I'm more optimistic of Ron Pauls chances after reading this article.

[ThinkAnarchy]

This article was interesting.
http://rt.com/news/blogs/contrarian-view/wins-iowa-minnesota-ronpaul/

Ron Paul supporters surged to victory in Sunday's Minnesota and Iowa district conventions. A number of Romney Hawks are now deeply concerned that Paul has already laid the groundwork for success in six more caucus states.

In Iowa, Jennifer Jacobs, a reporter for the Des Moines Resister, broke into open what had been a little secret, namely, the takeover of the GOP in Iowa.  "A rising tide of Republicans who share Ron Paul's philosophy of limited government are flooding into GOP party roles in Iowa," Jennifer wrote, reporting on the Iowa district conventions.

Actually, it is a phenomenon seen all across the country.  It is viewed by many political observers as the biggest transformation of the Republican Party since 1988, when evangelical Christians joined the process and dominated state positions for a whole generation.

[hismikeness]

Don't be fooled. It will be Mitt. It's been that way since McCain and Palin lost. Obama will win again, because he is pleasing the deep pockets.

There's no room for putting someone in office that perhaps a majority of the electorate wants in there. As much as I'd like to see Dr. Paul in office, I've become jaded to the whole process and see the writing on the wall.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I can't disagree with you there. I imagine the Republican party would prefer Obama over Paul even. I was told the other day, that during the last primary, they auto-called voters informing them Ron Paul had dropped out the race.

I imagine their would be voter fraud if nothing else.    Well the optimism was short lived, but nice while it lasted.

[fester30]

Be careful what you read with respect to Ron Paul.  I remember in 2008 seeing many webpages citing sources that were saying very similar things, such as Paul winning caucuses he didn't end up actually winning, or Paul getting superdelegates, or Paul was going to get a surprise win at the convention, etc.  I think he even did wind up winning a few more delegates than originally thought four years ago.  Still, I wouldn't get too excited yet that Paul is going to win.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Normally I would be, but RT has proven itself to be a very honest source for news in the past. They often report on things that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX news won't, or things that the other news sources twist around for their own personal reasons.

The Zimmermen case is an example with the media misrepresenting the shooters race and showing a very young and innocent picture of the victim. I have no clue what exactly happened and am not sure if the shooting was justified or murder, but it's clear the media is distorting whatever the truth is.

[Whitney]

Why can't the libertarians produce someone better than Ron Paul?  (yes I know he's running as a republican but whatever).

[Harmonie]

Why can't the libertarians produce someone better than Ron Paul?

I'm really wondering the same thing. I've always had a hard time understanding how my socially liberal (some even atheist) friends are so into Ron Paul.

Ron Paul just doesn't sit right with me. He's too far to the right socially for me.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Why can't the libertarians produce someone better than Ron Paul?

I'm really wondering the same thing. I've always had a hard time understanding how my socially liberal (some even atheist) friends are so into Ron Paul.

Ron Paul just doesn't sit right with me. He's too far to the right socially for me.

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

Aside from his view on abortion, I like the man. Even with abortion he only says the federal government should have no say in it. That they should not be allowed to decide either way on the issue. Abortion is a serious topic, but I find it difficult to argue it's more important than the wars, debt, and foreign policy.

We will never agree with most people 100%, but since I see eye to eye on nearly every other issue with him, Ron Paul's my guy. Hell, I might even vote for him come election time if he gets the nomination; very few anarchists vote.

Also, the fear the democratic and republican parties have of the man reaffirms he is on the right track in his ideals on the whole.

Added: He also opposed the Patriot Act and other things liberals should support. He is also the most consistent in his voting record. Your friends have likely looked at his voting record, like most of his supporters.  

[ThinkAnarchy]

Here is a video of Rachel Maddow covering a lot of what the article covered. The republican race could be very interesting by the time it gets to the convention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfS1x5RnZZQ

[Recusant]

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

Not being a particular fan of President Obama, it is with little pleasure that I note the very strange myopia of that statement.

