The articles about his newsletter did him in. You can't have a series of newsletters for 20 years that have articles in them attacking MLK and completely denigrating minorities. Obama just learned it's not even ok to attend a church that does such things. Doesn't matter if he wrote the articles or not, his NAME was at the top of the newsletter...
That being said, he has some very good ideas. I, myself, am a Libertarian leaning Republican. But he doesn't have the delegate math at this point to justify staying in the race. (something Hillary hasn't figured out for herself yet).
Hope for America, maybe. Hope for Ron Paul? I don't think so... His odds of doing anything other than stealing votes from someone else in the election are slim to none (not to say that that would be a bad thing, mind you...)
That sort of thinking will never have a positive outcome. It is true that Dr. Paul will have an amazingly hard race to the White House, but I do believe he has the mindset to do amazing things. If his message was told without being manipulated or suppressed I believe the American people can and would see his true beliefs, then they can make a pure decision on who they want to lead our country... Simply writing a can candidate off because he does not have a chance of winning is a degradation to the democratic process.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that people who follow him are generally looked upon as crazy and as such he won't be able to attract mainstream Americans. Because of this he doesn't really have much of a chance, great mindset or no. The presidential election, like any other election, is largely a popularity contest and I just can't see how he can manage to convert all the Obama fanatics and Republicans to his side I don't have anything against him personally, and I think that if you believe in what he has to say then by all means you should vote for him; a candidate's odds of winning should never be a factor in a person's decision with regard to who (whom?) they want to vote for. I was just making an observation that by him running all he can really do is sway the election away from someone else who might have won, which again is not necessarily a bad thing, it just is.
Sorry for coming off a bit strong, I think we are on the same page. What I really enjoy about him is he asks questions and he sticks to his well thought out beliefs. I think he has created a mindset in enough people (especially on the internet) to allow for a "revolution" in thought. Over the next decade I am betting we will see a collective maturity throughout the nation with an awareness to critical reasoning. The thought processes created by this revolution do not even have to be in tune with Dr. Pauls ideologies, because the true beauty is in lucid thought processes! I think the majority wants to do good in the world, and if we were able to get the majority to truly critically think then we could have a progressive nation of people. I hope I live to see that day.
You may be right. Personally I don't know anything about his policies, which is part of the reason that I don't have anything against him. The way you describe him sounds good though. The problem is that most people really either aren't very intelligent or are just unwilling to devote effort to critical thinking. Any kind of revolution would have to get around that. It would be good to see our country as an entire nation of thinking people, but as to whether or not that will happen within our lifetimes, well, I just don't know. We do seem to be on the same page though