Fairly straightforward question. It’s hard for me to distinguish which views are insane and which views are reasonable. I’m a staunch atheist, if that gives anyone any idea as to how I view the universe. I’m a man of fitting things to the facts, not the other way around.
I’d say everything in his economic policy falls on the “con” side.
Everything else is reasonable?
I guess I am just after specific examples. If something is a pro/con, why do you think so?
I think Ron Paul has put his finger on two fundamental issues that plague our society: the failure of the war on drugs and our slavish support of Israel’s foreign policy objectives. Both have cost us dearly in wasted lives and treasure. I don’t buy in to Laissez-faire capitalism, but if we are to have a republican president, why not go for one that wants to make a real difference? I would as soon see us manage drugs the same way we do alcohol, and let Israel fight its own battles. The latter is not easy, as it will affect all our strategic relationships from India to Syria.
He wants to give states a much longer leash to abuse their citizens, even though court decisions over the last 75 years have made it quite clear that the states simply do not hold those powers. (He would use constitutionally-dubious legislation to nullify every federal court case dealing with civil rights regarding marriage, sex, sexual orientation, and religion.)
ETA: As quite a few states still have their invalid laws on the books on those matters, and as someone who could have been abused by one of those states as John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were, I find that to be a con.
Ron Paul seems to be one of the more principled national politicians which I mostly admire, even though I don’t agree with many of his positions. What you consider to be pro or con depends on where you sit on the political spectrum.
Being a moderate Republican, I’m happy to have Paul in the legislature. He’s a fiscal hawk and tries to reign in Federal spending. I wouldn’t mind having a few more Pauls in congress as I believe their overall influence is low.
However, I would consider him a disaster as a president, largely because he’s isolationist. I don’t think he could do too much damage to the economy because he’d be limited by congress (e.g. they’d never agree to a gold standard) but he’d have too much autonomy in our foreign policy.
Isn’t that a widely propagated myth though? He’s a non-interventionist, which I believe is different from isolationist.
While he’s a fiscal hawk and tries to reign in spending, he does so in an asinine way. Kind of like using a nuke to kill a few cockroaches. I guess if you’re into goldbuggery, he makes sense, but his economic policies haven’t made actual sense in a century (and they were wrong back then, too).
And that’s ignoring the rather poor excuses he’s made for past examples of racism, sexism, and homophobia.
That, and he’s done a rather piss-poor job of actually representing his Congressional district (about 10 miles from where I live). Sure, they get a lot of federal money, but that’s even worse. Either he’s violating several of his own principles or he’s simply being propped up by the party to keep a Republican in the seat. Neither makes any damned sense.
What of his views on foreign policy?
Basically this.
Each House of Congress needs a Libertarian whacko. If I were a Texan or Kentuckian constituent, I’d definitely be a Ron/Rand voter. I am for a lot of Ron issues- to a degree.
Audit the Fed- hell yes. Abolish it- hmm?
Create some substantial backing to our currency- Yep. Gold (& silver) standard- too restricting.
Decriminalize soft drugs- sure. Legalize everything- WTF?
Scale back our international military presence- another hell yeah. Leave vulnerable people groups/nations to the predators around them- have we no conscience?
Full disclosure- in my Bircher days, I could talk a good game about abolishing the Fed & going back to gold/silver standard. Finally, I realized the impracticality of both. Sometimes I long for the ability to “Get US out of the UN & the UN out of the US” but I realize that I want that Communist, Cannibal & Caliphate Club (G) here where we can keep an eye on 'em!
The difference being?
All of it makes sense. Art of the possible, y’know.
I’m not sure how that’s different from being an “isolationist”.
He’s argued against the US getting involved in WWII because “saving the Jews wasn’t worth it” and also against Lincoln fighting a war to end slavery.
He’s also been caught on film referring to gays as “queers” and has claimed that he feels that minorities “don’t look American” and “look suspicious”.
Maybe its because I’m a minority myself but to me those ought to be deal-breakers and I have nothing but contempt for those who are so stupid and so grossly insensitive that they support him.
He’s a racist pig and America is passing him and people like him by.
(embarrassed) In my Au-H[sub]2[/sub]O-64 days…
But I find myself now, as a yellow-dog Democrat, agreeing substantially with a Bircher?
I feel…awkward. 
But I still feel that most of Paul’s support from college-aged kids has to do with his “legalize dope” belief and has NOTHING to do with his other beliefs, having been college-aged at one time.
Moved to Elections from Great Debates.
We got involved in WWII because we were attacked on December 7, 1941 and Germany declared war on us. We didn’t do it to “save the jews”, so I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.
Lincoln fought the war to save the Union. He made it very clear that if he could save the Union by keeping slavery he would have. In fact, he supported a
constitutional amendment to protect slavery. Ending slavery did not become an objective until later in the war.
Every other country in the world abolished slavery without going to war, including Brazil, which held many more slaves than the U.S.
Yes. He called a fictional character, who was a queer individual indeed, a “queer”.
One quote in over 30 years of public speeches, interviews, and debates, suggests that he finds TSA employees “don’t look American” and “look suspicious”.
Whether this because of the color of their skin has yet to be decided.
We clearly need an amendment to codify this in the constitution! 
Yes, I do believe those two things to be among his biggest positives. I think he’d have a much greater effect on foreign policy than on the war on drugs, though.
Many of his ideas/policies would not be instituted if he were president.
He would keep us out of wasteful wars and would be able to cut some spending. But most of his domestic policies would either not be implemented or not be implemented to the degree he’d want.
So what?
Come on now. First off, the TSA didn’t exist until about a decade ago, so Paul couldn’t have spoken about it before that. And second, the meaning of the quote is extremely obvious. This kind of spinning doesn’t make Paul look any better.
And of course the “one quote” comment ignores all of the racist and anti-gay allegations in his newsletter. Oh wait- he says he didn’t write those. That leaves us with his conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission and the Amero, for example. Is America ready for a president who’s kind of insane?