I actually happen to agre with you. I think Ron Paul has a lot to offer, and he is definitely a strict constructionist. That having been said, you can support the U.S. Constitution and make terrible, and dangerous, choices. I think he’s right in the capacity that the number one threat to national security is our debt. It’s not as pointed and visible as a jihadi (also dangerous), but the debt will crush us even more than a nuke can, if it continues to run rampant.
And while you putting words in my mouth is offensive (re: “Drug user references”), it’s understandable. over 1% of our population is in prison, at time nearing 1.5%. That’s nearly 1 in 60 people. AT ANY GIVEN TIME. Between 1/2 and 1/3 of ALL youths are arrested/detained by the time they reach adulthood. And we have the largest prison population in the entire world. In fact, per capita, we have over 5x the next country, Communist China (we have more in both numbers, and per capita). Most of these political prisoners are a result of the “war on drugs.” (Which should actually be entitled “Failed Prohibition, part 2.”)
I may not agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues, but that doesn’t mean he has nothing to bring to the table. That having been said, having something to bring to the table DOES NOT mean he would make a good president. I don’t think any of the candidates are great, or even good. But I think Newt can have his feet held to the fire, and do an ok job (without getting the debt under control it’s just a matter of a few years anyway). Also, I think that Newt is getting more conservative with age, and I’m seriously starting to question if Dr. Paul is not getting a bit, for lack of a better word, “loopy” with age. I therefore, have decided to support Gingrich (as of Monday) out of the remaining GOP contestents, if the dynamics of the race radically change (ie. someone else jumps in who I would be enthusiastic to support), I make no promises (though that’s very unlikely).
Jdw! Thank you for having a conversation with me on this! Finally a rational debate.
First, I didn’t mean to out words in your mouth exclusively. It’s just that so many times I talk about anything regarding dr. Paul I get flamed about the drug thing. I guess i’ve gotten a bit touchy and that’s not right. Sorry.
Let me see if I can coalesce my thoughts a bit better.
I think that dr. Paul, as you said, understands that the number 1 threat to our country is the debt death spiral we are in. And there is no workble solution in the party platform. Many in the gop are aware of the problem but, where are the solutions. Dr. Paul has some. Ending fiat money and the fed are two of the most prominent.
I’m a non-interventionist myself, but I can see the other side of the national security argument. What I think we might be able to agree on is the the president does not have the authority to lead us into inumerable and unending conflicts.
Also, the purpose of a political party, as opposed to a philosophy, is to take many different points of view and unite them in common purpose. The so called paulbots have legitimate and valid viewpoints. Some of them are workable into the party platform, some are not.
To comepletly invalidate them and marginalize them is incredibly shortsighted polically. Especially when the overwhelming majority of paul supporters are just enerting the political process and forming their political identity.