I agree with you about trust. I think he would go through with many of his positions, including withdrawal from Iraq and (if he could) return to the gold standard.
Personally I care about three issues: national security, culture and economy.
On national security he is weak. He is against War in Iraq, he is against the Homeland Security act, he is against modernization of FISA and he is against national id card.
On the cultural issue he is also lacking. He did not vote on the Terry Shiavo bill, he voted against the flag burning amendment (2005: HR 10), he is strongly against the marriage amendment, he voted against a bill that would ban interstate transport of minors to receive an abortion, he voted against a bill that would make it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing other crimes.
On the economy he is against trade.
Eliminating IRS is not a serious proposal. As long as US government continues collecting taxes, in any form, an organization will be needed to manage the process. Same goes for the CIA. While we live in a world that contains other states, we will need an organization to track the activity of our enemies and competitors. Military Intelligence is not the answer. Military is concerned with other armies, not with political opponents or terrorists. Military is limited by rules of engagement, there needs to be an organization that can act without these limitations. For example, Military is prohibited from using certain interrogation techniques, while CIA may not be.
I disagree with Paul on all of these positions. It is possible that I happen to agree with some of his views, but in my opinion, his positions on national security, culture and economy make him a non-viable candidate.
I do respect your views and I appreciate your answer. I hope that once a Republican candidate is chosen, you will support who ever it happens to be.
Thank you for your respectful disagreement. And yes, I will support the eventual nominee.