His message is not new, it is old. Just ask him. He wants to go back in time to circa 1900. There is a reason why things changed. We were invaded by aliens. Women, who invaded on the - SS Women's Suffrage.

He has no path to a majority of delegates.

FYP. It's comical watching all of these college students who are big Paul enthusiasts, the vast majority of whom are dependent on federally-subsidized student loans to continue their "education". While I actually agree with many of Paul's proposed policies, including closing our bases overseas and bringing the troops home, he is nothing but another lying politician who only tells people what they want to hear. Remember in the one debate when he said that the uninsured would have nothing to worry about, because emergency hospital care would always be available for those who need it? Well, Doc Paul, who's supposed to pay for this care?

Remember in another debate when he implied that he wouldn't cut the military, just redeploy them to stateside bases, and that this would actually help the economy because they'd be spending their money here at home? The idea that we would end our foreign commitments without cutting personnel is preposterous and stupid, and no one with a lick of sense would actually believe it.

Remember in still another debate when he called Martin Luther King his hero, and a "libertarian". MLK was alot of things, but a libertarian he sure wasn't. Or in still another debate when he was denouncing the Patriot Act because, after all, we brought Timothy Mcveigh to justice without it. And Newt had to remind him that yea, we brought him to justice, but not before he killed nearly 200 people and injured hundreds more. And in debate after debate, Paul insists that his program would not cause tremendous economic hardship to the middle class, when obviously it would. (Although, I admit, less ultimate pain than if we continue on our current disastrous path.) Or the time he defended his long and embarrassing record of securing earmarks for his supporters because, according to him, "all Government spending is earmarks".

Bottom line, most of us Americans expect our Government to ensure that the air we breathe is clean, that the water we drink is safe, and that the food we eat is non-toxic. And Paul's intransigent views are way out of touch with the mainstream.

Ron Paul

is in 4th

...

out of 4.

You just got pwned by the first four links of a "republican delegate count" Google search. Not that it even matters anyway.

It's still the 3 Stooges with R. Money miles ahead, and Ron Paul is a sideshow. Still Grandpa Simpson yelling at a cloud for the past 30 years. The absolute best we can hope for at this point has already been stated by LetsGambool. Not sure where I heard this, but there might even be a non-zero chance he is VP to Romney, so that Romney can steal some independent votes from Obama in the general.

Ron Paul will be on Piers Morgan (CNN) tonight at 9 PM eastern.

Not the point.

The point is he is good for us. Every other GOP is bad for us.

So WTF else does matter? Point is we need to support him!

Well unfortunately the current status quo of government has done a pretty terrible job of this especially the last two considering they still endorse fluoridating the public water supply even though on a poison chart its considered more toxic than lead.

And thanks to the revolving door between government and big aggro our food supply is a far cry from being non-toxic. Corporate giants like Monsanto that have agents in govt. bureaucracies like the FDA are allowed to infect the food supply with their GMO garbage and bovine growth hormone for cows, not to mention highly toxic substances like aspartame are allowed by the govt. even though its proven to cause cancer.

Simply put our govt. is corrupt and doesn't give a crap about anyone but their own constituents and Ron Paul is a fresh voice against the status quo of greed and corruption plaguing our political system.

What else matters? What a ridiculous question. You did exactly what the post you quoted accused you of. You shrugged of foreign policy as if it's not important to who we choose as Commander in Chief. I agree with so much of what he says, and quite frankly I thought he had a chance in hell, I'd vote for him (because we have this beautiful thing called checks and balances that would keep him from doing some of the bat**** crazy things he'd like to do. End the fed all together...) But I would do so afraid of what he would do in terms of foreign policy(but I would take solace in the fact that he wouldn't go around BOWING to Saudi royalty like our current president.)

The fed is a big reason that oil prices are so high, high inflation from printing insane amounts of money, government borrowing money it's not making any serious plans to pay for, bloated government. They're rumored to go over $6/gallon in some places. That could destroy many small businesses. Goods get transported all over the country or overseas and this would affect prices on not just gas. Also, gas prices are actually quite a bit lower for the price of silver than they were 50-60 years ago, but the FED keeps printing money which makes our money worth much less. I heard something on the radio that the dollar has lost 1/3 of its value in the last 3 or 4 years. Obama has raised the debt by about $4 trillion so far.

