Why has Ron Paul failed?

Channel Zero

Belfast wrote: »

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

Is this supposed to be a correction??

These figures you've printed above back up what i said, not contradict it.

Medicaid ( estimate $276 billion in 2013 ) cut to $181 billion.
A cut of 33%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43059_Medicaid.pdf

Food stamps ( €80 billion ) cut to $30 billion.
A cut of 63%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175

Child Health Insurance ( €9.7 billion ) cut to €5 billion.
A cut of 45%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43055_ChildrensHealthInsuranceProgram.pdf

poeticseraphim

Blowfish wrote: »

Again, you have missed his point. He is not against Social Security.

In essence his view of how the economy should be run is quite simple. You work, you receive almost all of your wages. You are then free to choose what services you want. This would include health, education, transport etc. Once you pay for a service, you then receive it. If you don't pay for a service, you then have no right to, nor should you receive it. Social Security would be one of these services and like the others it would be optional.

As it stands now, he has already paid for his use of roads, health, education and Social Security, therefore will receive them. He is not receiving any service he has not paid for, therefore is not being hypocritical.

These services would not exist without the Govt contracts to build them the decades of invest in civil services. The private sector gets huge contracts from one central fund Govt the economy would contract...all the developers for roads ..all contracts for the military ....all those state employees would lose their jobs....the state would lose a lot of its assets as private owners ..some of which would be likely to be multi nationals would buy them up...you would find yourselves in a world eager to buy a chunk of America with a weaker Govt.

To be honest you hit the nail on the head....he still has to pay for all these services..does it make whether it's done through taxes (which might be more efficient) or privately ..you still pay...only less enfrastructure as private companies deal with contracts and short term projects not the longterm projects like Govt

Similarly what about research..science ...think of all theGovt fundingfor that....discoveries like the recent Hoggs Boson particle discovery...amazing stuff!

Belfast

KyussBishop wrote: »

At a brief look on websites related to him, he is an advocate of 'sound money' and it seems more particularly, a gold standard.

A gold standard is deflationary (as would be a bimetal silver/gold standard, most likely), which is quite an inherently unfair way to base currency because it rewards hoarding of money with an inherent accumulation of wealth (money increases in value all the time), through no productive effort whatsoever.

Obviously, the primary beneficiaries of this would be those that already have a lot of money; creating a regressive system, which is in effect a de-facto tax on economic growth.


I don't think, offhand, that there are setups of 'sound money' that don't either lead to deflation, or lead to potential for manipulation (which erodes their benefit over fiat); though if anyone thinks there is I'd be interested in hearing the details.

Fiat money is inflationary and low interest rate rewards those who borrow. This helps wealth hedge funds and the super rich who can borrow massive about of money.

Real growth in the economy come for improvement in productivity.

Fiat money give the illusion of growth through inflation.

Borrowing money for houses that increases in price without any effort is not fair either.
Fait money leads to inflation and is a tax on savers.

When you say hoarding money do you mean people keeping the gold and silver coins under their beds or putting them in savings account in the banks?

inflation is still possible in a gold and sliver standard if interest rates are set too low with a fraction reserve banking system.

Belfast

Channel Zero wrote: »

Is this supposed to be a correction??

These figures you've printed above back up what i said, not contradict it.

Medicaid ( estimate $276 billion in 2013 ) cut to $181 billion.
A cut of 33%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43059_Medicaid.pdf

Food stamps ( €80 billion ) cut to $30 billion.
A cut of 63%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43175

Child Health Insurance ( €9.7 billion ) cut to €5 billion.
A cut of 45%

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43055_ChildrensHealthInsuranceProgram.pdf

Paul is talking about freezing speeding on these programs for the next few years, not cutting them in the short term.

Channel Zero

Belfast wrote: »

Paul is talking about freezing speeding on these programs for the next few years, not cutting them in the short term.

That's laughably untrue. I spent half an hour earlier this morning digging up the figure's to show you.
They're there in black and white in post 152. So you might as well be honest here and stop ridiculously pretending he was not proposing cutting (or gutting to use a more appropriate word) those budgets i highlighted.

Take food stamps. Is slashing the budget for food stamps from €80 billion to $30 billion a cut? Yes or no?

Is freezing that budget at €30 billion for the next 4 years effectively a cut (because of increased population, inflation etc)? Yes or No?

