Ron Paul - too good to be true?

[mfqr]

Is Ron Paul too good to be true?

Well, what do you all think? Discuss.

mfqr Reviewed by mfqr on 12-10-2007. Ron Paul - too good to be true? Is Ron Paul too good to be true? Well, what do you all think? Discuss. Rating: 5

[rebgirl420]

Well, he's not perfect and unfortunately will never be voted in (even though I like him). But out of everyone out there right now, he's the one I most identify with.

[Innominate]

Ron Paul knows what he's talking about and is straight forward with the people, who else is? I don't know if he can be the solution to all of our problems, but it's better to vote for him than to continue the agenda of the controllers. But the damage already done to our country could be irreversible.

[GrinS]

I think Ron Paul has a chance just as much as anyone else, and saying otherwise is nothing but critical to his campaign. Its sounds like, "well blah blah has no chance to win, so why even vote for him?" thats pretty close to communistic propaganda.

I think blonds are dumb, cause history has proven them to be?

See how awesome it is to not have any factual information to support your comments? I sure do. its like the US government is on the cannabis site!@!!!12!onetwo!one.

Stereotyping them.

Hillary wont win cause shes a woman
barrack wont win cause hes black
rommney wont win cause hes mormon
gulani wont win cause hes a cross-dresser
huckebee wont win cause hes an idiot
ron paul wont win cause he wont get enough votes

cause we all know fox news polls are the most factual poll in da world.

in the same book and look how dumb i look right now?

[dragonrider]

Ron Paul is a little too libertarian for me. Seems like he gets a lot of attention on this site because of his views on the bogus War on Drugs, which I agree with. But I don't agree with a lot of his other views. A lot of times libertarian rhetoric about getitng government out of our lives is attractive on the surface, but when you really figure out what it means in terms of actual policy, it's not so great. I'm for maximum personal liberty and freedom for individuals, but I think government does need to keep an eye on corporations, and Ron Paul would like to see a lot of that regulation go away. He wants governemtn out of our personal business, which I agree with, but he also wants government out of the business of business, which I do not. I believe in strong pollution and environmental regulation, and I believe in most safety regulations, as well as regulation of corporate financial conduct and investment regulation. I hate seeing powerful corporations screw the little guy over, and I think government is the only thing standing between us and getting raped by powerful businesses. I'm not for nanny government, but I don't want to be left to the wolves either.

Anyway, if you are mostly interested in him because of his views on marijuana, take a look at the whole package before you buy. I'm definitely for reform of marijuana laws and the War on Drugs, but if I had to make a list of my top five political issues, it would not get on the list. Maybe somewhare in the top ten, but maybe not even then. There are a lot of serious issues these days.

[mfqr]

But don't any of you think it's a bit strange that right when a lot of people start realizing all the faults of our system and country, that a "hero" comes along and is claiming to save us from all this? It's possible he's completely sincere, and unbribable, but after thinking about all this... it just seems a scheme to get into office. He's the "underdog," and the media has been portraying him like that. It seems like a lot of people like supporting the underdog, especially when all of the other candidates seem to be some nasty crooks. Just my thoughts...

And I'm not really talking about him not being able to do everything he says -- of course he can't. But does he actually intend to do all this? Is he just a really good liar?

I really want to hear what Pisshead thinks about this.

With the media portraying him as the underdog, etc, is that actually a form of manipulation to get a lot of people to support him because of his status? Maybe reverse psychology in a way? Heh... maybe this should be moved to the conspiracy forum... at least to where I'm heading on this.

[dragonrider]

I misunderstood your first post, but now I see where you are going. I think he is pretty sincere because he has said msot of the same things for years. I just don't think that a lot of what he says is practical. Some of it actually sounds crazy to me. So my feeling was never that he was so great that maybe he was too good to be true, because I never felt he was all that great to begin with. I think he probably is sincere, just a bit off in his ideas.

For some people, the sincerity and honest talk are going to be very attractive this year. After being lied to and misled for 8 years, it might not come down to specific issues this year. It might be more important to voters that a candidate come off as honest and uncalculating. So maybe that is where Ron Paul pulls some of his strength. The other Republican that seems to actually say what he believes is John McCain --- I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems to actually believe what he says. Mitt Romney seems very calculating to me, which I do not like. On the Democratic side, I think Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both seem a bit calculating and overpackaged to me, Barak Obama seems to be honest in his answers and speeches. So if you are looking for sincerity and honesty as well as practicality, I wouldn't mind seeing the general election race be between Obama and McCain --- two very different candidates on issues, but both probably true to themselves.

