# Amazing Fundraising

#### Salgat

Joined Dec 23, 2006
221

Dave

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
Just as amazing is the fact that the worth of the Chinese petroleum enterprise went over \$1,000,000,000,000.

I've heard of Ron Paul, but can't identify him. Must be political, but not mainstream yet.

#### jpitz31

Joined Oct 24, 2007
37

#### Dave

Joined Nov 17, 2003
6,970
Ron Paul is a United States Congressman and a 2008 U.S. presidential candidate.

Here is a Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Thanks

Joe
Does he really have a chance? Not to be ageist, but given that he is 72 wouldn't that be a turn off for voters? I only say that because recently in the UK a leader of one of the 3 main political party was forced from his job because of his age - he was 66 (in fact the reasons were less clear however this was a major factor). Perhaps age in politics is only a major factor in the UK since the likes of Tony Blair and David Cameron rose through the ranks.

Dave

#### jpitz31

Joined Oct 24, 2007
37
Good Point Dave,

It is way too early in the campaign to determine if he has a chance or not. Look at what happened to Howard Dean, last election, He was leading the Democratic party for the primary election and made a public blunder which lost him his bid as the Democratic nominee.

Many candidates run for many different reasons. Many run to sway the party or to direct votes away from other candidates. They may also run for some personal reason, gain national attention etc.

Will be something to watch.

Thanks

Joe

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,084
Not to be ageist, but given that he is 72 wouldn't that be a turn off for voters?
Teddy Roosevelt was "the kid," taking oath at age 42. Ron Reagan was "the old man," taking at age 69. I doubt Paul's age matters too much to American voters.

The real questions are whether he can inspire conservatives to choose him over the other Republican hopefuls, and if so, whether he can inspire moderates to choose him over the Democrat's choice. Different election, same old s***.

#### Pootworm

Joined May 18, 2007
29
Actually, John McCain is pushing or at 80. I've seen several interviews where his fitness for the position is questioned based on that fact alone.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. Huuuuge on fiscal responsibility. Advocates a return to the gold standard. Solid view of economics and the very, very scary state that the US economy is in.

And he has some pretty far out-there views. He'd have the US pull out of major international organizations (I'm thinking that included the WTO and NATO but can't recall if the UN was included). Not too sure what to make of that.

Very bright guy though. I spent an afternoon reading through some of his writings and positions ((http://www.house.gov/paul/) and am definitely hoping that he gets more attention from the mainstream media than he's seen so far.

#### beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
Sometimes, it would be nice to have everybody recall that we are electing a public servant, and not a dictator. A mainstream candidate would be refreshing.

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,084
Actually, John McCain is pushing or at 80. I've seen several interviews where his fitness for the position is questioned based on that fact alone.
He was born in 1936. Apparently his detractors can't do math.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. Huuuuge on fiscal responsibility. Advocates a return to the gold standard. Solid view of economics and the very, very scary state that the US economy is in.

And he has some pretty far out-there views. He'd have the US pull out of major international organizations (I'm thinking that included the WTO and NATO but can't recall if the UN was included).
Really? Dang. I might vote for this guy. If he can compete, that is. We've not had a good challenge to the Dumb & Dumber parties since that kook Perot.

#### agentofdarkness

Joined Oct 9, 2007
42
Ron Paul is a libertarian which means that he wants as little government as possible. He wants to drastically cut taxes (as in no tax) an drastically cut costs (as in only bare min services). I think he is too out there to be a viable candidate. I don't think that Ron Paul is the answer. If he is just a congressman, he will have trouble going toe to toe with Hillary in the experience department. Americans are in general moderates, they sit on the fence and elect people who are the same. Ron Paul is far from a moderate. He is a libertarian which is one step away from Anarchist. I don't think he is the best (or even a good candidate) for president.

#### thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,084
Okay...

We've got one accusation that the fellow is a Libertarian and one accusation that the fellow is with the Constitution party. His website says he's a Republican.

What gives?

#### Pootworm

Joined May 18, 2007
29
He's a self-described constitutionalist, but not with the Constitution Party (though I think there are some overlapping views). He did run under the Libertarian banner awhile back, but yeah, is running for the Republican nomination presently.

Actually, his Wikipedia entry gives pretty good insight into where he stands on issues better than my swiss-cheese memory does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_positions

Very interesting guy, but I agree with agentofdarkness in that he's too far out there to be a viable candidate, except for the demographic that would want to put him in office for no better reason than to scare the hell out of the cookie-cutter candidates/congress-critters. I wish that he could bring fiscal policy to the forefront of the debates, but economics is hardly as sexy/comprehensible-to-the-American-Idol-public as universal health care.

#### Salgat

Joined Dec 23, 2006
221
The one thing going for Ron Paul on the Republican side is that he is the only Republican who neither voted for the war nor endorsed it. He is probably the only Republican candidate to stick out(the other candidates share many of the same views), and if he raises enough money and wins enough polls, I could see him being considered as a last resort in a means to beat the Dems. He also likes to call the other republicans neo-cons and refers to himself as a traditional Republican.

#### agentofdarkness

Joined Oct 9, 2007
42
The one thing going for Ron Paul on the Republican side is that he is the only Republican who neither voted for the war nor endorsed it. He is probably the only Republican candidate to stick out(the other candidates share many of the same views), and if he raises enough money and wins enough polls, I could see him being considered as a last resort in a means to beat the Dems. He also likes to call the other republicans neo-cons and refers to himself as a traditional Republican.
He has to win the primary first. His stance on Iraq will be questioned because its not something you can sit on the fence about. I'm not sure what the stance on Iraq is with the members of the Republican party, but if I was to guess I would think that they would not want a candidate who does not support the war. Ron Paul doesn't support the 100% so that might damage him during the Republican primary. Also, I don't think that many people know who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. The first step to getting elected is to be recognized.