KyussBishop

Belfast wrote: »

Fiat money is inflationary and low interest rate rewards those who borrow. This helps wealth hedge funds and the super rich who can borrow massive about of money.

Real growth in the economy come for improvement in productivity.

Fiat money give the illusion of growth through inflation.

Borrowing money for houses that increases in price without any effort is not fair either.

paper money leads to inflation and is a tax on savers.

When you say hoarding money do you mean people keeping the gold and silver coins under their beds or putting them in saving s account in the banks.

inflation is still possible in a gold and sliver standard if interest rates are set too low with a fraction reserve banking system.

Fiat money is only as inflationary as the government makes it; if the inflation in the money supply is kept in line with economic growth (in attempting to maintain a static value for money), that is ideal.

Whether people store their money under their mattress or in the banks doesn't matter; under a deflationary gold standard, the principal increases in line with the increase in value of the money.


If you remove the requirement of 100% reserve from a gold standard, what benefits does it have left over fiat anyway?
Government could still influence the money supply through adjusting interest rates and reserve requirements, depending on how you set the system up.

Belfast

Channel Zero wrote: »

That's laughably untrue. I spent half an hour earlier this morning digging up the figure's to show you.
They're there in black and white in post 152. So you might as well be honest here and stop ridiculously pretending he was not proposing cutting (or gutting to use a more appropriate word) those budgets i highlighted.

Take food stamps. Is slashing the budget for food stamps from €80 billion to $30 billion a cut? Yes or no?

Is freezing that budget at €30 billion for the next 4 years effectively a cut (because of increased population, inflation etc)? Yes or No?

it depends on who it is done. If means testing was brought in money saved could be used for the people who need it.

Ron Paul has a transition plan to reduce these programs over time.
Ron Paul has said the wants to phase out these programs and cutting social welfare spending is low on his list compared to military spending.

Without bring the Federal budget under control it will lead to bankruptcy and a sudden collapse on all of these social programs in a much more dramatic way.

Belfast

KyussBishop wrote: »

Fiat money is only as inflationary as the government makes it; if the inflation in the money supply is kept in line with economic growth (in attempting to maintain a static value for money), that is ideal.

That sounds like Milton Friedmans idea Monetarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

KyussBishop wrote: »

Whether people store their money under their mattress or in the banks doesn't matter; under a deflationary gold standard, the principal increases in line with the increase in value of the money.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If money is saved in a bank in is available to be invested by the banks.

If you remove the requirement of 100% reserve from a gold standard, what benefits does it have left over fiat anyway?
Government could still influence the money supply through adjusting interest rates and reserve requirements, depending on how you set the system up.

The main benefit is it stop the government expanding the money supply faster that growth of good and services in the economy.

as far as know there is no requirement in a gold standard for 100% reserve.

Without a federal reserve interest would be set by the laws or supply and demand or bank could loan money with the use of interest or they could loan money based on profit sharing as is done in Islamic banking.

also money invested in shares in the stock market do not pay interest.
During the boom instead of hoarding money people hoarded housing.

Belfast

lot of his polices make him unelectable.

1. Down sizing the military and close all military bases outside the us.
2. No more trade barriers.
3. End the federal war on drugs removing the federal ban on prostitution.
4. No more corporate welfare.
5. Down sizing Federal government.
6 Austrian economics.
7. Balancing the Federal government.

it is hard to think of any policy he has that does not make him unelectable.

Also he is try to reverse a tend of growth in the Federal government that has been going on since the days of Abraham Lincoln.

From what I can see most people in America have never heard of him and are not familiar with his policies

KyussBishop

Belfast wrote: »

That sounds like Milton Friedmans idea Monetarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

You'll need to explain what you mean more; I know that banks control the money supply to an extent, by making loans before seeking reserves, but how does government lack control over the money supply to the extent that they can't keep it within range of economic growth?

Belfast wrote: »

The main benefit is it stop the government expanding the money supply faster that growth of good and services in the economy.

as far as know there is no requirement in a gold standard for 100% reserve.

Without a federal reserve interest would be set by the laws or supply and demand or bank could loan money with the use of interest or they could loan money based on profit sharing as is done in Islamic banking.

also money invested in shares in the stock market do not pay interest.
During the boom instead of hoarding money people hoarded housing.

If you have fractional reserve, with government able to adjust the reserve, it does not stop government expanding the money supply that fast.

If you lack fractional reserve and the government does not control the reserve rate, then banks can lend out with as little reserve as they like (which they have every interest in doing as it would maximize profit).

