
Ron Paul speaks against SOPA - pawn
http://torrentfreak.com/presidential-candidate-ron-paul-slams-sopa-111229/
======
jaysonelliot
I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul
personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

But none of that really matters.

He's the only candidate that I feel I could actually trust to stick by his
campaign rhetoric, and the only one I would trust to actually defend the
constitution.

Ironic, given that we have a constitutional scholar in the White House and a
historian running for the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul is wrong on some things I care about, but so is Obama, and certainly
so is Newt or Romney. I think I'll vote for the lesser of a dozen evils, and
go with Paul.

~~~
spindritf
> I could come up with a list of things that I don't like about Ron Paul
> personally, and a few things that worry me politically.

That's completely OT and not really related to your post in particular but
what's with the disclaimers lately? Are we becoming the sort of community
where you need to preface every thought with a bow to group's believes? Are we
so stuck in the "singaling game" [1] even here, on a niche website and clearly
among people smart enough to get the gist of a comment?

Or is it just me? As in I'm just noticing those more often?

[1] <http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/06/against-disclai.html>

~~~
stfu
HN's voting "thingy" is obviously engaging a middle-ground positioning,
especially when it comes to political views. Moreover I suspect that arguments
are taken more serious when putting some "I try to be aware of my biases"
upfront.

Especially among (more or less) non-political communities like this one an
argument starting with a"I am an independent voter" premise is most likely
going to get a better reception than a "I have been for years a dedicated
follower of politician x". Not that I am a fan of this, quite the opposite -
but there are other sites much more suitable for political "confrontations".

~~~
adbge
I'd hesitate to describe HN as non-political. The majority of HNer's are very
pro-capitalist and pro-business from what I've observed, which makes sense
given the community's focus on start-ups. The popular political sentiments
that you'll find on Reddit are _very_ different from those you'll find on HN.

------
dkhenry
What is great about Ron Paul's stance is that I am confident based on his
continual display of principled politics that if elected he would stand by
this. Who cares what the other candidates are tickling our ears with. Paul is
the only one who I feel would actually stand up to the Movie Industry.

~~~
makmanalp
I used to be interested in what he had to say until I saw this:
[http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-
beer-a...](http://murphysbride.tumblr.com/post/14876601176/bacon-beer-and-
boobs-afternoonsnoozebutton)

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful._

Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally
accurate, but you need to understand what these represent.

First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context...

But more specifically, these are decidedly _not_ things that Paul ever said or
wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was
using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It
means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass,
but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone
else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it.

It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here
between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with
the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with
the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out
much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other
people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?)
as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those
statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers'
ideas as guidance.

More discussion of this here: [http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-
ron-pauls-raci...](http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-
racist-newsletters/comment-page-3/)

~~~
damncabbage
Here's a nice break-down of exactly why the newsletter debacle is so damning
(and how it contrasts with how Wright was handled):

[http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-
thinking-...](http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-the-
paul-endorsement.html)

~~~
danenania
The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has
decreed it so.

The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause for
disliking Paul as a candidate and perhaps even a person, but as others have
pointed out, they are relatively mild as far as political skeletons in the
closet go. If the media favored him, they could be easily downplayed as have
been countless much more serious missteps and outright crimes by mainstream
candidates in the past.

I was personally very disappointed when I found out about the newsletters and
disgusted by the idea that Paul would even associate with people who would
think manipulating racial tensions for political expediency is morally
acceptable. But let's put it in perspective--in the last decades the lies and
criminality of the US political class have led to the wrongful deaths of
millions, illegal torture, vast illegal wiretapping programs, vast financial
fraud and unprecedented transfers of wealth to the very richest people in the
world, stripping of civil liberties that have been fundamental since the Magna
Carta... need I go on?

How much airtime do we see devoted to examining establishment political
figures' complicity in these and laundry lists of other history-making type
crimes? I'm sorry, but the idea that Ron Paul's lapse in oversight on some
barely-circulated newsletters 15 years ago somehow ranks as 'damning' on the
scale of political transgressions is, quite frankly, utter horseshit. This is
just continuation of the usual program--distract from the real issues and
manipulate public opinion through manufactured divisiveness and tabloid
journalism.

~~~
aamar
You're inappropriately comparing the actions of candidates with people who
have actual power. Neither George W. Bush nor John Yoo is running for office.
Ron Paul is, and as a non-leadership representative, he's not in a position to
affect policy in any significant way. He hasn't had the opportunity do things
that Bush did. In order to assess him as a candidate, we have to understand
how he acted given his opportunities.

Considering how small those opportunities were, a profitable newsletter
publishing articles exhibiting this level of inaccuracy and racial animus is
meaningful.

