Don't be a bandwagon idiot, if you support him you clearly don't understand his policies.

He wanted to do away with the fed, reduce federal control and spending dramatically, felt that ********* should be legal, end our tyrannical foreign policy practices, reduce military spending, and make real progress on our massive massive debt. Exactly what part of his policies did I not get?

Drop the facade, anybody who wants Ron Paul as President only wants that because "he's gonna legalize weed y'all".
Which is the most stupid, burnt-out-neurons-stoner logic to ever elect someone as President.

He also has some bat **** insane ideas on abortion, like, really, really, ******* insane.

Like what? He doesn't support abortion, but he's a bit more "liberal" about things like birth control and so on. He believes that the issue of abortion has less to do with the law and more about the "morality" of the people. He thinks that when the morality changes, the law will change.

I mean, he was an OBGYN for ****** sake.

Every candidate has at least one or two policy ideas that a person is going to disagree with. One must look at things in a way that is relevant to their own priorities, and to the numbers. Ron Paul was the candidate with whom I agreed the most often, even though there were some things that I disagreed with him on. Overall he was clearly the best choice in my opinion, especially when your choices are Barack "I slaughter innocents" Obama and every other candidate the republicans put forth.

Barack "I slaughter innocents" Obama? Care to explain

He has allowed for an inordinate amount of drone strikes on targets filled with large amounts of civilian population in order to take out individual terrorists. Generally, for every 1 terrorist we nab with these drone strikes, we kill over 100 innocent people. Any man who can order such careless military strikes is far too callous to be in charge of the most powerful military in the world. But that's just the way I feel about it when presented with said evidence.

>Implying you're not spewing ******** about the collateral victims of said drones.

100 innocents is an inaccurate number, but I do agree that there has been some recklessness in recent foreign policy, but not anything close to rampant ****** . That's how I feel, I think America is a lot less corrupt and violent than people make it out to be, but that's good Ol' overly patriotic me.

Yeah, you're probably right that on average 100 would be incorrect. But here is a fun aside, let's say you lived in an apartment building, and a ******** happened to live in the same building. One day, you're watching a football game, rooting for your favorite team, eating some wings, and then suddently an inferno beyond comprehension consumes your body, and the bodies of your entire family, all of whom have never significantly wronged anyone. Why? Why did this happen? could you even have time to think that as you were evaporated in the napalm explosion? That's why he's a ******* ******* , and that's why Ron Paul was a far better choice.

Well that is a bit drastic BUT I don't like Ron Paul due to the fact he denies climate change, he believes in a completely unregulated free market, thinks the Fed is unconstitutional, thinks the FDA and USDA should be done away with, thinks we should return to the gold standard(actually super stupid) and he thinks lying to customers should be legal to increase sale. So that's why I don't think Ron Paul is a good choice, because he may be anti-war and drug but his other beliefs are just not good.

I agree that he has some bad beliefs, but despite what you may have heard he is right when he says the fed is unconstitutional, which was realized by many before it was created, and the president before calvin coolidge was assassinated just so the Fed could be created, and our country could fall under the debt enslavement of the Rothchildes just like the UK, a fate we had tried to avoid for the first 140 years of our nation's existence, give or take. I agree that returning to the gold standard is unrealistic, but a lot of what Ron Paul wanted was unrealistic, and ultimately extremely unlikely to be doable even for the president. However, a lot of his beneficial ideas, vis-a-vis foreign policy and drug enforcement and reduction of spending would have not only been feasable but likely, so I think we would have found him to overall have accomplished a great deal of good for our country. Of course, that is just supposition as he never became president. However, I will say this, anyone who signs into law something like the NDAA, and makes a habit of ordering drone strikes on civlian targets, is someone who can clearly be outdone by anyone with the slightest empathy or conscience. Also, I'm not suggesting Obama is the only ******* that ran last election, literally every politician EXCEPT Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were absolute crap, and Gary was an independant so his chances of being elected were exactly zero. I would have been less pleased with a Mitt Romney presidency, I assure you.

Well I don't think he's a ******* . Also Harding wasn't assassinated, or it's a conspiracy theory started by some guy, and the Fed was created in 1913 under Wilson.

whoops, definitely got my facts wrong there, sorry about that

I'm not saying Obama is perfect or my favorite president, I just think he's doing better than all the others would have. Not by all that much though