He will hold a press conference tomorrow where supposedly he will run for president representing both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties.

In a close race, who would he hurt more: McCain or Obama?

He won't have an affect at all, really, but he'll pull more from McCain.

if Ron Paul declares, I know where my vote will go.

Obama?

Eh? He'll pull less than one percent. I'm all for breaking down the two-party system, so I have no problem with him running despite disagreeing with many of his positions. I never liked the 'who will a third party detract from' arguement, anyways.

ummm none.....

No one cares about Ron Paul...

Dont steal my shit

Actually it seems he will possibly be on the ballot in Montana at least... and that could make the difference for Obama who is doing OK there (it's pretty much tied, and goes back and forth between Obama and McCain). All those libertarians up there are impressed by Obama and tired of the Republican's big government, but if Ron Paul is on the ballot, many votes could be taken. The question is whether it would hurt Obama or McCain more!

Isn't Barr already the libertarian candidate?

Hmmm... I just read something about Ron Paul being the candidate. Maybe it was for some other 3rd party, I might have gotten it confused.

Paul will appeal to the basement dwellers, but those people are too busy jacking off to furry porn to go out and vote. Marginally more votes than Nader and Barr.

I like Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on very much, but you can't say the man doesn't have principles. He's one of the very few Republicans who claim to be a libertarain that actually is one.

I'll agree with that. He has the kind of maverick honesty McCain used to have.

Do not forget Independents.

It appears you guys think a person either has to be one side or the other. There is a middle and its about 20% of the population and polls show McCain has 55-40% lead. Nevertheless, before Palin came and changed the election, Obama was slowly crawling back.

I don't understand this move. The whole campaign for liberty agenda was to work from the ground up by supporting local people running for various local offices of varying degree who generally held the same opinions as Paul and Co. but running for President at this point is a waste of time and effort. There's no possibility of being involved in any type of debate and raising funds to be put for this effort would be wasteful too. Plus, his wife is recovering from a serious illness, so this manuever he's making doesn't make sense to me.

We'll find out in hours, but the new rumor is the following (from wikipedia):

Now, maybe my information is wrong.
Maybe Wikipedia is incorrect.
If so, then just shoot me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

I have a big problem with Ron Paul.
A 'Constitutional Libertarian' does not remand the Federal authority for the protection of Individual Rights to the State.
This 'philosophy' is only begging to eliminate Rights that are rightfully protected at the Federal level
exactly where Our Constitution containing Our 9th Amendment and Our Article IV; Section 2 exists,
and no true Libertarian would even think to grant the State Totalitarian power over and above and against The Rights of The People.
Ron Paul believes that Our 9th Amendment grants no protection of non-enumerated Rights, but he errs in 'his delusions' because there is no such Government that exists unto itself and there is no such American government by any False and Unconstitutional Activism which stands against and without Us.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... mendmentix



Please note that in our law the term "shall not" is mandatory and that every level of Our Government is sworn by Oath to
uphold the terms of the Federal Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... l#section2



As for 'Mr. Paul's contention' of State's Rights over and above any Individual:



By falsely combining the terms of the 9th and 10th Amendment, Mr. Paul is arguing apples and oranges and is coming up with applesauce. The term "powers" does not mean 'power against Rights, Priviledges and Immunities'.
The term "power" is *I think* the Power of Law, Execution, strictly administrative, including the power to tax, but in no way, shape or form represent the Power of Prohibition, Denial or Disparagement of Personal Rights, Priviledges, and Immunities.
Also, take note of the phrase "are reserved to the states respectively. *I think* the term respectively is a limiter preventing the State from being above The People, as in respective of the Rights, Priviledges and Immunities of The People. Otherwise, Respectively of What?

And then, on top of that, Mr. Paul wants the State Legislature to choose your Federal Senators instead of allowing the voters to, but being 'such a nice guy', he'll let you choose your Federal congressman, perhaps to eliminate any future Obamas from The Senate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... esentation

Ron Paul is 'Mystery Meat'.
Ron Paul is Full of Shit.

I think of Mr. Paul as a Plant and a backhanded Shill by and for the GOP, but this is my opinion.
The radical views of Mr. Paul are guaranteed not to pass, while his moderate proposals and endorsements are so conveniently supported by his insistance that The Constitution has no accountability for non-enumerated issues, even those that are indicated by Constitutional association that are necessary for such Rights, Priviledges and Immunities to exist at all, and which are also so 'typically coincidental' to the GOP platform, and that the GOP always, always works as 'a team', whether they are publicly labeled as such or not.
Why did Mr. Paul run as a GOP at all?

Being propped and planted as an extremist ex-GOP radical hailing from GW's turf makes McCain look 'like a moderate', doesn't it?