What about RON PAUL!?

<p>I'm sure at least a few of you have been following some of the presidential candidates. I've seen topics here about Obama this and Clinton that. Personally, I don't think either of them are the best choice. Personally, I like Ron Paul. Before I disseminate my arguments in favor of Ron Paul, I'd invite you to view some of his stated POLICIES on YouTube. </p>

<p>And before you dismiss my statements as the ramblings of an independent, I'd remind you that Ron Paul is a Republican and actually has the most support out of any presidential candidate on the internet as clearly evidenced by sites like digg.</p>

<p>I think the only people that even know about him are those on digg ;) lol</p>

<p>I agree, with DerrickA is some ways. I saw Ron Paul on YouTube and was very pleased with his ability to strike himself out as a new and unique candidate. He seems very refreshing and new. However, I feel that some of his more unconventional opinions, such as that we coerced Iran into building nuclear facilities, or that the CIA should be destroyed, will eventually cause him to lose the nomination.</p>

<p>And theirs nothing wrong with Clinton or Obama, their both well qualified.</p>

<p>Then it's time for that knowledge to permeate CC</p>

<p>"Well Qualified" is such a meaningless term when applied to presidents, it should be given minimal weight. What is "well qualified"? The number of terms you've spent as a stooge in Washington? Where you attended college? We've had presidents who worked on nuclear submarines (Jimmy Carter) and could speak a language, write in a different language with their right hand, and write yet again with their left hand in another language (Madison). We've also had presidents whose education came from the school of hard knocks and many years of toil (Jackson). So please, let's not talk about such flighty things as "qualified", because if we start talking about that, anyone who went to a nice college and has a fully operational brain stem could be president. No, instead let's talk policies.</p>

<p>No one here seems to care, RON PAUL FTW!!!!</p>

<p>Seriously, he's a strong candidate in my mind, and I would love to see him win the primary, but I doubt he will.</p>

<p>Well, the blunt and brutal line is that Ron Paul is a libertarian. It will be nearly impossible for him to win the Republican nomination no matter how much grass-roots support he gets from a spread-out unorganized group of people. His inability to win key sectors of the Republican base such as the Religious Right will prove to be one of the main issues holding him back. </p>

<p>In addition, I'd beg to differ about qualifications. While some Presidents such as as Lincoln have had little experience, all successful have shown some large degree of expertise before being elected.</p>

<p>I didn't know much about him until recently when I saw a video of him talking about the Iraq war. I was so blown away by what he said that for the first time in my life I would seriously consider voting Republican!</p>

<p>I thought my mind was made up in favor of Obama, but wow, I was really impressed by Ron Paul.</p>

<p>I think he's a very good candidate - he has great (read: logical and well thought out) views on constitutional theory, gun control, etc.</p>

<p>I do agree, however, that the ideas to disband the IRS, etc. will hurt him in the long run.</p>

<p>I don't think that he will gain the Republican nomination myself, this topic is more to pull some supporters out of the shadows and highlight some of his ideas. I don't agree with all of his ideas, but at the same time his soundness of thought and reasoning is unparalleled by any of the other candidates. </p>

<p>And as far as qualification, remember that Washington was never a politician, only a general. Regardless, I still don't think that "qualification" in the conventional sense is prudent for discussion here.</p>