I am interested in knowing how many of you support Ron Paul. I want him to win, so this seems like a good question to ask people. So far every person that I know, who researches his policy has decided they will vote for him. I need to know if he has a chance. He is a great man, who knows his stuff. Make sure you watch him on may third: http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612509.shtml
I'd vote for him over Giulianni, but I will probably vote for McCain or Giulianni as they are the likely Republican candidates in the main election. In terms of pure issues, Ron Paul is far more my candidate.
I don't get it, Just vote for the person who you really want. Don't buy into the norm. After this, election I wont be voting anymore, especially if Ron doesn't win
C'mon, don't give up that easy. Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the election, he will alter the debate, just like Perot did. Perot gets no credit, but I don't think we would have seen a balanced budget under Clinton without his pie-charts. And yes, I know that the reason the budget was able to be balanced was huge capital gains taxes from the tech bubble, but it was Perot's fiscal conservatism that generated the popular swing to keep congress from increasing spending during fat times the way they normally do. You have already done a service here by bringing Ron Paul to other people's attention. That is exactly what we need to keep good people in the race and altering the pace. So, don't be defeatist. If he doesn't win, let's look for the next person and keep trying. Will we ever create a third party? Probably not. But the two parties we have now are anything but static, and we can change them both into something more sane than they are now. Keep it up.
You're not paying much attention if you think McCain is a reasonable alternative to Ron Paul. They are as different as night and day. McCain is the scariest authoritarian in the running so far, and authoritarianism is the precise opposite of libertarianism. He wants the government to pretty much take over everything because we're too stupid to make good decisions for ourselves and it's too inefficient to wait for the people to decide something. That's the rationale of authoritarians on both the left and the right. Please, vote for just about anybody else, but don't try to get McCain into the White House! If it's possible for someone to be a bigger disaster than the Religious Redneck Retard who is in there now, it's McCain.
Lol, I never really believed in voting, because I always thought that a politician, is a politician, is a politician. Up until about three months ago that is, I was having a conversation with a sub-statute teacher, and he told me about Ron, and I said, "And he's a politician?" My sub told me that Ron, actually Dr. Paul, Doesn't take bribes from special interest groups, and Isn't supported by his party, and that is why his opinion is much different then everybody else. From then on I have has restored faith in voting. Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate, to me at least, worth anything. Maybe he will rub off on some other people.( Actually, I will probably vote libertarian after this.)
Ron Paul is unique among elected House members in that he hasn't been corrupted. Unfortunately he has almost zero chance of getting anywhere in 2008.
Agree. There are almost never candidates to vote for who support less government. Which is why I resort to two alternatives that I think more people should consider. First, I never vote for an incumbent. No matter how brilliant a job they are doing, I think government service should be temporary, and representatives should have to spend time back at home with their constituents. It is also nice to make the lobbyist waste their money trying to form new "bribe bonds". And just as in education and medicine, in politics you find that there is a passion for doing good in the beginning that dissolves into just "doing a job", and collecting a paycheck. It is my way of instituting absolute term limits for everyone, and I hope more people will consider the rightness of this stance. Please join the "Anti-Incumbent Party". Second, I rarely vote for the same party in the executive and legislative branches. I want gridlock in Washington. I want no new laws. I want spending to be held in check by a congress and a president who are scared that the other might get the credit that they deserve. I want the Reagan years with a Democratic congress, and the Clinton years with a Republican congress. Both sides squabbling over details, which tempers their fanaticism, and reduces the amount they get done. Right now, if you are a Libertarian, these are the two things you can do which make a difference. Don't put the same person in the same office twice. And don't vote straight-ticket.
Thomas: In the nomination, I will vote freely for whomever I find is the best candidate. But if it comes down to practically any Democrat v. any Republican, barring the Republicans putting a bisexual Communist transexual radical Islamist on the ticket, I'd probably vote for them is what I meant.
