Ron Paul is in!

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Does it bother no one that Ron Paul is 75 years old and would be 77 on election day?  Isn't that just way, way, too old?  Even if you like his ideas, isn't it possible to find a better vehicle for them?  For my part, I wouldn't vote for a 77 year old if it turned out I'd been cloned from one of his cells and was, in fact, identical to him ideologically and temperamentally. 

Yes, it does bother me. The presidency is very hard on people, and Ron might die within the first month. So whoever his VP would be (Johnson, Paul the Younger, or Sexgod if he wants establishment candidate support) would be the real deciding factor.

Indeed. That is one of his biggest problems for me. He is very old and the stress of presidency could kill or incapacitate him, leaving his VP in power. But if his VP is someone closer to his ideology (Paul the Younger, Gary Johnson, Lew Rockwell, etc) then his chances of actually winning drop; if his VP is someone picked to attract votes (Palin, Bachman, Romney, etc), then if he dies, his VP will just trash everything he worked for.

Really, the only happy way for that to work out would be somewhere between the two (say, Walter Williams, who is quite close to Paul on most issues if not all).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that has more to do with ideology than anything else. Right now, Libertarianism is no mainstream ideology. Conservatives and liberals often happen to be born into conservative or liberal families, and just kind of assume that they are correct as they are in an environment that will probably favour that ideology (like Evangelicals born in some Evangelical community). To be a libertarian, however, you actually need to go way out there and challenge things, since even if you are from a libertarian household (I have yet to hear of one, but maybe they exist) there is little to no chance that the community shares your views. A libertarian, unlike a liberal or conservative (barring exceptions, like conservatives in San Francisco for example), has to fight to defend his beliefs every step of the way. By doing so, he either ceases to be a libertarian or his beliefs and knowledge is strengthened considerably.

The way I see it, many of those in congress just assume they are correct in their beliefs and leave it at that, occasionally directly opposing their opposite numbers (liberals or conservatives, which are traditionally "rivals"). Ron Paul, being a libertarian, can't afford to be intellectually lazy and thus has to be relatively knowledgeable about his positions.

Liberals and conservatives are often quite lukewarm politically at best, as their beliefs aren't ever challenged. When their beliefs are challenged, however, they can only respond with a handful of sound bites rather than with well thought out opinions. Those being the two primary groups electing congressmen, it can be assumed most of congress shares the same beliefs.

That is probably why Libertarianism is doing so well right now; the status quo isn't popular, and Libertarians have relatively extreme, but well thought out, views. Extreme views gain popularity when times are tough.

Don't get me wrong, though; there are plenty of conservatives and liberals who have well thought out views, too. They just have far less in proportion to their "lukewarm" counterparts.

I don't think libertarianism, in the current system, could REPLACE either, though. Perhaps as a side effect of the (relative) extremism of its views, it is very heavily divided. A sizable portion of them refuse to vote due to opposition to the system. Many are anarchistic. Quite a few are very hard to distinguish from paleo-conservtives without in depth discussion, while others have more similarities with progressives or even anarchists (especially anarchists). Still is becoming a more important force in the political landscape, though.

Oh, sorry for going off topic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     He has my vote. Not that he'll win anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is he still BFF to neo-nazis or has the senility that has come with old age replaced the swivel-eyed lunacy of his past?

[Badger]

Wow. Four pages of this after an expected announcement?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRzSc8Mkr8c

[Iosif]

I got to say, i never really understood why so many of the young are attracted to Paul. Never met a 20 something who wanted to return to the gold standard or who thought the FDA was opressing him. But then again, the Libertarian is in favor of legalizing drugs so maybe that is the ticket

Libertarians are generally outcast, socially-inept teenage boys with no friends. That's why you only see them on the internet. They're holed up in their mother's spare room ranting online about the federal reserve, the military industrial complex and Atlas Shrugged.

Most grow out of it. Usually by their first proper job.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Libertarians are generally outcast, socially-inept teenage boys with no friends. That's why you only see them on the internet. They're holed up in their mother's spare room ranting online about the federal reserve, the military industrial complex and Atlas Shrugged.

Most grow out of it. Usually by their first proper job.

Oh-your not a troll at all-so much for that civility your boy talked about in Arizona....