The foreign policy is bankrupting the country, and creating even more blowback in the middle east. Terrorist organizations are is already worse in Iraq than it was when the war started. And it cost so much money and about 5k soldiers, crippled or traumatized 40k others, and killed well over 100k Iraqis. I don't think this foreign policy has been working, why not protect our own borders and stop spending trillions on wars while other countries sit back?

Iran is going to start trading with China, Russia, etc with gold instead of US dollars as a result of the sanctions. One of the things that makes the value of the dollar more reliable is it's a world currency, but when they start trading with other currencies, the value of it will drop.

The fed isn't allowed to get audited, so much of their money is unaccounted for. A lot of this money is going places where it shouldn't be. This is unsustainable, and I don't see how this foreign policy is working instead of trying to bring peace and negotiating with some of these countries.

The point is he is the only candidate for poker legislation and individuals having the right to play poker, keeping the currency healthy by not destroying it with inflation the way the fed is printing money at an alarming rate and the way that the government is borrowing trillions of dollars, and keeping taxes low so that you can keep what you make, and he's against how the UIGEA was passed by attaching it onto the end of a bill at the last moment. All this helps have a healthy poker economy.

this is a re-run.

Sorry dollar value dropped 13 % in the last 3 years, not 30%. Still, that's quite a lot.

The fed should be altered, changed, audited, etc. That's not the same as abolishing the fed. Anyone who think we should abolish it completely, or put give most of the power to the federal government needs to take an intro to econ class. /end threadkiller

All I'm saying is that "vote for him because he supports online poker," without proper regard for all his other views, isn't a winning strategy for anyone but politicians.

I'm not saying that's the only reason he's a good candidate. I'm saying that's the reason he's good for poker. He also knows what he's talking about as in this video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ

Hey unr3al,

Everyone who regularly reads and posts in this forum already appreciates Dr. Paul's support of our right to play poker. For a few that position alone is enough to support him.

For most, other positions matter more.

And the debate over those other positions is one of politics, not poker legislation.

And, FWIW, I supported first Johnson then Paul here in NH.

Skallagrim

In before logical fallacy is pointed out via a Hitler reference.

Yeah, I drank too much this weekend. I watched the original airing.

No real argument about your first two paragraphs. The system is definitely broken. But please tell me how Paul's total laissez-faire approach will make things better. Or his opposition to campaign finance and lobbying reform. If you think the special interests are running amok now, just wait until someone like Paul gets in and eliminates what few safeguards are in place. The answer is BETTER Government regulation and oversight, not elimination of it entirely.

Not to get trapped into a lengthy debate on the issue, but as far as I'm concerned, the fact that Obama's DOJ voluntarily released a new interpretation of the Wire Act that basically paves the way for states to legalize online gambling represents a few major points for him in my book.

And specious reporting aside-- no, nobody realistically believes that Ron Paul has a chance in this election (http://www.politicalbettingodds.com/...tion-odds.html). And I say that as a Libertarian.

im gonna accuse 2p2 of being paid off cause they delete every ron paul supports internet poker thread in every other forum than this one while allowing romney, santorum and gingrich do not support internet poker threads. so thats why imo

A Ron Paul supporter with a conspiracy theory. Can you believe it?

That's an interesting point. The vast majority of people are only able to attend university through large amounts of financial aid. Some public universities are charging upwards of $20,000 a semester in tuition+fees alone now a days. That's not including books, food, housing, etc. It's easy to drop $30,000+ for a semester at a good public university. But if you couldn't get a 5 figure federally subsidized and insured loan by just waving your hands as a student - I wonder what would happen to the cost of education.

QFT.

Good question. The cost of higher education would unquestionably drop without these indirect Federal subsidies. And personally, I think they should be eliminated, especially for middle class and upper middle class families. But the cost wouldn't drop so much that the majority of American families could afford college, unless they decided to drastically reduce their standards of living and save throughout their lives. And we all know that ain't going to happen.

Hes got my vote