Replies to post #110167 on ajtj99's Market Pulse

[gloe]

OT, agree with that. And I think he is more electable than many give credit for. He will not suddenly dismantle SS and Medicare, for example, but would phase them out, and I think a lot of younger people like the idea of not paying into a sinkhole that will not be there for them when they retire.

For one thing, if this country stopped intervening all over the planet, that would free up LOTS of money to make the promised payments to people who already paid in, while freeing younger people of this horrid burden.

[ajtj99]

TJ, I agree his voice is necessary to bring important issues to the forefront and get a deeper discussion than would ordinarily happen.

In 1992 no candidate was talking about the budget deficit until Ross Perot entered the race.

In 1980 John Anderson helped bring a different perspective on the energy situation in the country.

In 2000, Ralph Nader, well, he gave Florida to Bush, and I think that's all he did.

Some of these views are out of the mainstream, but the candidates today are so pre-packaged and homogenized that it's almost impossible to get anything resembling a real discourse in the race for the White House.

People like to hear real people with real convictions. That's why Reagan was so well liked. He rarely wavered from his core convictions.

That's why Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani are going to have a hard time out there. They're fickle and pandering.

Mrs. Clinton is shrewd enough to package herself in a manner that disguises her flip-flopping on several issues. She panders to her base while attacking the right. It's rhetoric without a real objective other than get into the office.

I appreciate Ron Paul's contributions to the campaign, and I hope he continues to be in the forefront of the debate over the issues at hand.