[feeblepizza]

He isn't officially "in." He's filled out the paperwork so that he can officially file it once he decides if he wants to run after all.

[Mr. Morden]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/hint-hint-ron-paul-to-join-presidential-debate/

He has formed a explatory committee.

Three days since the Daily Caller wrote this story, and I can't find a single source from other media outlets that confirms that Paul has "filled out the paperwork for a presidential exploratory committee".  I think it's premature to say "He has formed an exploratory committee" until Paul publicly announces something on this.

OTOH, several other news sources have indicated that he says he wants to participate in the May 5th debate, which will require participants to at least have an exploratory committee.  (Same situation with Santorum.  He says he wants to debate, but won't say that he's a candidate and doesn't have an exploratory committee.)  Maybe Paul just wants to "run" insomuch as it allows him to participate in televised debates?  I don't know.

Also, David Weigel says a Paul adviser just told him that Paul is ~60% likely to run:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/04/11/ron-paul-getting-closer-to-presidential-bid.aspx

OK, but what does "running" mean?  Is he counting having an exploratory committee and participating in debates as "running", even if he drops out before becoming an official candidate?

Have the shades of gray between "candidate" and "non-candidate" blurred together to the point of self-parody yet?

[redcommander]

Great. More of Ron Paul's supporters can skewed the after primary debate polls in his favor again like they did all fricken well through the last presidential campaign.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Great. More of Ron Paul's supporters can skewed the after primary debate polls in his favor again like they did all fricken well through the last presidential campaign.

(A) Of course his supporters "skewed" the poll. The supporters, by definition, will be supporting their candidate. If Romney was winning left and right, no one would say it was "skewed" or that it didn't matter.

(B) Can you honestly say anyone else won those debates? Most of the debate was composed of the "normal" Republicans arguing inconsequential garbage and yelling loudly about small differences. Ron Paul was the only reason they were interesting, since he was the obvious black sheep in the crowd and was happy to bring up issues that the others preferred to not talk about. Especially entertaining was when he managed to enrage Giuliani and get him branded as the "9/11 guy", which kind of killed any chance he had of doing well. Mind, he wouldn't be the black sheep now (you can see Palin and especially Huckabee trying to steal his talking points), but he would still bring up awkward issues that the other Republicans wouldn't be able to argue against without damaging themsleves.

[Yelnoc]

Does it bother no one that Ron Paul is 75 years old and would be 77 on election day?  Isn't that just way, way, too old?  Even if you like his ideas, isn't it possible to find a better vehicle for them?  For my part, I wouldn't vote for a 77 year old if it turned out I'd been cloned from one of his cells and was, in fact, identical to him ideologically and temperamentally. 

Yes, it does bother me. The presidency is very hard on people, and Ron might die within the first month. So whoever his VP would be (Johnson, Paul the Younger, or Sexgod if he wants establishment candidate support) would be the real deciding factor.

Who is Sexgod?

Mitch Daniels.

I thought Ronny the Paul was ThE SeXGoD

[feeblepizza]

I think Rand Paul is more electable than his Father.  Love Ron Paul, but the way he speaks turns some people off.

Why do you have to capitalize Father when speaking of Ron Paul? Do you always have to capitalize words like that when speaking of him Him?

[Associate Justice PiT]

I think Rand Paul is more electable than his Father.  Love Ron Paul, but the way he speaks turns some people off.

     You're probably right, but I do not think Rand Paul ought to run yet. He's far from experienced as is, & his ability to accomplish his agenda is something of an unknown quantity.

     Also, welcome to the forum.

[Xandal]

That's good to news. He has a lot more name recognitions and coverage than last time. Unfortunately I think Trump may sabotage Paul being the other antiwar candidate and his billions of dollars doesn't help either. Call me conspiratorial but I think its possible Trump is running to sabotage Paul who is the only true populist anti-establishment candidate running. But I guess to look on the bright side they will both push the anti-interventionist viewpoint in the GOP debates.

[Badger]

"Trump running to damage Paul"?

That's like saying John Edwards ran to "undermine" the Kucinich juggernaut.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Love Ron Paul, but the way he speaks turns some people off.

I assume you never seen Rand speaking

[feeblepizza]

Paul is better off crawling into a hole and fading away into obscurity.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

You know The Donald hates Ron Paul right?