~~~
danenania
First of all, Ron Paul has significant power in congress. He is a member of
two important committees and was instrumental, as a recent example, in
strengthening the auditing standards for the Federal Reserve. He also has
significant ideological influence on the Republican party, whether they like
it or not. The rhetoric of the tea party movement was in many ways a direct
attempt to co-opt Paul's support. He has used this power in near perfect
accordance with his principles, stood against reckless war, attacks on civil
liberties, favoritism for Wall St. and special interests, and economic
plunder.

There have been plenty of opportunities for Paul to sell out, as there are for
every successful politician, and he has rejected these opportunities at every
turn. Contrast this with Obama's record: a supporter of the patriot act from
the beginning, a friend of Wall Street, a believer in empire, in favor of
suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens, in favor of the drug war,
tolerant of illegal spying on citizens, tolerant of torture. Obama has broken
promises and sold out the American people time and time again. It seems pretty
clear who has the better batting average.

Paul is far from perfect, but the only alternative at this point is the status
quo or worse for the next four years, and believing in that is a lot more
insane and dangerous than any of Paul's most controversial beliefs. In fact,
when you look pragmatically at the scope of what Paul would actually be
capable of as president, you see that he could only really affect policy in
the moderate and generally popular portions of his platform--ending permanent
war, ending the drug war, vetoes on overspending. His more 'fringe' positions
are well beyond the purview of the executive branch, and his principles
explicitly preclude him from overstepping those bounds.

~~~
aamar
Ron Paul is to be commended for amending auditing standards for the Federal
Reserve. However, he still hasn't had an important policy position as compared
to his competitors for the presidency (excepting Bachmann). This is not a
slight, but it should be acknowledged.

Now, I agree that he has had substantial power rhetorically. He has people who
are passionate about what he says; his elucidations and opinions have
influenced them, raised money, started conversations, and affected the
political agenda. That is why it is disappointing that the very little power
he has has been used inappropriately in certain instances. If he hired awful
ghostwriters who spread stupidly racist material because he wasn't minding the
store, then that is not a good sign that he has successfully managed the one
area where he did have meaningful power.

Separately: I think you can critique Obama without mentioning things which
seem to me untrue or at least misleading, which I think warrant correction:

\- Obama has never (I believe) indicated that he's in favor of suspending
habeas for U.S. citizens. There's misinformation around that NDAA does this;
it does not. If you're thinking of something else, citation please.

\- The U.S. torture debate has mostly revolved around waterboarding and
unauthorized treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc. -- none of
these are known to have happened under Obama. Some people believe that the
Army Field Manual enables other forms of torture; Obama ordered a full review
and asked for all torture to be taken out; if you think he missed things,
that's a complex judgement call, not a simple issue.

\- On several other fronts, like the drug war, Wall Street, etc., Obama has in
fact applied the policies he stated--I'm not sure what makes you think he's
broken promises or compromised his sincere beliefs in any of these areas. He's
not a libertarian (except maybe in comparison to H. Clinton).

"Batting average" is a helpful term to use, but I think you're not using the
right denominator: Paul hasn't been up the plate many times, whereas Obama,
Gingrich, Romney, even Santorum have had a lot more opportunities to either
accomplish something or screw up.

By the way, I'm not arguing generally that you should vote for Obama instead
of Paul or whatever. But I am defending this newsletter "scandal" as a still
relevant datapoint on Ron Paul. Not definitive, but relevant.

------
jliechti1
The censorship of Ron Paul really is pretty incredible. The Daily Show clip
was already mentioned in this thread - here's another example I noticed the
other day in the Chicago Tribune:

I just pulled out three random stories:
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-
io...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-iowa-
nbcpolltre7bt0mr-20111230,0,6277647.story)
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-
ri...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politicsnow/la-pn-iowa-rick-
santorum-rips-ron-paul-20111229,0,3492896.story)
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-
romney-...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-romney-
prospects-iowa-win-20111227,0,6546759.story)

Notice how every candidate name mentioned in the article (for the first time)
is also a hyperlink, except Ron Paul.