Belfast

KyussBishop wrote: »

You'll need to explain what you mean more; I know that banks control the money supply to an extent, by making loans before seeking reserves, but how does government lack control over the money supply to the extent that they can't keep it within range of economic growth?


If you have fractional reserve, with government able to adjust the reserve, it does not stop government expanding the money supply that fast.

my point was government controlling the printing of money and the supply of money in the economy to match the goods and service is what Milton Friedman advocated.
"Monetarism is an economic theory which focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

in practice governments tend to increase the supply of money faster than the expansion in goods and service causing inflation.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you lack fractional reserve and the government does not control the reserve rate, then banks can lend out with as little reserve as they like (which they have every interest in doing as it would maximize profit).

In a free market banks that lower their reserve rate too low would tend to go bankrupt. Without a Federal reserve to bail the out the would fail.

Full reserve banks or Banks with high reserve ratio would tend to be more stable in the long run.

The demand for loans in a free market is set by interest rate or share of profit banks demand for those they loan money to.

Interest rate or profit share in a free market is set by supply and demand.

if too many people save interest rates go down.

of too many people borrow interest rates go up.

the best control of saving and borrowing is supply and demand in a free market.

KyussBishop

Belfast wrote: »

my point was government controlling the printing of money and the supply of money in the economy to match the goods and service is what Milton Friedman advocated.
"Monetarism is an economic theory which focuses on the macroeconomic effects of the supply of money and central banking. Formulated by Milton Friedman, it argues that excessive expansion of the money supply is inherently inflationary, and that monetary authorities should focus solely on maintaining price stability."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

in practice governments tend to increase the supply of money faster than the expansion in goods and service causing inflation.

Well I wasn't putting a label on it like Monetarism (which seems to carry over a lot more policies than what I intend); while adjusting the money supply is a part of Monetarism, I don't agree that all adjustments of the money supply are covered by it.

There (at a brief look) seem to be a lot of varied opinions on what should be targeted when it comes to the money supply, but a basic long term target that would be reasonable seems to be maintaining the value of money at a relatively static level.

That doesn't discount allowing temporary elasticity in the money supply (and value of money) or whatnot in the short term, if it were helpful in dealing with certain economic problems, but none of those wider debates are what I'm looking to get into.

Belfast wrote: »

In a free market banks that lower their reserve rate too low would tend to go bankrupt. Without a Federal reserve to bail the out the would fail.

Full reserve banks or Banks with high reserve ratio would tend to be more stable in the long run.

The demand for loans in a free market is set by interest rate or share of profit banks demand for those they loan money to.

Interest rate or profit share in a free market is set by supply and demand.

if too many people save interest rates go down.

of too many people borrow interest rates go up.

the best control of saving and borrowing is supply and demand in a free market.

Yes but the money supply can still grow extremely fast under these circumstances, depending on the money multiplier; gold production is about 1-2% increase in total per year, so a money multiplier of 5 (20% reserves) gets you up to 10% growth.

Reserve rates at the moment I think are 10%, allowing between 10-20% growth in money supply under a gold standard.

If all banks had a high reserve ratio, such that it was below the growth rate, you would have deflation.

Interest rates would not necessarily be a large factor with the increase in money supply either, because the banks would want to be maximally leveraged anyway, to make the most money.


Basically, with a fractional gold standard you have no control over whether money is inflationary or deflationary, and you certainly can't target to make sure the value of money stays relatively static; it still doesn't seem to have any benefits over fiat.

Belfast

KyussBishop wrote: »

Well I wasn't putting a label on it like Monetarism (which seems to carry over a lot more policies than what I intend); while adjusting the money supply is a part of Monetarism, I don't agree that all adjustments of the money supply are covered by it.

There (at a brief look) seem to be a lot of varied opinions on what should be targeted when it comes to the money supply, but a basic long term target that would be reasonable seems to be maintaining the value of money at a relatively static level.

Monetarism is only about the supply of money. It tend to be associated with other ideas the Milton Friedman had, but these ideas are not pert of Monetarism.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Interest rates would not necessarily be a large factor with the increase in money supply either, because the banks would want to be maximally leveraged anyway, to make the most money..

The effect high interest rates is to make borrow more expensive and reduces demand for loans. Bank cannot force people to borrow the money if they do not want to.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Basically, with a fractional gold standard you have no control over whether money is inflationary or deflationary, and you certainly can't target to make sure the value of money stays relatively static; it still doesn't seem to have any benefits over fiat.

