My best guess is that if Ron Paul does not get the nomination he will endorse Gary Johnson. Paul will never endorse the borg. You are correct that Ron Paul will not be able to do domestically anywhere near what he wants to do, because congress will oppose him every step of the way. But I also know that Paul will veto at least 80% of the laws congress tries to pass. That will be fun to watch. If he can just get the deficit below $1 trillion that will be better than what any of the alternatives will do.
Ron Paul is doing a great job showing a way to reduce Goverement and to reduce dependency on the Goverement. He is educating a large part of the public on how to enforce austerity in the public sector. This message should start to resinate with the youth and with the lefists democratic party OWS operation. It should help free market republicians in the long run.
Depends on how well he does. If he flops from here out then I think you're right, he would probably endorse Gary Johnson or nobody. But if he does well and ends up with a voice at the convention it is a completely different story. His success is a double edged sword for his supporters. The closer he gets to winning, the more he ends up doing things for the benefit of his cause. That includes becoming a champion of the nominee trying to regain the white house for his party. Paul isn't a republican, he is a libertarian, but he is supporting the republican party as a better vehicle for his cause. Success in the party holds as a prerequisite helping its other prominent members succeed.
You want a Bigger Flip-Floper than Barrack Obama??? come on guys!!! LoL! Obama has to be the biggest liar president ever.. Be honest with yourself and you'll know that Mitt Romney is the best and qualified presidential candidate since Franklyn in the US. Ron Paul is just a pure demagogery.. Do you guys really think that in todays world his ideal is a good thing for america?? Come On!! Since when Debt is bad when you can print your own paper and there's a demand (Huge demand) for it?.. People in america work hard and they are the most innovative society in the hole freaking world. Paul said "Take the Military out of the rest of the world"?? Brothers, Thanks to those guys the world has not experience a WW3.. The US military base around the world has been the greaters thing since the invention of the airplane.. Never in history the world has experience that much peace and prosperity.. Sorry for my english, but I want an American Empire and not a Chiness or Russia or European empire. At leats with the American ruling the world, we have general peace and prosperity.. We in europa can't say the same.. Ron paul is just a Populist as Big Obama. Going back to the gold standard?? give me a break.. Gold is worst asset class in history.. Thanks to the Gold standard the US was not able to fight the great depression..
You are 100% correct... Dont we have some form of a gold standard right now. It takes close to $1600 to convert dollars into a ounce of gold. I would focus on a policy that would lower that to $500, a strong dollar policy. I think Paul is recommending taking dollars out of the system to acheive this.
For all of your bluster you have mis-characterized Ron Paul's position on monetary policy. Specifically, he DOES NOT advocate returning to a gold standard. He DOES advocate competing currencies and so if you are going to rail against his policy positions, at least get those positions right. http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron-paul-introduces-free-competition-in-currency-act-of-2011/ In other words, let's keep the private federal reserve's monopoly money and introduce something backed by a commodity (and no, you don't have to peg it at the current value of gold). Then, the people can decide for themselves which currency they wish to trade with. The competing currency does not necessarily have to be backed by gold, it could be silver (like the silver certificates John F Kennedy issued). Now, on to Mitt Romney, let's set aside the debatable premise that he is qualified to be the President of the United States; how can a voter reasonably predict what a President Romney would actually do once elected? The man changes his positions more than the average woman changes her outfit. There is simply no way to know what side of a particular issue he would come down on, and as a voter that has to weigh heavily. If we cannot trust our elected leaders to do what they say they will do then what good are they? I say no good whatsoever. I would much prefer someone who is trustworthy, who promises to reign in our imperialism (which is bankrupting us), restore our civil liberties (the theft of which is destroying the very fabric of our nation) and who actually has a plan to balance the budget (because our spending is out of control, and Romney and the rest show no desire to change that in any appreciable way). There is only candidate that fits the description of what America truly needs, and that is Dr Ron Ernest Paul. The others...Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, represent more of the same in a slightly different wrapper.