Not necessarily a Ron Paul sycophant but . . .

Well Ron Paul has my vote for now

But we talked about him last night in one of my classes.. and everyone was saying that he will probably not get elected because he makes too much sense.

Of course I was not surprised to see that half the room had NO clue what Candidates were saying at all

Gringo Malo,

You may be correct, but I wonder if the leader to follow a Clinton or Obama Presidency wouldn't be named Mutiny.

The kind of change that Paul advocates in his June 4 column is "a clear decision to leave." I'm not sure what Paul would have done had he been president on 9/11/01. I can't say whether he would have been any more successful against Osama Bin Laden and his associates than the inept Bush administration has been. He probably would not have invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, and says in the video that he would not try to spread democracy by force.

I think we can agree that in domestic policy, Paul is preferable to any other candidate. As he himself admits, however, many Americans have been conditioned to be dependent on government. Those Americans can be expected to vote against him, and his own party might prefer a candidate less direct and more hypocritical on the subject of entitlements. If folks who believe that government can create wealth out of thin air and give it to them aren't a majority of our electorate, they probably soon will be. I'm afraid that our next president will be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, followed by General Collapse.

Datarat,

So who inspires you? Any of 'em?

Ron doesn't sound like a ranter to me. He's not perfectly aligned with my worldview he's just closer than everyone else. There haven't really been any candidates in my lifetime that I stopped and thought "you know, electing so and so would really shake things up." That's what Washington needs - a good shaking up.

My position on that is simple - there is no perfect candidate who agrees with me 100%. I would trust Paul to make changes in foreign policy that would be generally aligned with my viewpoints. On the issue of Iraq itself, I haven't seen Paul say if when or how he would withdraw from Iraq.

I read the June 4 message. Ron Paul hasn't really defined anything in that message except the need for change. That's the key point and the key change we need is a seismic shift in how Americans view the federal government. If Ron Paul can make a dent there, I'll consider capitulating in other areas.

Let's change the name of the War on Terror to what it really is, the War on Islamofascism. We can fight offensively or defensively, but we're going to have to fight.

I'm not sold on Ron Paul, because he's characterizing Iraq as an attempt to force democracy on people who don't want it. I suppose that's a failing of mine, but I really don't believe honest, ordinary Iraqis don't want liberty.

I would have thought he was brave to appear on Stewart's show with an "R" in front of his name, but he seems to fit right in.

I'm a believer in smaller government, unlike many Republicans currently in power, but I truly want someone who's less anti-military, and his constant reference to Militarism and lack of constitutionality seem very much like the ravings of the crew over at DK.

I've been a fan of Ron Paul for quite some time. I even share his quaint idea of restoring the Constitution. I don't think he's got a snowball's chance in Hell, but I might vote for him in the Republican primary if I don't cross over and vote for Obama on the theory that worse is better.

I have noticed, Trevor, that Rep. Paul's position on Iraq seems to differ from yours. It seems that he'd change the status quo in Iraq by getting out. Read his June 4 column, for example. What's your opinion on that?

See also:
Ron Paul's Winning Message
http://ronpaul.wetpaint.com/page/Ron+Paul%27s+W...