It seems you failed to notice the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, which was completed just months ago.

As well, you ignore the firm plan made earlier this past summer to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, and the agreement made just days ago for the removal of US troops from Afghanistan.

Hell, I might even vote for him come election time if he gets the nomination; very few anarchists vote.

I think that you are quite safe from having to sully your hands by participating in the coming election. The Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney.

Your friends have likely looked at his voting record, like most of his supporters.  

Yes, Rep. Paul's record is there for any to see. Social conservatives agree with many of his positions.

[Harmonie]

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

I've only had one of my friends mention that. The rest of them are all just follow Ron Paul like he's some messiah and don't say anything regarding how they feel about his views that might negatively effect them.

Aside from his view on abortion, I like the man. Even with abortion he only says the federal government should have no say in it. That they should not be allowed to decide either way on the issue.

But what about his view on LGBT rights? What about the fact that he opposes homosexuality being a protected class, and what about how he is against and has voted against same-sex adoption?

The "keep this issue out of the government" stance (which he has on same-sex marriage) is actually the most dangerous one to progress. He says in one sentence that he is against forcing his 'standards' on others, but he wants to keep same-sex marriage from being a federal issue, and then also even goes as far as to say that it should be left to the churches.

When I realized exactly what that stance actually meant, I saw right through him. He recognizes that if he can make same-sex marriage a state's rights issue, it has a chance of remaining banned in some areas. Beyond that, if he can make it a non-government issue altogether, it can fall outside of the realm of the Constitution's protection of equality and no law being based on religion.

His stance looks moderate and 'nice' compared to the other conservative candidates, but a closer look at it reveals that he is actually worse than them. He's just smart. He knows what he has to do to keep same-sex marriage down. He realizes that it is inevitably going to be legalized, and he wants to take it away from the government because that's the only way it can be stopped.

Beyond that, have you seen his stance on church-state separation and evolution? I'm sorry but the last thing I want is an anti-science president who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

The man flat out scares me. He stands against me.

He is also the most consistent in his voting record. Your friends have likely looked at his voting record, like most of his supporters.  

His voting record shows that he is anti-LGBT rights and that he doesn't care about the separation of church and state.

Consistency is great, but only if they're voting the right way. If they aren't, it's a detriment far more than anything else.

[ThinkAnarchy]

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

Not being a particular fan of President Obama, it is with little pleasure that I note the very strange myopia of that statement.

It seems you failed to notice the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, which was completed just months ago.

As well, you ignore the firm plan made earlier this past summer to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan, and the agreement made just days ago for the removal of US troops from Afghanistan.

It says nothing about how many troops will be staying behind or what kinds of operations will continue to be carried out. So for years after he promised to pull troops out, he now has a plan... Plus, this is the same man that attacked Libya, and has discussed attacking Syria.

[Ali]

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

I've only had one of my friends mention that. The rest of them are all just follow Ron Paul like he's some messiah and don't say anything regarding how they feel about his views that might negatively effect them.

Aside from his view on abortion, I like the man. Even with abortion he only says the federal government should have no say in it. That they should not be allowed to decide either way on the issue.

But what about his view on LGBT rights? What about the fact that he opposes homosexuality being a protected class, and what about how he is against and has voted against same-sex adoption?

The "keep this issue out of the government" stance (which he has on same-sex marriage) is actually the most dangerous one to progress. He says in one sentence that he is against forcing his 'standards' on others, but he wants to keep same-sex marriage from being a federal issue, and then also even goes as far as to say that it should be left to the churches.

When I realized exactly what that stance actually meant, I saw right through him. He recognizes that if he can make same-sex marriage a state's rights issue, it has a chance of remaining banned in some areas. Beyond that, if he can make it a non-government issue altogether, it can fall outside of the realm of the Constitution's protection of equality and no law being based on religion.

