Why not Ron Paul?

[jyl]

Some of his sentiments, or rather his leanings, sound appealing.

But I think much of it, if taken literally, is impractical. Withdraw from NATO and the UN? Would be a disaster. Like it or not, the US depends on the global economy, on some degree of global stability, and on using our influence.

Basically, I think a guy like Ron Paul is thought-provoking but too unrealistic / idealistic / impractical / one-sided to be a serious candidate for President.

[tabs]

Cause he is a fking CRACK POT, thats why!

[EdT82SC]

Originally Posted by tabs

Cause he is a fking CRACK POT, thats why!

Said the pot to the kettle.

In all seriousness though I like a lot of Mr Paul's ideas, but like all fringe candidates the best he can hope to achieve is to influence the mainstream candidates by attracting some of the vote. Mr. Paul is not achieving that. He's not running an effective campaign even by those lesser standards. In my opinion he's either not serious, or incompetent. I'm guessing that he doesn't feel he has a chance, and people can tell.

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by jyl

Some of his sentiments, or rather his leanings, sound appealing.

But I think much of it, if taken literally, is impractical. Withdraw from NATO and the UN? Would be a disaster.

Sure, taken literally, his promises are hard to swallow, but he must convince Congress to follow his lead. That won't be easy. I still feel he'd be a lot better than any other professional politician on the stage now.

Ron Paul wouldn't start Vietnam War, Part III. That's gotta be worth something.

Basically, given the choices today, I'll take the crackpot behind curtain number 4.