"Blue Republicans" for Ron Paul

Thank you..at least someone is honest.

IF Paul was elected..he would have both sides against him along with the courts.
Our war On terror would grind to a halt IF he was to order a stop on all drone attacks.

As He has spoken about as un constitutional.
He couldn't pass a simple bill on ANYTHING IN CONGRESS..this guy is a Fraud..representing himself as some one who could lead and govern ..and he hasn't shown any example OF THAT.
NOT 1.

Getting re elected is not leading anything,nor is campaigning and position speeches.
No support in Congress.
No support as a independent.
and No support on the war on terror equals no support as a Republican.

Only those opposing war and for pot would like this dynamic duo of weird.
Paul/Johnson 2012 ?
No..
1712.

 

I find it funny... The only ones getting "support" or "leading" whom the people chose are absolute pricks who don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). They're the same ones who threw us into this Economic Mess and the same ones who have us around the Globe in 900+ Bases. Lets keep going with what's electable right?

 

This is non-sensical. American revolutionaries wouldn't have garnered any support in Britain, free market thinkers wouldn't have been able to lead anything in Stalin's Russia. Your argument is essentially that because he hasn't been elected as the party leader, he is therefore not a leader and his ideas are invalid. I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old who just got caught smoking his first cigarette - "If your friend jumped off a bridge Jimmy, would you jump too?" You do recognize that you can choose to validate a man and his ideas in your own mind, without waiting for the masses to confirm him for you right?

The fact that you use terms like "the war on terror" helps to illuminate the reality that you are just a bulletin board for mainstream slogans and shallow philosophies. Capitalists, Keynsians, Communists, Unionists, civil rights leaders, French revolutionaries, the founders of America and so many others with new ideas went from voices in the dark to changing history.

Ron Paul, love him or hate him, has started a movement. Support for libertarian ideas is at a modern high. The questions he asks that went unheard for decades are now center stage in debates. If Ron Paul didn't start turning heads regarding economic policies following the housing crisis, if he didn't start challenging the growing reach of government in the 2008 primaries, the Tea Party would have remained an event placed in ancient American history. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and all their strange little minions wouldn't have started banging drums about the deficit, Rick Perry would still have no clue what the Federal Reserve was and there would be no discussion over the wisdom of more and more federal bailout packages. Who would have stood up and questioned, with such loud and growing support, all of the abuses of government other than Ron Paul.

You're allowed to dislilke everything he says, but it is insanity to think that (besides Barrack Obama) anyone other than Paul has had a greater influence on the American political discussion in the last 4 years. If that isn't leadership, how in the hell would you define it?

 

Paul is a rumpled polo shirted grumpy old man. I can't see anyone voting for him.

 

Sad state of affairs when these are the kinds of standards the public uses to elect the man who is responsible for the future of the country.

 

I'm wagering that the majority of opposition to RP is baseless, or flat out fear driven.

 

Not even slightly.

Open borders should be promoted for the same reason that some people promote right to work legislation.

 

Why? Let's say you have Candidate 1 that's "moderately" opposed to you on Issues A and B and Candidate 2 that's "extremely" opposed to you on A and extremely with you on B. The difference on B will be night and day for you, in favor of Candidate 2. Whereas the only difference on A is that Candidate 1 will take you to hell in hand basket somewhat more slowly.

This is not even considering that you may put more weight on B than A or that the candidate, once in office, may be better able to implement his position on B than A. That needs to be taken into account as well.

Decentralization is a libertarian issue. Having a decentralized, fluid, and relatively competitive power structure is more likely to tend towards greater liberty than having a central, unitary state impose its will on all.

Obama is worse than Paul on the majority of "progressive" issues, even counting the economic ones. Obama bails out banks, conscripts Americans into being customers of big insurance companies, and suggests cutting the entitlement programs.

Paul, on the other hand, is wholly opposed to all corporate privileges and actually wants to save the entitlement programs for people dependent on them, by cutting things most liberals claim to want to cut: corporate welfare, the drug war, and the military-industrial complex.

And even on the economic issues where liberals would oppose him, Paul, as you say, would leave it up to the states, whom he'd allow to have all the welfare and regulations their citizens want. Living in a blue state like Michigan, why do you think you need to rely on Uncle Sam for that, even with your misguided belief that the government is the most efficient organization for doing that stuff?

 

You always use this argument. Why don't you realized that war and imperialism are antithetical to free trade and a globalized economy? They destabilize the world, close it down, sow chaos and conflict and division and hatred, and greatly weaken international trade.

You talk about "bad actors" sowing "serious mischief" by fomenting conflict and social disorder. I suggest you might want to look in the mirror here, regarding the Washington-based militarism you support.

The 19th century classical liberals were nothing if not rock-ribbed free traders, but that very philosophy led them to an anti-imperialist worldview.

Richard Cobden, the great British campaigners against the protectionist Corn Laws, a man that arguably did more for the cause of free trade than any other single person in history, was an anti-imperialist who's unyielding opposition to the Crimean War cost him his political popularity. Pro-laissez-faire, pro-free-trade "Manchester liberals" like Cobden argued that peace would encourage free trade and free trade would encourage peace.

Free trade and non-interventionism are two sides of the same coin: both based on the support of free and voluntary interaction over force. While protectionism and imperialism are linked in their vision of man in locked in violent combat. Strangely, you yoke together two beasts not merely unalike, but inherently opposed to one another.

 

The common mantra is Ron Paul wants to do away with all these programs that benefit society. What he wants to do is get the Federal Government out of that business. I think most people like being sheep and are just too afraid to admit it. Having a 'Big Brother' is much easier than thinking for ones self and taking on a little personal responsibility. Having the illusion of freedom is fine for most while real liberty scares the hell out of them.

It's a sad comment on our society when a man that would be at home with our Founders is portrayed as a 'kook'.