His stance looks moderate and 'nice' compared to the other conservative candidates, but a closer look at it reveals that he is actually worse than them. He's just smart. He knows what he has to do to keep same-sex marriage down. He realizes that it is inevitably going to be legalized, and he wants to take it away from the government because that's the only way it can be stopped.

Beyond that, have you seen his stance on church-state separation and evolution? I'm sorry but the last thing I want is an anti-science president who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

The man flat out scares me. He stands against me.

He is also the most consistent in his voting record. Your friends have likely looked at his voting record, like most of his supporters.  

His voting record shows that he is anti-LGBT rights and that he doesn't care about the separation of church and state.

Consistency is great, but only if they're voting the right way. If they aren't, it's a detriment far more than anything else.

Yes, yes, and yes.  Having actually read Ron Paul's record, he's kind of making me rethink my stance on supernatural evil forces in the world.  I think probably if you turn out the lights in the bathroom and whisper "Ron Paul" in the mirror 3 times, he'll appear and eat your head.  That's my theory anyway.  I'm too scared to actually try it.

[ThinkAnarchy]

It depends on what the persons priorities are. If they want the wars to end, Ron Paul is the only option. Obama has done nothing about them and all the other Republicans are war-mongers too.

I've only had one of my friends mention that. The rest of them are all just follow Ron Paul like he's some messiah and don't say anything regarding how they feel about his views that might negatively effect them.

I will say that I have seen that mentality in some. I do have to say, most Ron Paul supporters are informed about his positions though, at least most of the ones I have talked too.

But what about his view on LGBT rights? What about the fact that he opposes homosexuality being a protected class, and what about how he is against and has voted against same-sex adoption?

He doesn't agree with gay marriage, but he also voted against a bill that would have banned it on the Federal level.

Declares that: (1) marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman; and (2) neither the U.S. Constitution nor the constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any other union.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/h378

The "keep this issue out of the government" stance (which he has on same-sex marriage) is actually the most dangerous one to progress. He says in one sentence that he is against forcing his 'standards' on others, but he wants to keep same-sex marriage from being a federal issue, and then also even goes as far as to say that it should be left to the churches.

Here is a quote from another article:

In the resolution on Brown, Paul cited the 1964 act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 — all are anti-discrimination laws -— and said, "Mr. Speaker, in short, forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty. While they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation, they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective."

http://gaycitynews.com/articles/2012/01/04/gay_city_news/news/doc4f04a2e295746698050537.txt

He does not believe government should the government should have it's hands even in things he disagrees with.

When I realized exactly what that stance actually meant, I saw right through him. He recognizes that if he can make same-sex marriage a state's rights issue, it has a chance of remaining banned in some areas. Beyond that, if he can make it a non-government issue altogether, it can fall outside of the realm of the Constitution's protection of equality and no law being based on religion.

Although I don't really like states rights anymore than federal, it would arguably be better. At least when the federal government can't outlaw it, people will still have the option of traveling across state lines to get hitched. By putting the power in the Feds hands, that right could more easily be taken away if public opinion were ever to switch in the other direction. His view on letting the states decide is worse for those in strongly republican states, but better for those in strongly liberal ones.

His stance looks moderate and 'nice' compared to the other conservative candidates, but a closer look at it reveals that he is actually worse than them. He's just smart. He knows what he has to do to keep same-sex marriage down. He realizes that it is inevitably going to be legalized, and he wants to take it away from the government because that's the only way it can be stopped.

He only wants to take it away from the federal government. He knows it won't be stopped if the states are left to decide. Many have already legalized it and I'm sure more are talking about it. Many southern states would be holdouts, but once the old republicans die off, they too would likely legalize it. When the federal government has the ability to grant rights at the federal level, they can also take them away as easily.

Beyond that, have you seen his stance on church-state separation and evolution? I'm sorry but the last thing I want is an anti-science president who doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.

The man flat out scares me. He stands against me.

