If you don't support Ron Paul/Mike Gravel (depending on party), why not?
My take: Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are merely honest politicians who don't filter their statements through paid political consultants before speaking. They don't tailor their words to fit what some polling company thinks the voters want to hear. They don't blather on and on about "the lessons of 9/11" or "that time I did something in a war." They don't pander to the lowest common denominators and have the leadership skills and the balls to sell innovative ideas in a marketplace where innovation and "rocking the boat" tend to harm a candidate.
The worst charge you can level against Gravel and Paul is that some of their ideas would not be good policy. For example, Gravel's plan for a guaranteed minimum income wouldn't work, and Ron Paul's desire to dismantle the entire federal government is impractical. But, we are electing a president, not a one-man legislature. Their more radical proposals would never get through Congress. Instead, we'd have presidents who believe in civil liberties.
- LadyZaniaLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I have been supporting Mike Gravel since I found out he exists. That has not been that long ago, but I saw a post about him that Grateful Dead posted as an answer to a question, and I checked him out. I have seen several videos, and looked at the website, and he is 100% everything that I believe matters. I am in favor of replacing the income tax with the Fair Tax, and that is just one example of many. I will vote for Mike Gravel even if I have to write him in. In my opinion, a vote for anyone else, is worse than no vote at all! *sm*
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ron Paul's desire to dismantle most of the government is not impractical. The government has plenty of lands that can be sold off to pay the Social inSecurity costs of everybody dependent upon it, the IRS harms our economy and should be immediately dismantled (it is immoral not to dismantle it immediately), the Federal Reserve is destroying the value of our money and should be shut down.
My main concern about Ron Paul is that he's far too moderate. He's a Constitutionalist who supports slightly more government than a Minarchist and I personally would like to get rid of all of it (because it is an organization that is inherently criminal and counterproductive). While I support Ron Paul, I hope that the American people's desire for less government doesn't end once he's brought it down to the limits imposed by the Constitution.
While I don't think Gravel can win, it appears to me that Ron Paul is going to win the GOP nomination and the general election. Polls don't matter at this point (they've been wrong repeatedly a year and a half before the election) and even the likes of Joe Scarborough believes that Ron Paul will at least win New Hampshire.
To suggest that Ron Paul isn't a top-tier candidate at this point in time is as absurd as suggesting that Hillary Clinton won't be the Democrat nominee (and the next president unless the GOP nominates Ron Paul).
- Matt BLv 41 decade ago
i know this makes me part of the problem, but I don't envision he would stand a snowball's chance to actually win the election. But I would say whoever gets the republican nod would be extremely smart to push to get Ron Paul as their VP. If they don't, Paul is likely to run as an independent, and he will be come the Ross Perot of 92 and 96 (or the Ralph Nader of 2000 and 2004
- 1 decade ago
I just wanted to say that Grumpy needs to read the fair tax before he starts talking about it!! It doesn't require businesses too be monitored cause the only one handling the tax is the place you buy the product from!! They get paid for collecting the tax (not much but something for there trouble) There is only 1 tax and that is sales tax there are no other taxes state,medicare,SS,corp,etc..... And best of all no tax on your savings so when you retire no penalties!!! Please read info before you post about the issue!! VOTE GRAVEL 08"Source(s): www.fairtax.org www.gravel2008.us
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Uncle PennybagsLv 71 decade ago
I don't know who Mike Gravel is.
People keep telling me I should support Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican. While I am a registered Libertarian, and lean heavily towards Republicans, I find Ron Paul's views on National Security, the Iraq War and Foreign Policy to be naive. Dangerous even.
- Jesus W.Lv 61 decade ago
I've been supporting Senator Gravel since I learned he was running back in April.
I've donated, been spreading the word, and am doing all I can to help his campaign out.
I like Paul, but I think universal healthcare should be one of our top priorities, and he doesnt. I also happen to think hes a good Congressman, but wouldnt make a very good president.