~~~
chernevik
CNBC had an interview where they basically let him talk for almost half an
hour. He was great for five minutes, okay through to ten, and then the wheels
just came off. He couldn't answer obvious follow-up questions (some with
obvious Ron Paul answers). He was bamboozled by questions on the gold standard
from people who actually speak monetary policy. Toward the end he was hardly
coherent.

I came away thinking his talking points are great but get him off those and
there's very little there.

I suspect reporters who have seen the guy up close see this and don't bother
with him. I think they're too invested in their self-image as news filters to
provide deep, even-handed coverage and let their audience decide.

EDITED TO ADD: As noted below, I can't find a link to the interview I had in
mind. So I'll walk back what I've said here a step or two: That's my
impression of how the guy seems after extended scrutiny. But I can't now point
to a document that would support that impression as well as I'd like.

~~~
nickpinkston
(Full disclosure, I was an activist for Paul during 2008)

I agree that Paul seems to have too narrow of a focus in his talk - he answers
healthcare or fuel price questions half the time by saying these wouldn't
happen with a gold standard / Fed, etc. I don't think he's thin in his views,
but that (in typical libertarian fashion) he focuses just a bit too much on
pure philosophy and not on pragmatism.

I agree with the previous commenters with his sincerity and trustworthiness. I
think "The Incorruptible" can honestly be applied to his name. Whenever he
gave a speech he just got up there and said what was on his mind - it's not
all good policy, but he's serious and consistent.

The most likely result of a Paul presidency would probably be, not his
legislative force, etc., but perhaps the waking up of America to what the
establishment's power (and really the presidency itself) really is - fully
controlled by interest groups.

I actually think that Obama is a genuine / smart guy, but he's too afraid
(seemingly) to press his views. I think Paul would be fine pressing the views,
but would probably be near censured by the true political ruling class.

~~~
thebigshane
A truly frightening situation would be in the near impossible case that Ron
Paul does get elected president: that he ends up looking just as paralyzed and
neutered as President Obama and we find out that it isn't a matter of
conviction or fearlessness but that the collective power of interest groups
and the media has just gotten too powerful.

~~~
stcredzero
_...we find out that it isn't a matter of conviction or fearlessness but that
the collective power of interest groups..._

The collective power of interest groups is indeed the key.

The horror of slavery wasn't abolished by President Lincoln's stand on
principle. It was an alignment of the industrial North's economic/geopolitical
interests with the principled stand of abolitionists. Lincoln merely walked to
the front of the parade and raised his baton. The Emancipation Proclamation
was pragmatic, not principled.

Even Gandhi was doing this. He was able to align the interests of the average
Indian villager with the principle of Indian independence, and get the
population to understand it through clear material examples. (Cloth and salt.)

"The collective power of interest groups" is the reality, the landscape of
politics. Those who fight battles and wage campaigns on this landscape had
better be aware of its shape and implications. Wars are not won by those who
"want it" bad enough. The energy of fervor needs to be directed in the most
effective fashion.

------
rosariom
Ron Paul message resonates with people because he is talking about something
none of the other candidates are talking about: returning freedoms and sanity
to America. It would be hard to rollback all the damage done by the likes of
Obama and his predecessors but I think it can be achieved gradually and with
some culture changes in America. This is a great country and I hope to see its
freedoms preserved and reinstated otherwise we will head down the road to god
knows what and never come back. Freedom begets greatness and innovation.

The media needs to stop its blackout of Paul and the smear campaign and cover
the issues he is highlighting which are of the utmost importance.

~~~
davidw
"sanity" being "what you agree with".

That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.

~~~
x3c
(Disclaimer: I'm not from US).

    
    
      That's why we should flag political articles and leave them to other sites.
    
    

Except that at other sites, politics equals name callings and rhetoric. I
understand that that is the primary reason you want politics to stay out of
HN.

But if all scientists, techies and reasonable people stay out of politics and
common people are distracted by media, how can we expect things to change? If
readers of HN cannot discuss political beliefs in a rational manner, I wonder
who can.

No wonder legislation like SOPA has reached to the doorsteps of congress in
US.

~~~
davidw
I don't understand how you can equate keeping politics off of _this_ site to
_not being involved_ in politics.

~~~
x3c
I'm not. I'm saying signal to noise ratio of political discussions on
political sites is so low that any rational discussion drowns out in the
noise. Plus, most political sites have a clear and strong bias, such that
opposing ideas are rarely discussed based on their merits.

Also, many techies who otherwise would not engage in political discussions
(due to aforementioned reasons), can bounce off ideas here. I'm not claiming
that HN becomes a political discussion forum, I'm saying downvoting legitimate
political discussions for being political is taking it too far.

[Edit: missed a word and it bothered me enough to edit the post.]

