And he's a real change from the regular politicians that run. That might be enough to get some apathetic citizens who feel like there's no real difference between Rs and Ds motivated enough to vote.

Not to mention he would actually do a lot of stuff that people voted for Obama for.

Libertarians don't lose because they aren't given a fair shot by the media. They lose because most people don't support what they stand for.

What are you going to tell all those Federal workers who are out of job when President Paul decides to slash the Federal budget by 80%? I don't think "sorry guys, you'll find work soon" is going to cut it.

"Shouldn't have kept your bankroll in such a shady company."

lolllll

imo2

I don't support Ron Paul, cause when I registered to vote in 2008 they mailed me a court summons for missing jury duty. But I don't think it's impossible that he wins the nomination. I think Obama would rather face him for a lot of reasons, and to whatever extent he plays ball, the media might let him into their good graces.

You make it sound like he squeaked it out. Rand got a higher percentage of votes than the repubs in the last two KY senate elections.

POTY

A+

Freedom Watch - Ron Paul 5/6/2011
starts at 2:40 of the video.

A libertarian president would create many more private sector jobs than would be lost in the govt sector.

Not sure where you got the 80% figure from.

It's high enough to irrationally scare people!

EDIT:nevermind

The things that need to be done to change this country for the better will piss off a lot of people. Your 2nd paragraph is a prime example of why nothing ever changes.

You don't win elections by "pissing off a lot of people." Seems like a lot of libertarians would rather be shut out of the political process entirely and sit back and complain rather than try to enact the changes they want incrementally. Radicle change overnight isn't always the way to go, and from a practical standpoint, it's politically infeasible.

Even if a libertarian president were to create more private sector jobs to cancel out the lost government jobs, the process of job creation would take time and not occur overnight. On the other hand, the process of eliminating jobs can occur at a much faster pace. For instance, the 5,000 people out of work when President Paul eliminates the Department of Education.

Yeah it's only the way to go when you've been on the wrong course for 60+ years.

Oh wait.

Doesn't every group want radical overnight changes? Anti war groups would love for us to call back every troop tomorrow, pro life people would love to end abortions asap, etc. Pretty sure libertarians understand changes aren't going to happen immediately but with someone like RP at least they'll be going in the right direction.

I'd love to see a poll on how many people thought Obama being elected was going to be a radical change from the Bush Regime. I'm guessing it's a very high %.

I don't ever hearing Obama campaign on any sort of "change" in Washington.

People don't even know what "change" means. But wasn't enough to stop them running through the streets with tears of joy when their "savior" won.

Why didn't Paul go on with Hannity afterwards? Seems like such a big mistake. Guys like him and Johnson really need to work on getting their message out through people like Hannity.

Because he had a giant rally to go to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGdvNR8YzY

Looks more fun than Hannity.

full of people who already like him, juntmonkeys point is valid IMO

Ron can go one of two ways at this point imo - try to present his views in as mainstream a light as possible and give himself a still very long shot, or stay honest and go down like last time. From the little I know about him, the latter seems likely.

No way he's going to change any of his views.

SOURCE