One reason this view doesn't bother me is that if anything major were to be done about it, the Supreme Court would likely rule it unconstitutional. I believe he has supported the option for school prayer and the ten commandments to remain at court houses. Neither of those two are major issues. With that said, he does not want a theocracy. Although I disagree, and admit the position is a bit scary, it is far less so than Obama authorizing the deaths of American citizens without a trial or Bush's Patriot Act. It scares me much less than many other positions the other candidates take.

Scientific understanding does not seem to be an important quality in a president. With that said, he was a medical doctor, so you can't exactly say anti-science.  

He is also the most consistent in his voting record. Your friends have likely looked at his voting record, like most of his supporters.  

His voting record shows that he is anti-LGBT rights and that he doesn't care about the separation of church and state.

Consistency is great, but only if they're voting the right way. If they aren't, it's a detriment far more than anything else.

Here is a link to his full voting recorded on key issues, instead of the clearly slanted one you posted.
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/
He voted to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell."
http://www.votesmart.org/bill/11414/30518/296/repealing-dont-ask-dont-tell-after-military-review-and-certification

Voted yes to prevent federal funds being used to prevent medical marijuana use in the states.
http://www.votesmart.org/bill/4589/14547/296/state-and-federal-medical-marijuana-law-enforcement-and-implementation

The "We the People Act," although admittedly a bit scary, would have put the issue of abortion into the states hands. He does not hide these things and I know exactly what he stands for and what he is likely to do. He has valid grounds for opposing abortion, especially since he worked for years delivering babies. Even though he believes abortion is murder, he doesn't agree with the federal government criminalizing or sanctioning it. The fact he wouldn't support a federal law banning the practice, despite his opposition to abortion, makes me respect him more. He is principled and I know exactly where he stands on issues.

On a side note, thank you for distracting me from the work I should be doing. Now I will have to work much later.  

[Harmonie]

Although I don't really like states rights anymore than federal, it would arguably be better. At least when the federal government can't outlaw it, people will still have the option of traveling across state lines to get hitched. By putting the power in the Feds hands, that right could more easily be taken away if public opinion were ever to switch in the other direction. His view on letting the states decide is worse for those in strongly republican states, but better for those in strongly liberal ones.

He only wants to take it away from the federal government. He knows it won't be stopped if the states are left to decide. Many have already legalized it and I'm sure more are talking about it. Many southern states would be holdouts, but once the old republicans die off, they too would likely legalize it. When the federal government has the ability to grant rights at the federal level, they can also take them away as easily.

"He knows it won't be stopped..." yet I saw him saying that he'd rather marriage be an issue for churches and 'private institutions' and not the government. He is 'personally' against same-sex marriage, and thinks that it being legalized is 'forcing' other peoples' 'standards' on him.

Taking it away from the government would be IDEAL for same-sex marriage opponents.

Oh, and there is this.

One reason this view doesn't bother me is that if anything major were to be done about it, the Supreme Court would likely rule it unconstitutional.

Oh, so it's fine just as long as it someday gets ruled unconstitutional. Such things take time, and can take very long amounts of time. We don't need any(more) damage done.

Scientific understanding does not seem to be an important quality in a president. With that said, he was a medical doctor, so you can't exactly say anti-science.  

If you deny the very foundation of biology, then it's kind of hard to describe you any other way.

Here is a link to his full voting recorded on key issues, instead of the clearly slanted one you posted.

*I* didn't post any voting records.

Even though he believes abortion is murder, he doesn't agree with the federal government criminalizing or sanctioning it. The fact he wouldn't support a federal law banning the practice, despite his opposition to abortion, makes me respect him more. He is principled and I know exactly where he stands on issues.

If somebody was truthfully 'principled' and really believed in setting aside their own opinions, they would not be trying to make it a states' rights issue either. He's directly allowing the opposition to hold power over people by law. I'm sorry, but you'd think he would be opposed to that. I seriously doubt he is, though. If every single state in the country voted to ban same-sex marriage and abortion he'd be all for it, I guarantee you.