The Shrine

As an outsider, my perspective on US politics is probably different from those of you that live there...but I want to ask, what was your opinion on Ron Paul as a candidate? If you didn't like him, why not?

Maybe I haven't seen enough of him but...
- he seemed articulate and consistent (I didn't feel as if everything he said was scripted...like everyone else)
- he seemed to present actual ideas for change that set him apart
- he seemed to have legitimate support (but seemed largely ignored)

As a canadian, it was somewhat refreshing to see a non-robotic candidate in the US. A lot of Ron Paul's ideas are...drastic...and would result in extremely uncertain short term effects. But, long term, change is undoubtedly needed. Are the US majority simply not interested in change? Or is there the belief that a 16 trillion dollar debt, 10+ years of war and an interest rate that has been handcuffed won't result in a period of devestating economic depression?

I suppose I am a little torn. Believe it or not, the US addressing the current artificial economic situation would actually be bad for me (as it relates to our interest rates and property) but on the other hand, the longer it's left to rot under the carpet, the worse the effect will be.

He's the Tea Party's candidate....'Nuff said

Zeus wrote:He's the Tea Party's candidate....'Nuff said

Not last I looked -- maybe you meant to say many people credit Ron Paul for sparking the Tea Party movement. Am I wrong?

Ron Paul seems like a very nice guy, but you could say the same about every insurance salesman.

Ron Paul is kind of like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving talking politics. There are things about him I like, and other things are just so far in left field I don't know what to think.

kali o. wrote:

Zeus wrote:He's the Tea Party's candidate....'Nuff said

Not last I looked -- maybe you meant to say many people credit Ron Paul for sparking the Tea Party movement. Am I wrong?

No, not the source of the movement but rather the movement's choice...or at least one of them. Since they had to settle with Romney, they at least got an even more staunch one in Paul Ryan.

He's got his own "trend" according to Wikipedia, but it's still Tea Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Anarky wrote:Ron Paul is kind of like your crazy uncle at Thanksgiving talking politics. There are things about him I like, and other things are just so far in left field I don't know what to think.

Ha. Tends to be the way I view other Republicans, except everything is nuts. Gay Marriage, Religion, Economy, Foreign Policy, Pro Life, Morality. I suppose it's easier to forgive Ron Paul from holding the same views since, ultimately, he solves the question of differing opinions by advocating smaller, local governance.

The interesting question is whether allowing these issues to be resolved on the state level will result in a... sort of free market effect, where sensible social policy encourages adoption or, if at the end of the day, you end up with insular populations and cultures across state lines (and then end up with a scenario similar to Quebec in Canada).

Still, change requires...well, change. And without "crazy" new ways of approaching issues, it really doesn't matter who ends up in office. They are all just tweaking the same failing formula.

Ron Paul? Seriously? Fuck Ron Paul. And fuck his lying sack of shit of a son. Thanks, KY, for electing the unelectable.