Agreed, though what don't you like about him? His big strike for me is his Abortion and same-sex marriage stances. Though I credit the later to him just being an old man, haha. Mostly though I just like that he's a seemingly honest guy. It could all be a sham of course, but I love his platform.

His views on those items are spot on.

Unfortunately I can't get behind his views on abortion, same-sex marriage, net neutrality, or much of his foreign policy.

What the two previous posters don't realize is that despite the fact that you disagree with his opinions on abortion and same-sex marriage, he still believes it should be up to the states to decide, so by voting him president he will not attempt to change those laws, but rather, leave them up to each state.

Paul is actually not against gay marriage alone. He is against all forms of federal marriage, preferring instead to leave it up to the state, preferably to churches and agreements between individuals alone.

"What the two previous posters don't realize is that despite the fact that you disagree with his opinions on abortion and same-sex marriage, he still believes it should be up to the states to decide, so by voting him president he will not attempt to change those laws, but rather, leave them up to each state."

fresh says:

"What the two previous posters don't realize is that despite the fact that you disagree with his opinions on abortion and same-sex marriage, he still believes it should be up to the states to decide, so by voting him president he will not attempt to change those laws, but rather, leave them up to each state."

I do realize that. It's why I like him. I'm just saying of the many things I like Ron Paul for, those are the two I dislike. Hell I even agree with him on Net Neutrality, which is pretty rare for a web nerd. I think Net Neutrality is one of the most misunderstood issues right now.

I'm in the same boat Dave. I too don't like the abortion stance (I know leave it up to the states... still he's an OB/GYN how does he not support abortion?), and I agree with him on Net Neutrality. I think regulation of the internet, which is what it is, is going to leave the internet worse off than the dangers of not having it pose.

I'm in the same boat Dave. I too don't like the abortion stance (I know leave it up to the states... still he's an OB/GYN how does he not support abortion?), and I agree with him on Net Neutrality. I think regulation of the internet, which is what it is, is going to leave the internet worse off than the dangers of not having it pose.

"The more complex the issue, the more localized the decisions need to be."

I know that's not a direct quote, but it's close enough to Dr. Paul's statements. That right there says that anything I don't agree with him on is a gimme anyway because his whole point is that he wants to let us decide for ourselves (or our cities/counties/states/etc.).

Specifically, I personally am anti-abortion/pro-choice. I would not condone abortion but it's surely none of my business to declare a woman can't do something to her own body (not trying to start a debate here, merely expressing why I can support RP even on this issue). And the idea of getting the government out of marriage would endear me to this candidate even if it weren't for all the other things I like about him.

From what I can tell, people who don't support him fall into one of two categories: either they don't know the truth about his opinions on the issues or they want their views to be forced on others. The latter really won't be changed but we can certainly help spread the word to those that fall into the former.

The thing that confuses me is that the same people who are trying to silence him are the ones who claim to want to live by the Golden Rule. So odd...

""From what I can tell, people who don't support him fall into one of two categories: either they don't know the truth about his opinions on the issues or they want their views to be forced on others. The latter really won't be changed but we can certainly help spread the word to those that fall into the former."

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites." ... We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Winterset says:

""From what I can tell, people who don't support him fall into one of two categories: either they don't know the truth about his opinions on the issues or they want their views to be forced on others. The latter really won't be changed but we can certainly help spread the word to those that fall into the former."

Or #3: they actually care about perception of the US on the world court. Whether for personal reasons (ie they like to travel) or professional (ie they do business in other countries too).

Ron Paul supports pulling out of all (or most) trade agreements. From his website:

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites." ... We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

This would further sour US perception on the world stage. As if it wasn't bad enough already.

Anyway, just my two cents as someone that enjoys traveling internationally AND does business internationally.

-Chuck

Throw me in as another agree! I even agree with him on abortion and marriage. (Seriously, I'll get married before God and my family. Nobody else needs to be involved.) What I REALLY like about him, though, is that I know he'll avoid appointing activist judges to the Supreme Court. Some of the other presidential candidates, both conservative and liberal, I don't think could possibly help themselves. Unfortunately, we all know he's not going to get the nomination. But he would make an excellent addition to the White House nevertheless- perhaps a Giuliani-Paul ticket? Just combine the most liberal and most conservative guy and voila, something resembling a moderate administration.

In response to smackywentz, it actually makes a lot of sense that an ob/gyn would be anti-abortion, assuming that they aren't performing abortions themselves. Obviously they have a great deal of knowledge about fetal development, and they're the ones who have to deal with treating the physical side effects of abortion. I'm not saying all ob/gyns are pro-life, but there are enough. http://www.aaplog.org/

Chuck,

While Ron Paul is interested in ending US involvement in managed (free-trade in name only) trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA he is very explicit that he strongly promotes free trade and diplomacy. He wants to talk and trade openly with every country as he firmly believes that the more nations trade with each other, the more their interests are aligned and the more peaceful their relationships are likely to be.

There are plenty of countries that our government prevents US businesses from dealing with not to mention massive subsidies and other interferences in the marketplace that create animosity. Our current 'free trade' policy is more mercantilist than it is real free trade. It is this same mercantilism that directs our foreign policy to invade countries that are no threat to us which undoubtedly hurts our standing on the world stage more than anything else.

On this linked page you can read pretty much everything he has written regarding free trade and I think most people that enjoy traveling overseas and doing business overseas would support his views unless of course they own or work for a major corporation that benefits from the managed trade agreements directly ;)

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12