- Anonymous4 years ago
regrettably Howard Stern could win out of that group. he's greater powerful commonplace than something of them mixed. i could vote for Ron Paul. Dennis is insane inspite of the incontrovertible fact that if his spouse did a photograph shoot he could desire to win. If Mike gained i don't be attentive to if he could be attentive to it. That guyls suggestions seems to be going. i do no longer propose to assert this to insult him. i think of Dennis is loopy based on his perspectives inspite of the incontrovertible fact that i do no longer think of his suggestions is going I purely think of he's a lot off base in his perspectives. I do think of Mike's suggestions is going. genuine suggestions issues that have no longer something to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him. I heard him on Laura Ingraham and he theory he became on Dr. Laura. even whilst she tried explaining issues to him he purely did no longer get it. i think of his suggestions is long gone. It became purely as undesirable as McCain whilst he's off script.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ron Paul is a Conservative Christian and a Libertarian.
These two things are contradictions in terms which Ron Paul’s campaign deals with by conveniently ignoring the former.
Dismantling all levels of government regulation might provide equal rights. Dismantling Federal government in favor of State government will badly harm minorities who will find themselves disadvantaged in conservative states. Ron Paul knows this and he’s written articles which demonstrate that he’s counting on the triumph of “traditional values” in the culture wars. This may help him with some far right conservatives since he is staunchly against gay rights and women's right's to choose in this country based on "moral" implications, which again, stem from a Christian ideology rather than a Libertarian view point. Those who defend Paul for his feelings on this issue claim it's about gays wanting "special rights" which is laughable, because gay people only want and have ever wanted equality in a very homophobic society which easily votes away their rights during election times when hordes of people vote to ban gay marriage and gay adoption which ONLY used to de-humanize gays, threaten gays, and use them as an example. Using political rhetoric to justify this action is just total and utter b.s. as we all know these bans are used to show "'queers' have no place in society". Just take a good look at the trouble gays/lesbians are having in Michigan where they banned gay marriage in 2004. This has really effected their health insurance and this ban was cruel and intended to be cruel.
The Ron Paul supporters who keep repeating that Ron Paul is great for everyone because he’s against government are ignoring the fact that Ron Paul does indeed have plans to dismantle one level of government but not another and that will directly affect tens of millions of Americans.
Applying the Ron Paul formula of dismantling Federal powers while empowering state control would have ensured that slavery never ended.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Let me count the ways.
Get rid of the IRS- leaves no one to police corporations that pay very little taxes now.
Get rid of the department of education and other programs = let the states take care of everything themselves, which in turn would raise state and local taxes to a level way beyond federal taxes. The poor states would suffer greatly. Most of the taxes are paid by land owners now, with renters getting a free ride. So much for his stance on lowering taxes.
Voted against the National Amber Alert which also would have dictated stiffer penalties against child kidnappers. Why would anyone vote against that?
Wants to legalize pot. Now that tells you where his head is really at. If you agree with all that, then vote for him. I don't, so I won't.
- 1 decade ago
Because Ron Paul has a third grader's understanding of economics.
Of COURSE a guaranteed minimum income wouldn't work.
He's also very wrong about free trade and globalization. Net, maybe we have lost more jobs than gained, though the ones we've gained pay a lot more than the ones we lost (most of the growth has been in the 'service sector' but that hasn't primarily been foodservice, it's primarily been white collar jobs). But even before you consider the payscale of the jobs gained versus the jobs lost, fine, maybe 1/2 a percent of us lost a job (though, funny, unemployment is down to 4.5% even after a series of overnight rate hikes...).
But for the other 99.5% of us, we have a combination of low prices and low interest rates that we would without the efficiencies of free cross-border trade not have. The increases in productivity have enabled the Fed to maintain lower rates without pushing inflation up. Either mortgages would be 200 bps higher or much of what we buy would cost 10-20% more than they do today. Now, we probably wouldn't buy a lot of it, but then we wouldn't make it either....
My main problem is the poor analysis - the failure to look at the bigger picture, to consider the indirect but real consequences of policy.
This is my main beef with Paul Krugman too.
Must be something about the name Paul....
Who exactly voted thumbs down on this? Do you want to be worse off?