An interest rate set by laws of supply and demand will then to keep the value of money relatively stable.

KyussBishop

Belfast wrote: »

Monetarism is only about the supply of money. It tend to be associated with other ideas the Milton Friedman had, but these ideas are not pert of Monetarism.

I don't know, I just don't like affixing such a label because (more often than not) it tends to carry with it many affixed views I usually don't agree with.

Belfast wrote: »

The effect high interest rates is to make borrow more expensive and reduces demand for loans. Bank cannot force people to borrow the money if they do not want to.

Indeed but what would force the interest rate up high enough to reduce demand for loans, before the reserve rate is neared and the money supply constrained? The money multiplier creates a very flexible supply.

Belfast wrote: »

An interest rate set by laws of supply and demand will then to keep the value of money relatively stable.

This presupposes that the money supply is going to be kept almost perfectly in line with economic growth; that doesn't seem possible?

Either the money supply is going to increase faster or slower than economic growth (i.e. will cause either inflation or deflation), there is no mechanism that will peg it to economic growth.


Are you assuming an interest rate set by a central bank, or are you assuming a system with decentralized banking and banks issuing their own currency? (thus setting their own rates etc.)

poeticseraphim

Why has he failed?

Well the idea is to pick a realistic candidate for the presidancy he is 76..........

Personally i think the republican party just throws some of these people in to make their real candidate look less crazy and pathetic.

He runs like 12% behind his own party or something.

He is a libitarian against abortion and he would ALLOW SOME STATES TO BAN CONTRACEPTION..

He rejects the notion of church and state.

He is a congressman who for 25 yrs never really did anything....???

The republican party want to put him there as a distraction to the fact that their only real candidate is an extraordinarily rich white guy who became rich through the type of capitalism that middle America is starting to resent.

Romeny is possibly the most competent candidate the republican candidate the republican party has had in years..but he is a PR disaster.

Ron Paul is a sweet polite nut job.

As regard foreign policy ....he supports non intervention...great..but a strong national defense...against who then??

He supports the ideals of American founders ..well

"Also troubling is the fact that people who call themselves constitutionalists, such as the Pauls, argue that their foreign policy would be the type of foreign policy espoused by the Founders. They are obviously overlooking the inconvenient fact that there is no way that those men gathered in Philadelphia in 1776, who faced death if captured by the British, meant the words of the Declaration — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — to apply to just those thirteen colonies at only that time. Anyone who doubts this should look no further than Thomas Paine’s comment at the time that “the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”

It is just a little ...unreal and illogical....plus most of his supporters a just old enough to vote...

As regards separation of church and state abortion and allowingstates to ban contraception...

He gave a weird 'the south was right' speech (not regarding slavery but confederacy )with a confederate flag...

He supports confederacy...fair enough...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA


The fact that so many young people in America support him really is alarming...

Spooner was a left socialist libertarian whose ideology never developed into the 21 st century ..he believed that wages should be abolished and all workers should be partners and share in profits and work in a sort of volunteer co-op ...

Slavery of course Ron Paul thinks would have abolished itself ....

The fact that the South was a pre capitalist society and the Black slaves were the only group of people that stood between the poor white class and the bottom rung and this causing much friction is something that is not discussed by Ron Paul...and this class war still goes on today...and still drives division..

He advocates division policies ..and is NOT liberal or about liberty especially not for women and in terms of religion


Ony someone with a very warped world view could come to the conclusion that the South was part most discriminated against before the civil war....

Suryavarman

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Why has he failed?

Well the idea is to pick a realistic candidate for the presidancy he is 76..........

Is there something wrong with a 76 year old running for the presidency?

Personally i think the republican party just throws some of these people in to make their real candidate look less crazy and pathetic.

The Republican Party doesn't get to choose who gets to run for the nomination.

He runs like 12% behind his own party or something.

What does this even mean?

He is a libitarian against abortion and he would ALLOW SOME STATES TO BAN CONTRACEPTION..

What's wrong with him being against abortion?

Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal Government can stop states from banning contraception.

He rejects the notion of church and state.

He doesn't think the church or state exist?

He is a congressman who for 25 yrs never really did anything....???

Great. Pity more congressmen didn't take a leaf out of his book then.

