Ron Paul strikes me as an American Nick Griffin, the head of the British National Party. As the country descends into shit, his ideas become more and more appealing, as it becomes clear that something radical has to be done to get the country back on track. His supporters were originally a hard-core of racists and nutjobs, but have gradually expanded to include otherwise fairly rational people who just desire change at any cost more than anything else. He was once considered a fringe lunatic, but eventually expanded his power-base to the point that he could be considered a real contender. The previous paragraph could apply to either Nick or Ron.
But eventually the bubble has to burst. The more exposure Ron Paul gets, the more his views are going to come under scrutiny. For Nick Griffin the bubble burst when he had finally gained enough support to be considered politically important enough to appear on "Question Time". At this point the whole country got to see first-hand what his views and policies actually were. There are clips on youtube, but suffice to say he made an arse of himself and the BNP more-or-less fell back into obscurity.
That said, Nick could probably do well as a Republican...
Nick Griffin is only on the right socially, a bit like Le Pen in France. He's very much a lefty on economic issues, and seeing as how Ron Paul is 30% economic issues and 50% foreign policy/war issues, he would fit Paul's views rather poorly even were Paul a crazed supremacist. He'd be run out of the Republican party if the topic of discussion ever went near economic policy, actually.
Paul would, in British terms at least, be more likely to fit in with either the Liberals (the Orange wing at least, though he wouldn't be pro-Euro so not entirely), the Tories (though depending on what issue is at hand at the time, though Daniel Hannan is a good example of Ron Paul's ideas in Britain), or the UKIP (with the non-interventionist/isolationist/what-have-you undertones).
Sure, but it's slightly different if Chuck Norris himself gives you authorization to do so.
But were I writing crazy things from the "viewpoint" of Chuck Norris while Chuck Norris was on vacation or busy beating up fools, then the crazy things written would be showing that Chuck Norris made a bad decision in letting me write and not keeping a close enough eye on his publications, not that he was as insane as I (the ghostwriter). Furthermore, the relevance of the crazy things written in Chuck Norris's name would decline after two decades of him doing heroic things and distinctly not following through with what the handful of newsletters did.
Of course, by this point the analogy starts to look kinda silly, but whatever.
You don't need those letters to call Ron Paul a homophobe. There's plenty of other sources for that, at least!
Way to change the subject there, bro
He's a homophobe in the sense that he personally dislikes it. Sad to say it, but it's true. On the other hand, every single other Republican running dislikes homosexuals even more (GAYS IN THE MILITARY anyone?), and unlike Paul, are entirely willing to use the government to screw around with them. While disliking them (and considering the fact that he's a good 73 years old, its hardly much worse than most grandparents), his live and let live philosophy would mean that he would absolutely protect their rights.
It's bad enough management that it still reflects very poorly on his character and ability to... well, manage anything. Qualities a president should have.
He was retired from politics, and at the time it looked like he was going to spend the rest of his life as a doctor before retiring. Then stuff happened and he changed his mind, returning to Congress to rant about an incoming housing bubble (ho ho!), the war in Iraq being an insane endeavor without any potential gain (What a nutty idea!), and that maybe bombing and killing people in their countries isn't a good way to fight terrorism (Insane, I tell you!).
Considering the circumstances, it still leaves him leaps and bounds above literally every single alternative.
----
I'm sad to say, though, that even were the bulk of the bad things said about him actually true (being a racist, etc), he'd still easily be the best of the pack. So long as he didn't let them affect his policy (him being an actual crook or not holding to his values would be a whole different ballgame, but I have yet to see anyone claim THAT so far), it would be outweighed by the end of stupid American foreign interventions, the extension of American hegemony to the rest of the world, less blustering and threatening, more negotiating, and an economic policy not purely directed by massive banks to boot. Hell, just pulling out of those bases would make it worth it. Mind, I'm not American so my priorities are a bit different, but he would still be far ahead of the alternatives.
With the Republicans, Mitt Romney is for sale to the highest bidder, lacks any strong moral fibre, and would bend over to whatever major interests wanted to control him. He'd probably lose to Obama unless the worst circumstances happened though, since I can't see Mitt freaking Romney getting out dedicated voters the way literally any other Republican could.
Newt Gingrich is also for sale to the highest bidder, but dresses it up in populist rhetoric and is personally a scumbag where Mitt is plastic. Not much different than Mitt except he'd probably lose by even larger margins.
Santorum, well, he's a bible thumping, war-mongering nut who hates the internet. He's authentic, but absolutely nuts in every sense.
Obama is ALREADY owned, specifically by Goldman Sachs and co. He's no communist, just a fascist in vaguely socialist clothing.
Author
Topic: American Election Megathread - It's Over (Read 752632 times)