~~~
davidw
> I'm saying signal to noise ratio of political discussions on political sites
> so low that any rational discussion drowns out in the noise.

And you'd like to bring that here?

~~~
x3c
I'm not trying to be rude or condescending here, but if you read my reply in
its entirety, you'll find the answer to your question.

~~~
davidw
The connection you aren't making is that politics leads to flame wars, on the
internet. "Politics" regards deeply held _beliefs_ people hold about how the
world ought to be run. Also, the same discussions tend to be run over and over
on ad infinitum. Hacker news doesn't need it. It does well by having a tight
focus.

~~~
sixspeed
Your point is well taken. But tech discussions can also lead to flame wars and
HN seems to handle those rather well. I for one am interested in what this
community thinks about many subjects. Including politics.

~~~
tptacek
The site has guidelines. Please reread them.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It's confusing that you would direct posters to the guidelines while willfully
disregarding the guidelines yourself, and call the guidelines "stupid."

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3405357>

~~~
tptacek
The guideline I'm referring to here is not stupid.

The "don't comment about flagging" guideline is. It's meant to eliminate
pointless arguments about what is or isn't germane to the site, much like how
you're asked not to comment about being downvoted. But flags are invisible,
and the number of people flagging is dwarfed by the number of people upvoting
threads about Ron Paul's newsletters, so that the only way for it to leave the
front page of the site (precipitously, if you didn't notice) is admin
intervention.

Commenting on this post in the first place was stupid, since the story already
got buried. I just felt bad for 'davidw, and I'm a nerd, so when someone says
"I think HN is in fact a great place to talk about politics", it's hard for me
to resist commenting that it's _by charter_ not a place to talk about
politics.

I'm answering in detail because you seem to follow my comments, and I don't
want you to think I'm blowing you off. I'm not. I don't know you or have any
problem with you personally.

------
wycats
It's not surprising that Ron Paul would be against SOPA.

That said, libertarians like Paul would have been against funding the projects
that led to the Internet, and are today against funding similar government
projects that might lead to future innovations.

In many cases, innovations are bootstrapped by government funding or research,
and then handed off to an appropriate role by the free market. Libertarians
are usually against regulating the private market once the handoff has
occurred (for good in many cases, and definitely in this case), but they are
usually against the initial government bootstrapping.

It's easy to imagine attacking the initial ARPA work on privacy, anti-
military, or anti-elitism grounds, and I could easily imagine it losing its
funding today, decried as a boondoggle that was useless for regular Americans,
who of course would never have access to a computer, with taxpayers footing
the bill.

~~~
WalterBright
It's often assumed that without the ARPA the internet never would have
existed. ARPA, however, is just one of many "internets" that sprung up over
the years. There was also FIDOnet, Prodigy, BIX, Compuserve, MCInet, etc.
Everyone with more than one computer thought to hook them together. Heck, even
some friends of mine invented their own internet back in the 70's.

If it wasn't ARPA, it would have been something else.

~~~
wycats
The examples you listed arrived after ARPA. CompuServe, which arrived pretty
early in the greater scheme, was founded in 1969 as a time sharing computer
service. It wasn't until quite a bit later that it became a packet-switched
computer network, likely in response to the success of ARPAnet's
implementation.

In contrast, the plans for ARPAnet were finished in 1968, and the system was
operational in 1969. The concept was pretty pie in the sky at the time, and
it's likely that the success of ARPA led to commercial implementations of
packet-switched networks.

Additionally, the early private networks did not have the character of the
"public Internet" which is a crucial component of the Internet we know and
love today. Indeed, the reason we care about SOPA is that the public Internet,
and not a patchwork of private internets, won the day.

------
MattBearman
The actual article is titled "Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Slams SOPA",
which I think is a better title, especially for us non-US residents.

As while I'm hugely interested in the whole SOPA story, being from the UK, I
had no idea who Ron Paul was, let alone that he was a presidential candidate.

Now that I know who he is, his stance against SOPA is _much_ more interesting.
Just a thought.

