Are people so afraid of Ron Paul and liberty that they are forced to deny reality?

Question

CIA Chief Endorses Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aiz85NejIyE

70% of Active military donations go to Ron Paul
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations

Gingrich and Santorum can't make it all the way to the end of the convention, and are not even on enough ballots to get enough delegates to win the nomnation.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2012/01/expect_a_three-way_race_after.html

Answer 1

I don't think "fear" or "liberty" force voters to deny reality.

They mostly deny Ron Paul's reality

Answer 2

Ron Paul wants to return our foreign policy to that of pre WW II. We were pretty much isolationists at the time when monsters such as Hitler and Stalin came to power. We ignored those who told us what was happening but were eventually sucked into war after millions had already died at the hands of these despots. We then put bases in many countries around the world to prevent a repeat of the 20th century horrors.



Paul was to go back to tariffs to replace the federal income tax. This was also done during the time of FDR and resulted in trade wars. Ron Paul does not have new ideas. I wish they would really work but history has shown they really don't work for anybody.



Other than that I like the thought of doing away with the Federal Reserve but there is no need to go back to the gold standard. I like that he wants to get rid of central government agencies that have taken the power from the states and are very expensive to operate while having no efficiency. I also like the idea of a balanced budget and paying down our debt.

Answer 3

They are not afraid of liberty. They are afraid of Ron Paul, yes.



Ron Paul has exhibited poor long-term judgment, for the purpose of running for President, by pandering to racists and advocating a few dangerously unrealistic policies. Is this what people worry about? In some cases, yes.



Paul also might be racist himself, even if he denies it. He does not show direct evidence of being anti-Semitic, though he may be anti-Israel (but why does Israel deserve automatic support from politicians?).



I wish we had a better candidate who doesn't take influence money. Until I see such a person, I'll continue to support Paul and throw a protest vote in his favor if I get the chance. I don't expect him to win, but if he did win, the negative consequences of his racism would be minor compared to the consequences resulting from the corrupting influence of special interests on an alternative President.



He advocates some policies that sound radical or outlandish when you first hear them. The problem is that too many people don't bother to think further about the reasoning behind his ideas. These ideas become more plausible as you think longer and harder about them, with some important exceptions.



I understand some people's fear that he's dangerous, because in a few ways he truly is. But I don't worry much about those ideas of Ron Paul that are genuinely dangerous. He would require the cooperation of Congress to implement most of those ideas. As President, he would not write laws; Congress does that. He would get to choose nominees for his Cabinet and the Supreme Court, but the Senate must approve them. His area of free reign would be mainly with executive orders. He will use his executive orders and threat of veto power to make the government smaller and closer to his preferences, but he won't have enough power to single-handedly put his policy ideas into effect.



I assume the media aren't conspiring to dismiss Ron Paul; maybe the media decision makers just assume his views are too radical and that his lack of wealthy supporters means he has no chance.

Answer 4

Ron Paul Amazes me <3

Answer 5

I think that the people who will vote for Paul if he doesn't get the GOP nomination are not facing reality. Paul does not have the numbers to do anything but spoil the election for the GOP. I cannot take anyone who would help hand to election to Obama as someone who is serious about liberty.

Rand Paul, maybe down the line. But it is not Ron Paul's time.

Answer 6

We already have plenty of liberty. There's not a damned thing going that restricts your rights or prevents you from exercising your responsibilities. In point of fact, most people don't bother to vote, they try to get out of jury duty, they don't want to pay any taxes to support 'their' country and when only 1% of the population signs up for military service they evidently don't think it's up to them to serve their country in any capacity. Until this Homeland Security business the police power of the government was always held back...and when you think about it I sure don't hear the GOP/Tea/Fox/Jesus freak party talking about any modification or rollback of the Homeland Security Act. Besides, old man Paul is just an older and more out of touch version of old man McCain.....We have a young, forceful, well educated, hard working, heads up, 21st century, technically astute, fully vetted LEADER as president now...why do we need to pick some guy who's all set to go back to the 'good old days that never were'? Are you people nuts?

Answer 7

Short answer "yes"



Long answer "The republican party was never going to vote for Ron Paul after he rightly pointed out that even though America espouses freedom, America has backed and/or bankrolled almost every major dictator in the middle east, including Saddam

Answer 8

idk.. i guess people are afriad of the truth.

o and "Greta Gatsby Blonde Flagstaff AZ.."he has won alot of states(ex:california), its just tht the meadia wont tell anyone cause they are cowards. the media even messed w/ the polls in Iowa.(Paul won in the exit polls there anyways)



Ron Paul 2012!

Answer 9

Ron Paul's Campagin is over. He has not Won even one State. Look for Rand Paul in 2020