Forums | MacLife

He has a lot of good positions and sticks to his ideals strongly but he has some fairly out-there and unworkable ones, too. Also, a hard-line idealist should not be President of the United States. The President should be the President of all Americans, not just his supporters. A President has to know when to compromise and when to stand fast. Paul does not compromise - he's better in Congress.

+ Probably the best Libertarian candidate I've come across.
+ Also an Evolution Denier.
-----------------
= I'm still looking for a good candidate.

Tallgeese wrote:

He has a lot of good positions and sticks to his ideals strongly but he has some fairly out-there and unworkable ones, too. Also, a hard-line idealist should not be President of the United States. The President should be the President of all Americans, not just his supporters. A President has to know when to compromise and when to stand fast. Paul does not compromise - he's better in Congress.

That I can understand Tallgeese.

Can I ask what are some of his policies that are unworkable? Just to get an idea.

Appreciate the response.

Jdude wrote:

First, no vote is wasted. At the very least you gain the right to bitch about whoever does win.

A lot of Paul's positions make sense to me as well. I will probably be writing him in too.

And I don't think we're alone. Let's just hope he registers.

What really drove alot of moderates off was the incessant Ron Paul FTWOMGWTFBBQ advocates without much actual discussion of his policies, implementation, or actual workability.  Responding to the question "but why is the gold standard important?" should get a short discussion of fiat and specie monies. It should avoid all discussion of Nafta, NWO, global tyranny, giant highways, and bacon cheeseburgers. Supporters should also not call you stupid for not knowing the difference.

I've noticed some of this as well. I don't know how big of an effect it's had, but I'd imagine some

Tallgeese wrote:

Well, the gold standard thing is the one usually mentioned. That one is just plain impossible.
The ones that fall under "theoretically possible but Congress will never play along" are things like abolishing  the IRS, eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, Health & Human Services, and the Federal Reserve.

Right, okay, that's what I thought.

Are these things wrong though? I mean, abolishing the IRS and Fed makes sense the way he details it. If these are the right things to do, maybe electing a president who will work with Congress towards these goals is a step in the right direction. Congress essentially should be the will of the people, no? I know I'm probably thinking in an ideal world, but we have to start somewhere. If the people see that our president is working towards these desirable goals (if these goals are in fact desirable), but Congress is stopping him, the people would hopefully then work to change Congress. The first step is always the hardest. Ideal word aside, I understand that these things perhaps unfortunately would be unworkable even with the Constitution at his back.

Aside from the gold standard, if he can do as he says in terms of cutting governmental spending, then that has to be at least good enough. I don't think his whole platform is contingent upon the gold standard being brought into effect. I think one problem is many people assume every Republican is going to be another 4 years of Bush. Anyway, I think he is able to compromise. I think he gets the sense that he has Congress to deal with before he would ever fully realize his ideal principles. I mean, he has to as he served on Congress himself. At least, he gave me that sense in a couple interviews. In that case, he probably should have done a bit of "electioneering".

Last edited by niggs0026 (2008-07-13 11:00 pm)

niggs0026 wrote:

Also, is it sensible to think that the television media had a hand in his general unpopularity? I think it's safe to say he got little exposure compared to some of the other candidates. Maybe if more people were exposed to his ideas, they would say "hey wait a minute...". I see it myself in discussing him with some who have scarce heard of him. Is it any coincidence that he has a huge following on the net where he actually got respectable exposure?

Paul got a lot of exposure, he just came off as crazy.

With his gold standard and flat tax rantings, and allegations that racist articles were published in his own newsletter would not have made him that viable of a candidate.

A libertarian president would be great i think, but one who is slightly less nutty.

I only like the Libertarian party for their stance on government restrictions regarding alcohol, drugs and other substances. I believe that it would be disastrous to dismantle the federal government as they wish to do.

And a gold standard is just stupid.

Robert B. wrote:

As far as I can tell, a lot of it comes from the fact that the Internet has a higher than usual percentage of people with a libertarian streak.  He's also brought in a lot of people who think that the federal government shouldn't do some particular thing (whether it's waging the war in Iraq or the War on Drugs) and find the more mainstream Presidential candidates unappealing for whatever reason.

Last edited by ephemeron (2008-07-14 1:13 am)

ephemeron wrote:

As far as I can tell, a lot of it comes from the fact that the Internet has a higher than usual percentage of people with a libertarian streak.  He's also brought in a lot of people who think that the federal government shouldn't do some particular thing (whether it's waging the war in Iraq or the War on Drugs) and find the more mainstream Presidential candidates unappealing for whatever reason.

I guess that's pretty safe to say

I still don't understand the appeal of the gold standard and why so many people want it back.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I still don't understand the appeal of the gold standard and why so many people want it back.

It is believed it would force fiscal responsibility.

Really? That's absurd. People are gonna do what they do regardless of the system -- voters just need to keep them in check is all.