~~~
nextparadigms
The first time I heard of Ron Paul was when he was basically the _only_ one
who stood up for Wikileaks in Congress and defended them when everyone else
was calling them traitors and terrorists. I really liked that and I've been
following him since:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM20w0jHH8A>

------
naz
This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.

~~~
jiggy2011
As a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see
this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general.

He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical
republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his
position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government
involvement in anything. His position always seems to basically boil down.
"let the free market decide" or "let the individual states decide"

At least he appears consistent in what he says and I'm not necessarily saying
he is even wrong about anything in particular. But let's say he was elected
president , I can't see him actually _doing_ anything (some might argue this
is what the president should be). Let's say there was a national disaster of
some kind, what would he do? Just say "we the federal government would help
but we would just mess it up , let the free market create a solution"?

~~~
waffle_ss
He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There
already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".

~~~
jiggy2011
Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm
british). My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different
view on what the federal government is for? In which case I would expect him
to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do
more of this".

Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially
nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military to defend the USA if
directly attacked.

Perhaps I misunderstand his position?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially
nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military_

As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict
Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed
explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated
in Article I Section 8 [1]

\- - - - Quote

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject
of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the
Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current
coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall
be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
(not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and
the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United
States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the
Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the
Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

\- - - - End Quote

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress)

~~~
jiggy2011
Interesting. So essentially he is talking of not so much reducing the federal
government but basically dismantling it in it's current form and reforming it
into something that is basically responsible for the military (although
interestingly that list provides no provisions for an airforce presumably
because planes hadn't been invented when it was written, so I guess it would
have to be ammended) and currency control.

Interestingly also it does provide for copyright control which could be viewed
as being consistent with SOPA?

I wonder if his supporters realise what a fundamental restructure this would
be and whether such a change would even be practical.

Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on
day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.

I can't imagine that you'd really need more than a few thousand federal
employees (not counting military) to provide these services.

~~~
1212jtraceur
> Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on
> day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.

You might be interested in reading Paul's proposed budget for his potential
term in office. He realizes that instantly switching to a constitutional
federal government would be terrible, so he takes a more gradual approach.

[http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-
resto...](http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-
america/)

------
pawn
This morning I woke up with an idea to find out what the different
presidential hopefuls have said about SOPA. Sadly, this one was the only one I
could find...the only one I thought I could guess his stance on.

------
narag
_Ron Paul currently leads the majority of Iowa polls._

IIRC Mr. Paul was a minoritary candidate in last elections. Please, people
from the USA, Could you tell what has changed? Or is Iowa special?

~~~
cbs
Current conventional wisdom is that after Iowa, Paul will leave the "top tier"
of the Republican race. He has always been ignored by traditional media and
this is the highest hes ever risen, so there is a possibility he may find the
staying power.

To get to the meat of your question: why Paul now. Paul has always been a
solid choice for people dissatisfied with the traditional Republican party.
Many of his libertarian views speak to often ignored American ideals, and he
is willing to tell it how he sees it, not the political-speak whitewash heard
from everyone else. His supporters even include voters who don't normally
support the GOP (hes the Republican with the most significant youth following
and I've met many people who would vote Democrat-or-Ron-Paul). Hes showing
strong now because the electorate has started to feel (like Paul supporters
do) that the rest of the GOP field right now is in pretty bad shape.

There has been a sense of inevitability to Romney picking up the nomination,
hes been near the top of all the polls since he entered the race, but it seems
voters don't want to be stuck with him. They've been scrambling around and
sending a long line of candidates to the front of the polls, and inevitably
once they get the spotlight they make an ass of themselves. Then the voters
send someone else to the top of the polls. Right now is Paul's turn there (at
least in Iowa). It remains to be seen if he can stay there and defeat Romney,
or if once voters get to know him better his numbers will start falling.

edit: _Or is Iowa special?_ It is to Iowans, and any pundits who want to act
like Iowa will be a bellweather of the country. Really, they just go first.
The next races will be in different states, and after more time, and more news
cycles so Iowa is not necessarily indicative of anything but the current
opinions in Iowa.

~~~
shibboleth
Winning Iowa, or at least winning expectations, correlates with additional
fundraising and additional support leading into the following states: NH, SC,
FL, NV. A winner is able to build up momentum into those states and have the
chance to continue a successful campaign (Obama for America 2006-2008). And to
be honest, Iowa and New Hampshire both are special. I've been to both states
countless times and the people are fervent in understanding today's issues and
the candidates' stances on those issues, more so than any other state in the
country. But you are partially correct with your final assessment, winning
Iowa does not guarantee a successful campaign run.

------
brentashley
I have to say it's jarring to hear Ron Paul referring to "6000 years of human
history" as though that is the totality of human history. While I still
support him fully because everything he has to say wrt government and foreign
policy is sound and principled, it's really difficult for me to reconcile this
one thing.