[mfqr]

I misunderstood your first post, but now I see where you are going. I think he is pretty sincere because he has said msot of the same things for years. I just don't think that a lot of what he says is practical. Some of it actually sounds crazy to me. So my feeling was never that he was so great that maybe he was too good to be true, because I never felt he was all that great to begin with. I think he probably is sincere, just a bit off in his ideas.

For some people, the sincerity and honest talk are going to be very attractive this year. After being lied to and misled for 8 years, it might not come down to specific issues this year. It might be more important to voters that a candidate come off as honest and uncalculating. So maybe that is where Ron Paul pulls some of his strength. The other Republican that seems to actually say what he believes is John McCain --- I don't agree with everything he says, but he seems to actually believe what he says. Mitt Romney seems very calculating to me, which I do not like. On the Democratic side, I think Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both seem a bit calculating and overpackaged to me, Barak Obama seems to be honest in his answers and speeches. So if you are looking for sincerity and honesty as well as practicality, I wouldn't mind seeing the general election race be between Obama and McCain --- two very different candidates on issues, but both probably true to themselves.

Ah yes, Mitt Romney. He's a liar, and when he is asked about medical marijuana, he spits out reefer madness-like lies. Mitt Romney is calculating, yes. Giuliani? can't trust him either. I saw McCain on the debates, and he doesn't look like a liar to me. At least not as much of a liar. I have not seen Obama talk much, so I don't have much of an opinion... but I have heard mostly good things about him. The only bad thing I've heard about him is "he's not experienced enough." Ron Paul just seems to be too good to be true... but he does LOOK to be sincere. But maybe he's a really good liar, lol.

[420izzle]

"Too good to be true?" and "Ron Paul is a little too libertarian..."
NO, NO, NO!!! The 'devil' is dancing on your shoulder and screaming in your ear if you think Ron Paul is 'too good to be true'...don't let the detractors get to you. I don't doubt for a second that the MESSAGE he is trying to send us is good and true...honest and just what this country...this world needs right now. To say he is too good for us, or his message of liberty is too much for us is ridiculous!!!
This election may just be the most important of our lifetimes. Can you feel it? Draw your line now people. Save the republic, or watch her continue to go down in flames. It's our choice. Ron Paul is no mystery. He is the ONLY consistent voice with 30 years of incredible service to our country. There can be no doubts that he has only good intentions and he himself knows that he cannot make all his 'crazy' ideas come to fruition. He says it would take the will of the people. He is not the dictator type that will sign presidential directives to subvert our will. Ron Paul understands the intent of our forefathers and the constitution. We can see this as self-evident. The media is not trying to make him the underdog story of the year. Take on a bigger view of the world. There are forces that want to dismantle our sovereignty and powers working against us...and that includes the media. And with a little research, you will see obvious collusion to subvert Ron Paul and not 'let the cat out of the bag' - that is Ron Paul Revolution. And now the cat is out of the bag and it's catching on. Don't doubt your instincts. Don't doubt your critical thinking skills and disseminating the MSM hyperbole. Ron Paul will do more to save our great nation, not to mention the lives of millions around the globe, than any of these other establishment picked candidates. Don't let anybody, including the folks like me in forums, tell you who to vote for, but vote smart. Vote with your head and with your heart.

[dragonrider]

"Too good to be true?" and "Ron Paul is a little too libertarian..."

...

To say he is too good for us, or his message of liberty is too much for us is ridiculous!!!

I think maybe you misunderstood what both of us were saying.

If I understand Mfqr, he wasn't saying Ron Paul is too good for us, as in we don't deserve him. I think he was saying RP's message sound good, and maybe it's not actually true --- maybe too good to be true.

And when I was sayng he was too libertarian, I wasn't saying his message of liberty is too much for us. I was saying some of his policies of deregulation, which are commonly associated with a "libertarian" point of view, were too much for me. I agree with his defense of personal liberty, and I agree that our constitutional rights have been eroded far too much. I just don't buy his whole package.