[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Travis

By the way, if you add up all the time Ron Paul spoke in the entire debate, he only spoke for 285 seconds. If they want to have a Romney - Perry debate, they should just do it and stop with the facade.

I think the reason Paul is pushed to the side is they know he holds views that run contrary to the norm...and they are afraid he will win undecided voters.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Role Modlin

I think the reason Paul is pushed to the side is they know he holds views that run contrary to the norm...and they are afraid he will win undecided voters.

I'm not sure if you know this, but Ron's going to be on the Daily Show on Monday. Should be good exposure for him to a lot of young people who may be undecided and are probably very sympathetic with his views on civil liberties and even foreign policy.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Fully answering debate questions is awesome. Fully answering debate questions without bat-____ crazy answers is even awesomer.

I think you expect too much from a GOP debate.

Originally Posted by Travis

I'm not sure if you know this, but Ron's going to be on the Daily Show on Monday. Should be good exposure for him to a lot of young people who may be undecided and are probably very sympathetic with his views on civil liberties and even foreign policy.

I'm pretty far left these days, but I always liked Paul's foreign policy stances. (Counterpunch sums up my feelings well here.) It's Paul's domestic policies that I find so damned irritating.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by TheProdigalModern

I think you expect too much from a GOP debate.


I'm pretty far left these days, but I always liked Paul's foreign policy stances. (Counterpunch sums up my feelings well here.) It's Paul's domestic policies that I find so damned irritating.

Well if you're far left, I can't imagine you'd really be at odds with his views on civil liberties. May I assume that you primarily disagree with him on economic issues?

I think Ron Paul may make his strongest case for many people when it comes to foreign policy. For, although some candidates have tired to piggy-back his views regarding the economy, gold, taxes, etc..,(but usually give us a watered-down perversion of said stances), Paul absolutely stands alone when it comes to foreign policy. All the Republicans are pro-war and really don't even try to hide it. Democrats pay lip-service to peace and the anti-war movement when a Republican is in the White House but immediately abandon it as soon as they take power (cf. Obama running as a peace candidate then increasing our troops' presence).

Ron Paul is the only peace candidate.

[TheProdigalModern]

Originally Posted by Travis

Well if you're far left, I can't imagine you'd really be at odds with his views on civil liberties. May I assume that you primarily disagree with him on economic issues?

More or less.

Originally Posted by Travis

Ron Paul is the only peace candidate.

And this is why I would consider voting for him if I voted. Congress would more or less keep his domestic policy in check (they're not really interested in dismantling government as we know it), but the President does have the power to end military missions. Four years later, the voting public would almost certainly remove him, or -- just as likely -- he wouldn't run again because by that point he'll be in his 80s.

[Dwight Schrute]

yeah and can you even fathom what Ron Paul would be like when he gets old and and has a little bit of that senile action going on? the "waving your cane and yelling at cars that drive by your front porch" kind of senile? now THAT would be freaking awesome...

I kind of agree - Paul is what he is, sure doesn't sugar coat or play politics to be what he isn't. if he had a snowball's chance in hades, I'd vote for him - if only for his "leave everyone else alone" foreign policy. via la isolation!