Libertarians don't win elections either. We'll only know that if he runs 3rd party. He has name recognition, so I'd speculate he could come in ahead of a Libertrian candidate.
Paul has already stated that he won't run as a 3rd party or independent candidate.
It's funny how you guys will trash Paul but then fret deep down that he doesn't run 3rd party, knowing that he'll easily throw the election to Hillary.
A companion quote to your tagline. And one of the main reasons I couldn’t vote for a ‘disengagement’ candidate like Ron Paul (even without the coddling of ‘truthers’ whose postmodernist and anti-American view of history must be snubbed out as harshly as Parker and Stone did, with ridicule).
Admittedly, I didn’t take the time to wade through the whole bunch of poorly written verbiage, and admittedly, I’m not a Paul-Bot, so I really shouldn’t speak on their behalf, and I have not read all of the replies, but I have to get to work...and that’s typical for FR, right?
I don’t think that there’s any problem in Congressman Paul’s behavior when we look at the details. He proposes earmarks—as a representative of his district, at the constituents’ request—and then he votes against spending. When a bucket of money is approved by Congress against his votes, is it wrong of him to then try to get that money applied to the most appropriate projectrs, including a share in his district? (Actually, it seems that most of his support goes for Federal projects outside his district.) Just because he loses the vote against pork, is it more “Constitutional” to just sit out the allocation of funds? I say not.
Also, if there’s no importance in being “more” Constitutional than the others, then what’s the big deal with Constitution-shredding Rudy Giuliani or Hillary Clinton? I think that intelligent people understand that there are degrees that are important.
Since the vast majority of Americans, including a vast majority of people on this "consertavive" forum actually fear liberty and freedom, what difference does it make anyway?