The republican party want to put him there as a distraction to the fact that their only real candidate is an extraordinarily rich white guy who became rich through the type of capitalism that middle America is starting to resent.

The Republican Party didn't put him there.

Ron Paul is a sweet polite nut job.

How is he a nut job?

As regard foreign policy ....he supports non intervention...great..but a strong national defense...against who then??

A strong national defence against whoever tried to attack the US I presume.

He supports the ideals of American founders ..well

"Also troubling is the fact that people who call themselves constitutionalists, such as the Pauls, argue that their foreign policy would be the type of foreign policy espoused by the Founders. They are obviously overlooking the inconvenient fact that there is no way that those men gathered in Philadelphia in 1776, who faced death if captured by the British, meant the words of the Declaration — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” — to apply to just those thirteen colonies at only that time. Anyone who doubts this should look no further than Thomas Paine’s comment at the time that “the cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.”

I don't see what is wrong here? The founding fathers believed that everybody had inalienable rights and not just those lucky enough to be born in the 13 colonies. How does this make Ron Paul's foreign policy any different to theirs?

It is just a little ...unreal and illogical....plus most of his supporters a just old enough to vote...

So what if his supporters are just old enough to vote? That just shows that America has a bright future.

The fact that so many young people in America support him really is alarming...

Why is it alarming?

Spooner was a left socialist libertarian whose ideology never developed into the 21 st century ..he believed that wages should be abolished and all workers should be partners and share in profits and work in a sort of volunteer co-op ...

No he didn't believe that wages should be abolished. He believed that government should be abolished and that with a completely unfettered free market the wage system would disappear.

Slavery of course Ron Paul thinks would have abolished itself ....

I'm fairly sure that his position is that there were better ways to end slavery than murdering hundreds of thousands of people and ending the states right to secede.

He advocates division policies ..and is NOT liberal or about liberty especially not for women and in terms of religion

Don't be ridiculous. How on earth is Ron Paul not about liberty?

poeticseraphim

Suryavarman wrote: »

Is there something wrong with a 76 year old running for the presidency?



The Republican Party doesn't get to choose who gets to run for the nomination.



What does this even mean?



What's wrong with him being against abortion?

Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal Government can stop states from banning contraception.



He doesn't think the church or state exist?



Great. Pity more congressmen didn't take a leaf out of his book then.



The Republican Party didn't put him there.



How is he a nut job?



A strong national defence against whoever tried to attack the US I presume.



I don't see what is wrong here? The founding fathers believed that everybody had inalienable rights and not just those lucky enough to be born in the 13 colonies. How does this make Ron Paul's foreign policy any different to theirs?



So what if his supporters are just old enough to vote? That just shows that America has a bright future.



Why is it alarming?



No he didn't believe that wages should be abolished. He believed that government should be abolished and that with a completely unfettered free market the wage system would disappear.



I'm fairly sure that his position is that there were better ways to end slavery than murdering hundreds of thousands of people and ending the states right to secede.



Don't be ridiculous. How on earth is Ron Paul not about liberty?

Oh dear ....
Why should a 76 yr old not run for president? Well running for a bus could kill him. Running for a four year presidency when he will be 77 and it has been rumoured that he has early stage Alzheimers. In fairness Ronald Reagan actually had Alzheimers when in office ...so it can be done . ;);) Talk about a one term presidency. He falters in interviews and seems not to be able to keep up. He does not seem as spritely as five years ago. A 76 yr old is not healthy enough to run and you know it. If he is mentally fit and physicaly healthy enough to run now he will not be fit enough toward the end of his presidency. Regardless of how well preserved he is he would be 78 on being sworn in and 82 when in his last year. It is unrealistic to think he could cope and he is showing signs of decline. He seems frail and doddery in every television appearance from 2008 onwards. He was not at CPAC this year reportedy because of exhaustion. You can't start a presidency at 78 and expect to live through. He goes on about biking races....but he comes accross as frail and doddery.

So you don't think women should be free to avail of contraception? He does not see an issue in a state banning it. This infringes upon a womans liberty and condemns them to a life of physical ill health through multiple child birth. Since contraception did not exist when the constitution was written i don't see how it could include it. Nor could women vote. But why be like the Amish and allow people to ban everything no in it like they do the bible.

