marriage, Ron Paul would not change a thing about that. How does that make him an opportunist? Sounds like he’s putting his policies over his personal views. Find me another candidate (on either side) that doesn’t want to impose their personal agenda on a Federal level?

      • Mordicai says:

        Yes.  Being willing to trade people’s autonomy & freedom invalidates your libertarian credentials.  Whether it is to appeal to the theocrats or whether it is because you don’t consider women & gay people to be worthy of personal freedoms is hardly material.  He can have good drug policies, but having bad policies on human equality?  That is damning.

      • The problem with all of those promises is that they’re promises he can’t keep.

        I’d love to see a US president bring home all the troops overnight – but do you really think that’s possible?  Obama made a similar promise from what I remember, do you really think he was lying, or more likely, that the reality is he can’t do everything he wants?

        England has been oppressing the Middle East for around 100 years for the sake of their oil – something tells me you become privy to certain information when you become the leader of a western nation that makes these kinds of choices very difficult to make.

        I don’t live in the US, so part of me hopes he gets into power just so I can sit back and see how things play out; and by decentralising the US he’s likely to desaturate the power the country holds over the UN.  Likely all good things, but ironically I don’t see it being a good thing for the people of the US, unless you prefer local corruption over national corruption – it’s certainly not going to go away that easy if that’s what you’re hoping.

      • davidasposted says:

        Why is the tyranny of the states any more acceptable than the tyranny of the State?

        • spoonipsum says:

          It would still be the tyranny of the state, he thinks abortion is 100% murder, under him if Texas decided to execute a woman who miscarried he would love it, if new york decided to not prosecute someone who was raped and had an abortion he would send in federal agents.

          • He’s opposed to capital punishment, so I doubt he would love it. Also he wouldn’t “send in Federal agents” as he has stated several times that abortion should not be covered by Federal jurisdiction.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Capital_punishment

            Educate, then pontificate.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            He’s opposed to capital punishment

            From your own link:

            “capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime”

            Would it be too much to ask you to read your own citations before posting them?

          • spoonipsum says:

            Bobby,

            He’s clearly stated several times that abortion is murder, what do you think he would want done to someone he believes is a murderer?  and he’s not against capital punishment, he’s against federal capital punishment just like he’s against federal laws in general.  It’s astounding to me that you can read the words “capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime” coming from his mouth and think anything other then he supports capital punishment, it really boggles my mind.

            Educate, then pontificate indeed.

          • And if you KEEP reading…

            “…but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.”

            It was literally the very next thing after your pullquote. Geez.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Yes, he says that there should be no federal death penalty, but he wants to return all the powers of the Federal government to the States. So it’s a meaningless position.

          • Spoon, again this requires a little thinking out of the box for a Liberal… someone CAN have personal views that are different from what they believe public policy should be.

            “He’s not against capital punishment, he’s against federal capital punishment” What is your point? He’s running for Federal office, not state or local. I was responding to a post claiming that he’d have someone put to death and send Federal agents to do his bidding, which is clearly the misinformed POV of the left (and some on the right).

          • spoonipsum says:

            Bobby,

            You state that you’re “responding to a post claiming that he’d have someone put to death and send Federal agents to do his bidding, which is clearly the misinformed POV of the left (and some on the right).” which is a complete misreading of what I wrote. Much like you have misread Ron Paul quotes, that you somehow interpreted as him saying he was against capital punishment, you have misread my post. To be clear: Ron Paul supports the death penalty, Ron Paul thinks abortion is murder, Ron Paul would support a state saying the penalty for abortion is being put to death, Ron Paul would press to have all murderers (people who’ve had abortions) prosecuted under the laws of the state the murder occurred in.

            If you would like to disagree please show me something other then Ron Paul backing the death penalty in an incredibly clear manner while waving your arms and saying “see he’s against the death penalty”, or maybe something that says he wouldn’t push for murderers to be prosecuted, or even less likely something where he says abortion isn’t murder.

        • Because it gives you 50 choices instead of 1. Think about it… EVERYONE wants the Federal gov’t to this and to do that, taking the precedents away from the States’ control.

          That’s all well and good as long as it’s all stuff that you personally agree with. But what are the odds that a centralized government (like the kind all Liberals seem to want) is going to be custom built just for you and your sensibilities? Zero, that’s what.

          At least when you run a Federation (which is what this country is supposed to be) you’re giving people the choice of living in different places with slightly different laws to suit their tastes and individual needs. Libertarians just want personal freedoms, Liberals and Conservatives both want to change everyone to think and act like they do. And BOTH want to use the Federal government as the vehicle for doing it.

          Remember, you may get what you wish for… a centralized government that is up for being turned on its head every 4 years. Good luck with that.

  11. lesserr says:

    people, like the student in this video, should stop supporting candidates based on similarities on few positions (drug policy in this case), as Paul hypocritically supports positions contrary to a person’s due autonomy.

    DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS HAVE BECOME ‘LEGITIMIZED’ OPPRESSORS THROUGH YEARS OF “DEMOCRACY”.

  12. Mordicai says:

    Well taxpayers spend literally a billion dollars a year indoctrinating children to believe drugs are bad.  It might not actually curtail drug use but it sure messes up the public perception.

  13. Ron Pauls ‘drug legalisation’ argument seems to revolve around giving states the choice to police drugs.  What makes people think that these states are any more likely to legalise drugs than the Feds?  Aren’t states that support medical marijuana already doing so?  I know the Feds like to get in the way, but isn’t that all that’s likely to change?

    Maybe I’m missing something.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Some states might legalize marijuana. Other states might give the death penalty for drug crimes.

    • You’re not really missing anything, but it’s a bigger deal than you think. States already have their own drug laws and often times they conflict with Federal drug laws. This creates a massive clusterfuck and stifles the industry. Doing double duty on the same laws is a massive waste of taxpayer money in a period where we’re already flirting with recession.

      Also, it’s much easier to seek representation in your state’s government than in the Federal government, which is being put in a position of mandating these laws that aren’t even its responsibility.

      I know that Liberals are eager to set all these precedents of Federal control on things because it’s “the right to do”, but remember a precedent is very difficult to take away. You’re going to be eating your words the next time we get a conservative in office who wants to illegals abortion, marijuana, same-sex marriage, etc.

      Do you REALLY want these issues permanently in the hands of one office that rotates every 4 years? Theres a reason we’re a republic.

  14. orwell says:

    in reply to MrEricSir, (above)

    yes, i believe you are referring to China when you mention the country that had the 2nd largest GDP during the 20th century…  however, they didn’t really have a GDP nor exponential growth of it, until Deng opened the country to capitalism 30 years ago.  if you look at their GDP before and after this date, you’ll see that there is a stark contrast between heavy “government,” GDP and “free-market,” GDP.

    what i’m really getting at MrEricSir is that i don’t believe the large government we have contributes to GDP more positively than if the taxes spent on that bureaucracy were given back to the people to spend.  i just don’t believe that our government knows how to spend my money better than i…and that GDP would be greater, and with less government debt, if i were to influence it directly.

  15. Mujokan says:

    Rush Limbaugh called Obama “Barack the Magic Negro” back during the election campaign. The reference was to the term coined by Spike Lee to mean a dramatic character that politically correct or bien-pensant people invest their rather two-dimensional idealism into. Of course it’s offensive for a few different reasons, but he had a point to some extent. I think it’s probably one  factor in some of the “disappointment” over President Obama.

    I think some people who are cynical about or just disgusted with the tragically broken state of US politics have the same kind of selective blindness when it comes to Ron Paul. He maybe represents the mythic figure of the heroic, principled man in a corrupt world that you see in Frank Capra movies. There’s an emotional charge to his outsider status that overwhelms the specifics of what he actually believes in. This obviously isn’t true for everyone, but I’ve seen innumerable posts that only reference his supposed good character and not his policies.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      It’s simple. You can idolize him because he doesn’t have a chance of winning. So your fantasies will remain ever green and unwithered by reality.

    • I am sure there is some truth to this, Mujokan. I can’t say I approve of his lacadaisical attitude about his newsletter posts, but here’s the thing… he’s voted consistently on nearly everything for his entire political career. So despite his personality, whether you love it or hate it, you pretty much know what you’re going to get out of a Ron Paul administration.

      Naturally, there is the reality of dealing with Congress, the American people, red tape, etc. But that’s the case for anybody in office. I think Ron Paul would be much more difficult to turn around on his issues than say… Barack Obama was.

      So in the end, it’s merely a bit of extra insurance, not a guarantee, that the things said during campaign time are the things you’re going to get.

      As for “not having a chance of winning”, well yep that’s the message we’ve been getting by the media… and it seems to be getting aggressively louder the more he actually has a chance. Now he may NOT win, but if you think he doesn’t have a chance you just haven’t been paying attention.

  16. Chris Phillips says:

    I’m amazed how nice Newt sounds.  He sounds like a Dad- “no you shouldn’t be arrested, but please don’t do it”.  Sadly, I’m sure his response to that question from a black woman would be totally different than that to a nice, cute little white girl, because his response in the video sounds genuine.

  17. sarahnocal says:

    He’s “freaking out” because he gives an answer that the reporter doesn’t like. You do understand unbiased journalism, right?

  18. AwesomeRobot says:

    You know, sure a lot of Ron Paul’s policies are questionable (honestly, which Republican candidate doesn’t have terrible policies?)- but he was really the only candidate that they could talk to who wasn’t a complete dick. Have to give the guy credit for that. 

  19. Typo: “federation” is supposed to be “republic”. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

  20. Bad Juju says:

    Ron Paul is dreamy. It’s just too bad I’m not old enough to vote for him..
     

Leave a Reply