~~~
jaysonelliot
Isn't that about how much written history we have?

I don't think he's being a creationist here, at least, that's not how I read
it.

~~~
dubfan
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw> \- In this video he claims he
does not "accept the theory of evolution as a theory". While he doesn't come
straight out and use the tired "just a theory" attack, it sure sounds like it.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eiR_U8vhIo> \- A reading from his book
expounds on his answer to that question. He seems to think the question of
evolution is "silly" and irrelevant to his campaign. He also attacks public
schools and evolution with rather weak and banal rhetoric.

Ron Paul lacks the perspective to be commander-in-chief of this country.

~~~
dantheman
From his book liberty defined: <http://libertydefined.org/issue/17>

No one person has perfect knowledge as to man's emergence on this earth. Yet
almost everyone has a strong religious, scientific, or emotional opinion he or
she considers gospel. The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the
evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this
struggle are those who look objectively at the scientific evidence for
evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful,
all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the
evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's
view about God and the universe. This is a debate about science and
religion...and should not involve politicians at all.

~~~
dubfan
For Paul to claim that someone could hold a "scientific opinion as gospel"
shows that he has either forgotten his scientific education that he no doubt
received during his Ph.D. candidacy, or that his meaning was lost in his
sweeping rhetoric. In this age of climate change, resource depletion and
environmental degradation the most powerful country in the world needs a
Commander-in-Chief that demonstrates the ability to understand and interpret
scientific advances. Paul has not shown this ability.

~~~
dantheman
He's an MD not a PhD, as for showing ability to take science into account, I'd
say that the politicization of science has been extremely detrimental to the
publics trust in it. I've done a lot of research into the philosophy and
history of science, and basing policy on "cutting edge" research seems to be
wrought with disaster. In general scientists and engineers are extremely
optimistic in the systems we can design, control, and understand. In
government, we need a conservative approach that waits for science to be
firmly established before acting, though a case be made against it, and in
general it's better to directly convince the public to do something than use
the threat of violence. Of course counter examples do exist (leaded gasoline
and CFCs).

------
TallGuyShort
Good on Ron Paul! I've expressed this sentiment on here before, but it still
bothers me that so much of what I read in opposition to SOPA is linked to
actual piracy. Sure, I think that DRM is ridiculous and counter-productive,
but piracy only serves to legitimize the claims of SOPA supporters, and
undermine the claims of it's opponents that it would do no good. Please, if
you oppose SOPA, stop using rhetoric from sites that appear to condone piracy.

------
webista
It should have been more convincing for me if he instead made this statement
before the goDaddy boycott, and net giants public opposition against SOPA, not
a few days before the election circus.

Politics is still politics, and this kind of rhetorical display and timing
have long been around for centuries as politicians' device that pander to the
media to get the favor from the people. I do not question his principles and
previous acts, it's the timing that's fishy.

------
stcredzero
TLDR for your non net-savvy friends and relatives:

SOPA = takedown of websites without due process = censorship for those
(corporations) who can afford big legal teams

Restriction of _where you can link to_ = restricting dissemination of
information = censorship for commercial interest over free speech.

Simple as that.

------
j2labs
The economist has a great write-up of Ron Paul:
<http://www.economist.com/node/21542199/>

~~~
dataminer
How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph,
using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it
to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.

~~~
gahahaha
"""wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky"""

That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably
objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who
don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.

~~~
thebigshane
Those adjectives are inherently subjective: the opposite of objective.

------
dubfan
Good work getting a political article up to the front page.

------
jsavimbi
The thing I like most about Ron Paul is that he's unelectable as a national
candidate, he knows it, yet has fun on Reddit and the national stage every
four years.

The thing I like the least about Ron Paul is that some of his ideas are easily
comprehended and adopted by people who I would otherwise consider intelligent
and educated. It breaks my heart that for all intents and purposes, they are
insane.

edit: had an extra "and" in there.

------
efader
Political pandering; I would not trust this.

~~~
tempire
It's not pandering; it's consistent with the philosophy he's been touting for
the last billionty years. Every time he gets up to speak, he talks about
freedom of the individual, and having the federal government get out of the
way. It's almost comical how people continually want to know his positions,
when he doesn't have positions, but rather a unifying philosophy that
positions grow out of.

That's the unique thing about Ron Paul, he's not your standard politician,
which is why he confuses the media so much.