You cannot say you want to allow prostitution and then say oh but i would allow states to ban contraception and don't doubt some would.....that is stupid....REALLY stupid

It does not defend woman's liberty.....he will allow sick people to die because they cannot afford healthcare without thinking that society is obligated to support their right to life ..effectively killing them through neglect...because they don't have the right to services.yet he has issues with letting a feotus die should it's mother decide to withdraw her own body and physical support for it's life...why does the feotus have a right to the services provided by it's mother's body? Five minutes after it's born he will not support healthcare for it if it needs life support or anykind of medical care.

Oh but 'honest rape' yeah sure abortion then....so what is the difference between the rights of a feotus created through force and through accident? Why does the rights of one override the rights of a woman's liberty and not the other other ??

People should have the right to walk away from previously taken on responsibilities such as supporting people on medicare once they have taken them on and a woman not have the right to terminate a pregnancy.

He does not support a woman's liberty. He would repal roe and wade.

If you want liberty you have to go all the way....

His position on slavery as a non-interventionist would most likely have been...let it be....let it sort itself out let them fend for themselves.

Spooner did not believe in a wage system he believed in a profit sharing system. Like a partnership in a law firm actually.

My point is who does he think is going to attack the US??? And with the type of deffense he is advocating where does he think it will come from?? Because a home defense strategy such as his would leave you in a great position to defend yourselves against Canada and Mexico...

Bear in Mind Iran just attack a Bus of Israeli civilians in Bulgaria...and syria threatens to topple a dictator only into the hands of the type of people Hammas love.....that is the kind world home defense cannot help you with...and as for non interventionist policy...well it's a bit late now...they already have you in their sights and apologies and regime change from polite old man is not going to change the resentment the US has built up over the last century overnight.Yet Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. He wants to end your ability to defend yourselves against far off antions yet still wants to carry on doing the **** that pisses them off.

Yes it is a pity all congress men don't take a wage for 25 years and accomplish SFA ....the percentage of votes carried that he voted in favour o is are below average..he can't actually get things done....he could not get congress to pass his policies when he was a member ....he lacks guile and political acumen

He does not seem to realize that the president does not have the unilateral power to legalize drugs like that...infact leading people to believe he does suggests an increase in federal power to what the president already has. The fact that some yojngpeople think he actually could have the power to do this without increasing his federal power as a president hugely shows how little they actually know about their own political and legal system.

Some of his promises mean he needs greater federal power than he currently would have not less. They seem not to understand this.

He believes in church...he believes in states..but not the separation of the two “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven ” ....from secular view....

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.”
Ron Paul, claiming that there is no separation of church and state, despite these writings by Founding Fathers Jefferson and Madison

That above quote is clearly at odds with..
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”
Thomas Jefferson

He has a bill to “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.”....erm how non interventionist is that???

He wants to impose his values on abortion and family life on others...

Thats not liberal...he rams his version of liberal down womens throats...

He runs behind in his own party at 12 %......well he pulls 12 % roughly over all ....in his own party ....thats not counting how many Americans would vote or him...but how many republicans...he runs at 12% behind....in his own party...or something close to it points go up or down by a couple of % obviously...

In the republican party he would carry erm currently 12% of the vote.....now the republicans would carry roughly at the mo 46% of the polls ....he carries 12 % of that ...which is ...erm almost 5% ...he carries 5 % roughly of the overall public vote..now obviously if he won the republican bid that percentage of the republican vote would go up . but NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HAS EVER BEEN CARRIED WITH THAT LOW LEVEL OF SUPPORT IN THEIR OWN PARTY PRIMARIES....ever...and many kep republicans have declared if he had won they would not vote for him..

He has a very low level of over all support...but a high level of the republican youth vote.....which goes to show how low the percentage of the republican vote is a young vote...even mixed with other demographics it still at most gives him 12% of the rep vote..thats just the rep vote the % shrinks further when you put it into the total public vote...

I am still amazed even that number can believe this loon.....

“The concept of equal pay for equal work is an impossible task," RON PAUL on women's pay

“You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.” RON PAUL......does he recognise the right to persue????? Cuz it's stepping a leeeetle close to the line right there

He wants to abolish federal student loans and 'planned parenthood'.

He has stated he would repeal the civil rights act.

He is his brand of liberty and he wants to ram it down some people's throats...

Liberty is a tough one...if it does not meet the definition of what other call freedom and liberty then they are not free....

He does not give the rights of women to determine their reprouductie futures snd does not insure the right to obtain contraception....he wants to tether women into his moral view...

He is just a super conservative who happens to be against the Iraq war.