What do you think of Ron Paul?

He is the most consistent candidate, I'll say that for him -- no flip flop ever. His social policies are good except abortion. His foreign policy is wise in regard to troop management/war. His economic policy is garbage that would result in the wealthier getting even wealthier, and the middle class almost totally disappearing into a growing poor class.

##

I admire Ron Paul's consistency, and his ultra-faithful cadre of fans. But I think a large part of his 'success' is that he's never had a chance to break his promises. He will never be president, so we'll never be able to see whether his ideas would work or not, or even if he'd even really try them.

Take Ronald Reagan for instance. Reagan came on the scene with the idea that we could balance the budget through spending MORE and taxing LESS. Cutting taxes, for EVERYONE, would stimulate the economy and raise revenues more than enough to make up the tax cuts. That was his basic idea.

Now suppose Reagan's ideas were considered kooky by most people in those days, as Ron Paul's are today, but he had an ultra-loyal minority ideological base in the Republican Party. And he never actually got elected. Reagan's fans would still believe his ideas, they'd still be saying they would have worked. and we missed our chance to balance the budget and all that.

Instead, Reagan got elected. And after the election he did totally the opposite. His big tax cuts went only to the rich and corporations. The revenue increases didn't even pay the interest on the new debt. Reagan tripled the entire pre-existing national debt in two terms. 30 years later, anyone who wants to be honest can't say Reaganism worked.

But Ron Paul's ideas have never had a chance to fail. Paul has never had a chance to be a real president and to have to deal with the real world.

Paul says the Federal Reserve has become corrupt and should be abolished. We all agree it's corrupt. But the Fed was created to control the money supply, and we NEED some agency to control the money supply. I have never heard Ron Paul talk about what should REPLACE the Fed, just abolish it and everything will be great. Actually, I've never heard anyone ask him about this! He wants to go back on the gold standard, which means that about 80% of our money supply will evaporate immediately. How is that not supposed to destroy our economy? Never heard him asked about that. Or any of his fans! Looney Tunes.

Dr. Ron Paul would be a wise man and leader, but I don't think he'll survive the vicious world of politics.

He's also too DIFFERENT from everyone else- he's educated, he's old (age 76), and a nice guy. Much fewer people would related to him.

He's not qualified to become president, which is a good thing: Ron Paul would be the guy that lectures you in a university classroom and not blathers popular rubbish on a podium.

In the end his not becoming president shows how the political system is largely a popularity contest based on very superficial claims.

Sad to say, but he's an example of the adage "nice guys finish last".

Love him or hate him, he is the ONLY politician who hasn't been lobbied, who sticks to the constitution 100% of the time and who isn't looking after himself and his family... He is looking after the American people.

History will prove him correct regardless of if people buy the Media's false premise that he is "radical". It may seem radical to our standards to return to the constitution, but in all reality that's what this nation was created to do and we have just grown used to not following it.

Ron Paul IS a Republican... He is what a Republican was prior to the establishment takeover of the party..

Arguments like "the rich will get richer" is true, but they are ignoring the fact that the poor will get richer aswell under his policies... Inflation transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. If you reduce inflation the middleclass will grow.

His stance on foreign policy is not radical either... It is the only foreign policy that lines up 100% with the constitution and the ideals of the founders. The only thing Ron Paul is saying is the Enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend, we need to stay out of entangling alliances and we need to declare war and win it asap if we HAVE to go to war. The world will not end if we stop blowing trillions on illegal wars and occupying foreign nations. Obviously America would be stronger if we closed our foreign bases and ended the wars because all that money that would have been wasted on the wars would go into the private sector to strengthen our economy and pay down the debt which is a bigger threat to America than Iran and North Korea combined.

To the guy that said "Isolationism caused WW1 and WW2"... You are a dolt. During WW1 we were sending weapons to the "allies". World War 1 was close to stalemate... What do you think trench warfare was? Nobody was getting anywhere. They were close to crafting a treaty to end the war, but then We jumped into the fight and tipped the balances in favour of the "allies". The treaty after the war placed the full costs of the war on Germany and destroyed the German economy providing the perfect conditions for a tyrant like Hitler to come to power.. It's called blowback. Had we not have tipped the balance of power in WW1, WW2 would not have happend, plain and simple.

Ron Paul would return to isolationism - most of us learned from WWI and WWII that isolationism doesn't work.

Ron Paul isn't a Republican. His views, really, are Libertarian.

I do recall seeing in a debate where Ron Paul was saying that sanctions against Iran were an act of war - his stance was that we were escalating the situation. I was surprised to see the other candidates disagree that it was an act of war. Of course it is. But signing a treaty (like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty), and then violating the terms of that treaty, is an act of war. The response should have been, yes, it is an act of war, but it is in response to their act of war. I think this is the only point I have ever agreed with Ron on, and even so, while he thinks it is a bad thing, I think it a good thing.

Ron has already lost. Deal with it and move on. Set your sights on 2016, if you must, but Ron is out of this race, because most of us don't agree with you.

I agree. But too many americans have hidden agendas that precludes voting for him. You can see that in the fatuous criticisms they make of him. Secretly they are beholding to the welfare gravy train, or they are israelis offense force firsters, or they think they will lose more in handouts than they will gain with liberty. Sick.

I'm not a republican but if paul where to run I' would vote because I think he is genuine

A lobbyist's worst nightmare....uncorruptable.

Not much at all, I have a very low tolerance for radicals.

who