As the race for the Republican nomination heats up, there's one candidate who's been largely ignored by the mainstream media.
But Ron Paul is talking sense and more people ought to listen to him.
The Texas congressman has visionary ideas about where the country ought to be going and what sea changes are necessary in order to continue being a superpower.
When Paul ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 – he talked about the economy imploding, the untenable nature of the national debt, the eventual destruction of our currency and a limited role for government.
He showed tremendous fund-raising ability and had an absolutely rabid base of support. The problem was – it was too small.
In the four years since then, many of the things Paul warned us about have happened: We're deeper in debt. The dollar is worth less. The federal government is increasingly dysfunctional, and the country is more divided than at any time maybe since the Civil War.
Yes, Ron Paul is a conservative. But he's not one of those who hits you over the head with his bible. And looking at the current batch of republican wanna-bees, he stands out as maybe the only adult in the room.
In politics as in life, it's often the timing that makes the difference. In the case of Ron Paul, it seems events over the last four years have finally caught up with the candidate.
Paul's message hasn't changed – but the urgency of what he's saying has increased. And it seems like this time, more people may be listening.
He came within an eyelash of finishing first in the Iowa straw poll. Less than 200 votes behind Michele Bachmann out of nearly 17,000 cast.
Michele Bachmann has no chance of being the next president of the United States. Maybe Ron Paul should be.
Here’s my question to you: Is Ron Paul the only grown-up running for president on the Republican side?
The AMERICAN people are NOT ready to elect a president who wants to make drugs legal.
Are you suggesting that Dr. Paul advocates legalizing drugs?
Please cite your source.
You are unknown to me.
RonPaul is NOT.
Spare me your libertarian gibbering and parsing.
Drugs are only one reason that RonPaul is UNACCEPTABLE to the vast majority of the American electorate, including me.
If you think that I'm going to wrassel with you PaulTARDS down in the mire AGAIN, (redux times infinity), just because you RonPaul people seem incapable of actually LIVING what you CLAIM to believe, that being INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
Go back and read ALL of the 2008 stuff.
I've already wasted too much time with you fanatics.
Without any doubt I'll have to waste more, as you people frantically worship at the wee altar of TARDISM.
Good luck with that.
(btw spare me the attempt to get me to REPEAT MYSELF HERE AGAIN. I DON'T CARE WHAT you cult of personality people do, or "think". YOU have every right to be who and what you want to be. Just AS the rest of us AMERICANS do.)
Ron Paul appears to have consistently said he would leave drug legalization to the individual states. He would appear to not oppose the complete legalization of drugs. His personal opinion would appear to favor legalization. This falls short of an outright call for all states, so empowered, to legalize drugs. This would result in each state deciding for itself which drugs were legal, or illegal, within its jurisdiction. The Federal government would have no jurisdiction to prosecute drug possession or use.
In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted. He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it. "I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs." Paul also told me that marijuana, cocaine and heroin should be legal in states that choose to permit it; he feels the same way about prostitution. "I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
nolu's PROOF that RonPaul wants to legalize drugs in the USA.
Thanks for that nolu.
I could have supplied it AGAIN to these fanatics, but the next fanatic would have me explain it AGAIN to them, ad infinitum, so I have quit doing their work for them.
The LIBERTARIAN way is NOT the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC way.
The AMERICAN people and electorate are NOT "libertarians".
LIBERTARIAN ideas are NOT the main stream of political thought in America now, and NEVER have been in our history.
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN he is NOT a repukelican't.
Ron Paul has ZERO real chance of EVER being elected President of the USA.
Ron Paul has ZERO real chance of EVER being elected President of the USA.
I could look at all the candidates and reasonably conclude he or she could not be elected, or re-elected, President. The statistics Obama faces on the economy and employment are virtually impossible to find any great improvement before the election. That and his rather dismal approval numbers would normally make his task almost impossible. However, the fact that he remains viable demonstrates the weakness of the GOP field. Someone holding out for 2016 may well jump in. However unelectable, somebody will get elected.
I believe Ron Paul has a slim chance of ever winning the GOP nomination. Whoever gets nominated should have a reasonable chance of being elected. The campaign will say, "It's the economy, stupid." They can re-run Dem ads for Clinton. It will be a mantra, and a difficult one to respond to effectively.
Romney inspires like an Obama pep talk during a market crash. A Mormon (LDS) may face difficulty in evangelical areas, significant in GOP politics.
Perry looks like an SNL parody of GWB, or the cable televangelist selling snake oil at 2 a.m. He could crash and burn upon the national stage.
On the economy, Obama has been seen as uninvolved, ineffective, or irrelevant. There is a perceived failure to lead, or inability to lead. The numbers and the economic reality is awful. His task is very difficult, but he has proven he is a very effective campaigner.
It's an interesting race to handicap because somebody has to win.
Why is that? America's history of US Presidents from Truman to today have been depressing. Someone always seems to get "plugged-in" to the WhiteHouse and screws around for awhile and eventually leaves on a forever vacation into obscurity.
Partly because I believe the office of POTUS has moved far afield of what the Founder's envisioned.
It is way too powerful, for starters. What we have is akin to a king - which is not at all what they wanted.
While the President should speak for the country in foreign matters (with strict Congressional oversight, of course) much of what the Executive Branch does is either a) un-Constitutional, or b) better left to the States or the Legislative Branch.
