He is a pretty interesting phenomena in himself, in his utterly impractical and dare I say it unreasonable capacity. This before going into the ideology itself, which according to my googling seem mostly to enable smoking pot, banning money and carrying guns, as well as baiting black people and women.
By impractical I mean that I don’t understand what he hoped to do because as a President he would have 100 per cent of the House and the Senate against him. There would not be a single bill from him that would be accepted, and every single veto would be overridden. Without a sizeable representation in the house and the senate, a Paul presidency would be a “lame duck” one from day one.
I may be missing some nuances in the American political system, so pardon me if I sound dumb about it here, but I would think that to build a true base the House and the Senate would be more suitable first rung aims.
The presidency seems to be mostly a trophy-prize whose only unique impact on the government would be the ability to suggest supreme court justices – who of course would be soundly rejected by a unified democrat and republican opposition under a Paul presidency.
The unreasonable part is that his base refuses to cooperate with anyone. There’s a “large” base around Gary Johnson, who amusingly have fewer Google hits than a division seven soccer coach here in England, and there is a “large” base around Ron Paul. By large I mean that there are between 3-7 per cent of the electorate in each camp.
If the two camps united, there would possibly be a base of about 10 to 15 per cent of the voters. However, the demands for ideological purity in each camp removes any chance that the two camps will ever work together, and because of that they fail.
My conclusion, superficially, is that they do not stand a chance, ever, because of internal division and ideological purity and misdirected energy. Or am I wrong? Please tell me if I’ve got something wrong.
Much more fun than Ron Pail is something which is considered horribly archaic and obsolete. English had a quaint little custom of using diaeresis to emphasise two vowels written next to each other. This is a little English-language fan-girling here. Sorry.
One example where a diaeresis would be used is in the word ‘cooperate’. Then one would spell it as ‘Coöperate’. This little trick informs the reader that the word has four syllables, and not three. It is ‘co-op-er-ate’ and not ‘coop-er-ate’. It still lives on in some names like Chloë or Noël, which could otherwise be pronounced as ‘Chlo’ and ‘Nole’.
I just found this out by accident because my spell-checker signalled a word in the Ron Paul segment above, and in the list of synonyms I saw the alternative ‘coöperate’. My first thought was to curse the spell checker as being nutters.
I’m glad I didn’t, and googled it instead.