Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Chip
It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.
Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP. (I'm not completely immune from the conspiracy temptation myself)
For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:
Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Like I said before, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter and am currently undecided. End disclaimer.
It seems, though, that you are arguing that he shouldn't be listened to because he's an extremist. I'm all for denouncing ideas that won't work and aren't practical, but dismissing something because it's extreme is pretty poor reasoning.
$9 trillion in national debt is an extreme problem and a fact. That requires an extreme solution.
This country was founded on extremism. It wasn't really mainstream, conventional wisdom to take on the ruling government and pick a fight with a dog ten times your size. Pretty extreme if you ask me.
If the guy's ideas won't work then say why, dismissing them because they are extreme isn't really productive.
SGG put it very well. I personally like Paul's ideas and desire to fix the real problems with the government, I just fail to see how they can really be carried out.
I think a Flat Tax is a fantastic idea and ditching the IRS would get rid of one of the most inefficient, screwed up agencies in existence. Like SGG said, what happens to all the people employed there? Just kick them out on the street?
I think you'd have to privatize a lot of the government entities and essentially transfer the employees - create new jobs rather than just eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and hope people land on their feet.