Ron Paul

[Zap]

How do you guys feel about Ron Paul?

If you don't know who he is, this is an excellent place to start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

I never would have thought I'd be this interested in a Republican candidate.

But here I am, watching the videos of him, and listening to him at the rallies, and I'm having a big change of heart.

[Fjorab_Teke]

He still ranks lower than most of the Democrat candidates in my interest matchups, but I wouldn't be terribly upset if he were to take office, especially if it meant instead of any other Republican (and no I'm not just party-pooping)! The local Ron Paul support group in my city is very vocal and public, but they're not obnoxious. They sure have made enough noise though to make people curious. My husband and I have been joking that we should register Republican just to vote him into the main running.

My closest match is Kucinich, but I don't know if he really stands a chance with all the buzz around Obama and Clinton.

[AngharadTy]

All the candidates scare me in one way or another. I don't like Ron Paul, though, unless he's changed position on some of the issues closest to my heart. (I do use a website as the starting point for my presidential candidate research, but the key is to find the candidate that agrees with your major points and then look for the references so you can be sure s/he actually said such things.) That said, in many ways I suppose he's the lesser of several evils.... ^_~ I think I might prefer Giuliani over Paul, but my biggest problem with Giuliani is that he's very good as a public speaker and not as good, apparently, at making sure he's saying exactly the right thing. I admire him for his public announcement that he's pro-choice, but it's sure not going to win him support from his party.

I haven't decided yet who I'll vote for, because... no candidate is perfect. Sigh.

[Mesmirez]

My parents are avid Ron Paul supporters. I'm too young to vote and have too short an attention span to watch/read about the candidates beyond the Daily Show, but I've heard nothing but good things about Ron Paul, so yeah.

Basically, though, I'm scared no other candidate but Obama or Clinton will have any sort of real chance, since they're the ones that get the obscene amount of attention all the time. I know that's how the weirdos around here at least are going to vote. "Look, it's that gal who wuz on the teevees! I vote fer hur 'cuz she got boobs."

[Jessi]

Like Ty said, I think he's the lesser of the evils, but he still ranks lower than my top Democratic choices to me. Probably because I'm an Illinois native, but I'm rather fold of Obama, knowing how much he's done for my state, so that helps a bit. He's not bad, for a Republican at all, but I'd still rather have a Democrat in office.

[Monkeyguy]

I've heard a lot of people talking about him lately. In fact, even the most liberal radio host in my area is thinking about switching his party affiliation for the primary to vote for Ron Paul. To be honest though, I haven't spent as much time as I should researching the candidates so I don't have a strong opinion as of yet. Though, with the site Ty posted, I think I'm going to start reading up now.

[Jazzy]

Granted, I'm approaching this from the point of view of someone in a more left-wing, socialist country than America (both the major American political parties are considered to be right-wing, with the Democrats closer to the centre but still distinctly right) but he really doesn't sound that good to me at all. I do agree with some of the things he's voted for, but he's still very much against increasing healthcare coverage, pro-gun, and anti-minimum wage increases, for example, all policies which sound very strange to me as a European.

[Wingsrising]

He at least believes in Habeas Corpus, and is against the war on drugs. These are good things. Of course, he's also against universal health care, gays, and women's reproductive rights.

It's actually irrelevant because I'm not voting for any Republican candidate regardless of their position on the issues. A vote for a candidate is a vote for the party. Even if a Republican that didn't toe the party line actually got managed to nominated (unlikely) and elected (much less unlikely) he would still be obliged to spend his entire time in office pandering to big business and the religious right to mantain the support of the party. Thanks, but no thanks.

[FaerieInGrey]

I'm the secretary of the UMass for Obama club. That probably sums it up.

[AngharadTy]

My respect for Obama took a steep drop when he didn't kick the poisonous Donnie McClurkin out of his campaign efforts. I read interviews with him on the subject, later, which did make me feel somewhat better, but it definitely put a dent in my potential trust.

[Zap]

All the candidates scare me in one way or another. I don't like Ron Paul, though, unless he's changed position on some of the issues closest to my heart. (I do use a website as the starting point for my presidential candidate research, but the key is to find the candidate that agrees with your major points and then look for the references so you can be sure s/he actually said such things.) That said, in many ways I suppose he's the lesser of several evils.... ^_~ I think I might prefer Giuliani over Paul, but my biggest problem with Giuliani is that he's very good as a public speaker and not as good, apparently, at making sure he's saying exactly the right thing. I admire him for his public announcement that he's pro-choice, but it's sure not going to win him support from his party.

I haven't decided yet who I'll vote for, because... no candidate is perfect. Sigh.

I use OnTheIssues a lot too. That was actually where I first read about Ron Paul earlier this year.

I was turned off at first when I looked over the page they have on him, because he had been listed as strongly opposing gay marriage and abortion, but it turns out he'd like to leave these things up to the states to decide, which seems like a very fair thing to do.

I used to like Giuliani, but I'm very afraid his administration wouldn't be any better than the current one.

One of the things I like Ron most for is his non-interventionist ideas, his opposition to the PATRIOT Act, and the fact he grasps the concept of "blowback".

Giuliani doesn't seem to be doing well in those areas.

[Jessi]

My problem with a presidential candidate saying he wants to 'leave these things up for the states to decide' is well, most states that have voted on it have had an overwhelming vote of No. So leaving it up for the states to decide is essentially, at least to me, being anti gay marriage, or at least not giving two shits about it.

Wingsrising pretty much summed it up for me - I won't be voting for any Republican candidate because I don't want to support the Republican party. I've just about had it with Republicans by this point, heh.

[Twofold Black]

My problem with a presidential candidate saying he wants to 'leave these things up for the states to decide' is well, most states that have voted on it have had an overwhelming vote of No. So leaving it up for the states to decide is essentially, at least to me, being anti gay marriage, or at least not giving two shits about it.

Right. It's at best negligent, and at worst weaselly.

[EofS]

My problem with a presidential candidate saying he wants to 'leave these things up for the states to decide' is well, most states that have voted on it have had an overwhelming vote of No. So leaving it up for the states to decide is essentially, at least to me, being anti gay marriage, or at least not giving two shits about it.

Right. It's at best negligent, and at worst weaselly.

It does rather seem like sitting on the fence in the hopes that neither side has a kneejerk reaction against it.

[Wingsrising]

I don't necessarily think leaving certain things up the states is a bad thing -- the Constitution reserves quite a bit of power for the states (more, in fact, than I think the states actually have in practice.)

However, I think these are issues that are rather problematic when left up to the states. Leaving gay marriage up to the states means would essentially mean that you can have a marriage that recognized in some states and not others, which just seems weird. I don't know how contract law works in general, but what happens if one party moves to a state where the marriage is not valid in leau of divorce proceedings (to try to get out of splitting shared assets, etc.) If one party ends up injured and unable to decide their own course of treatment and their parents and spouse end up fighting over trying to move them from state to state (because in some states the spouse has power of attorney, in other states the parents) etc. It just doesn't work, in my opinion. Marriage is the sort of legal contract that needs to be recognized everywhere in the US to be meaningful, in my opinion.

The problem with making abortion legal in some states but not others is primarily that it's great for women in California and the Northeast and screws over women in more conservative states who want an abortion but can't afford to travel to somewhere it's legal.