I always make fun of people who think Ron Paul will win or that people who don't vote for him are fools. He won't win. And people who vote just for the heck of it are fools as far as I'm concerned.
Elections should be bet on, not voted in, for the most part. If you already know who is going to win, you don't go stand in line at the polls to vote. You stand in line at the bookie to bet. That's the only sensible thing to do. If you can't predict the election then you need to get down to the polls and do your part.
Oh sure, I'll hear the usual arguments that if everyone did what I do the system wouldn't work and all that. Fine, I'll give you that. But I'll also give you that most people are stupid, and if you can't concede that point then you probably don't belong in any attempt at an intelligent discussion.
I (and others like me) live in a symbiotic relationship with the masses of morons. If everyone was like me, then I wouldn't have anything to bet on in elections. But everyone is not like me, so there are morons who line up at the polls and there are a**holes like me who line up at the bookie to predict what they will do.
I say Ron Paul has no chance of winning, and anyone who dares to disagree would be better off to head to the voting booth to try to prove me wrong because at least that way he's only wasting his time and not losing his money.
That said, I'm impressed with Ron Paul. He understands the concept of limited government. The government is not the answer to all problems. Abortion is legal. Okay, so it is. The government isn't going to do anything about it. Babies will get killed and that's just not really a problem for the government. Fine. It's a different approach from the typical right-left battle, and it's refreshing.
The Tea Party started off with an interest in limited government, but it was hijacked by the right. We don't like taxes. We want smaller government. Then the right joined in and said "Yeah. Smaller government, but let's outlaw abortion and drugs too while we're at it." Hell, then Hermain Cain came along and said "Let's outlaw mosques too." So at this point I think it's safe to say that the limited government part of the movement has been drowned out. Other than Ron Paul anyway. He thinks for himself and doesn't seem to be worried about electability.
Ron Paul gave an awesome answer a while back in one of the debates. Some question about that border fence between the US and Mexico came up, and he said it might be used to keep people in some day. Let's face it, he has a point. It's totally ineffictive in keeping Mexicans out, but at some later time it would be pretty good for keeping Americans in - kinda like the Berlin Wall. It probably did a pretty good job of keeping West Germans out, but it did a real good job of keeping East Germans in.
I had a Ron Paul moment the other day. We were talking about a guy who buried his dog in his backyard. My neighbor said that was illegal. I am thinking why in the heck is that illegal. I mean what else are you supposed to do with a dead dog? Well the answer sort of caught me off guard. You are supposed to pay a fee and the city will take your dead dog to be cremated along with lots of others dead animals in a mass-cremation. A what? Yes, a mass-cremation. So that means that our country has a bunch of mass-cremation facilities already built and operating. Of course they're only intended for animals. We need them. Otherwise people might just bury their dead pets in their back yards. See? There's nothing sinister going on there. It's illegal to bury your pet in your back yard because that might not be sanitary or something. Back in olden times like when I was a kid I can hardly bare to think of all the danger my father put our family in when he buried our dead dog in our back yard. I am very thankful that the government has used my tax dollars to construct mass-crematoriums all over the country to that these dead animals can be incinerated safely and so that jobs can be created in the mass-cremation industry. I shouldn't worry that these facilities could one-day be used for some other inappropriate purpose. I can trust the government, right?
Ron Paul won't win. But if he plays his cards right he can get the idea of limited government into the national debate. There's a wide are for moderates in between the OWS and the Tea Party. They actually agree on a lot of things - the bank bailouts weren't fair, the government sells out to special interests and big businesses with lots of lobbyists, and these actions have exascerbated the shortage of jobs. But they also disagree on things like drugs, abortion, gays, etc. Neither side is going to be willing to accept the other's positions on these things, but if you apply the principle of limited government you can probably reach some sort of compromise. You have the original Tea Party before it was hijacked by the right, and it includes the OWS people or at least a good portion of them, especially if he removed the label "Republican" from next to his name.