Why is Ron Paul the only candidate who actually ANSWERS debate questions?

Because Ron Paul is the only one who isn't trained to think like a politician.

Have you seen the family guy episode where Lois runs for mayor and she gives straight answers and no one likes her, but when she just says "9/11" and other key words they all cheer.

I think it's due to Ron Paul's genuine passion for his country and it's Constitution in comparison to the other candidate's motivations which seem to be more ego driven.

The others are afraid of uttering a gaffe, defined by Michael Kinsley as when a politician accidentally speaks the truth.

Shumeltr wrote:

I think it's due to Ron Paul's genuine passion for his country and it's Constitution in comparison to the other candidate's motivations which seem to be more ego driven.

spoken like an impartial observer.

My opinion is that it's due to a simple fact:

He has no chance to win right now and therefore nothing to lose by speaking his mind. Like Kucinich on the left, he can afford to say whatever he wants because (1) the media pays little attention to him anyway and (2) if he pisses anyone off, they likely weren't going to vote for him so nothing lost.

Don't take it as a criticism, I'm not anti-Ron Paul. The fact is though that major candidates all spout the same stream of BS (tweaked slightly to the left or right) because they're all mortally afraid of alienating anyone (or at least anyone who will donate large amounts of cash).

Ron Paul's positions on the issues has not changed. The reason he is a good debater is that he doesn't need to sugar coat his answers.

The only issue that I know of that he has clearly changed his position on is the death penalty. But his position change on this issue seems to be based on his convictions rather than for political reasons (such as Mitt's position on abortion and gay rights). Being anti-death penalty doesn't gain you republican votes for example.

I wish Paul was 10 yrs younger. His age (74) isn't gonna help him too well either.

I am impartial on the Republicans because I'm a Democrat who supports Dennis Kucinich. However I admire Ron Paul because, unlike his fellow Republican challengers, he doesn't drone on endlessly about himself and his past accomplishments. He simply continues to beat the Libertarian drum advocating hard currency, personal liberties, and following the Constitution.

He isn't promoting himself. He's promoting an ideal. There is nothing ego driven about him. Can the same be said about the four G.O.P frontrunners?

He\'s a freak. Ron Paul is against human rights. He\'s a fake-Christian right wing nut job.

I wouldn't vote for him because his name is too close to Ru Paul, and that...thing...gives me the hee-bee-jee-bees.

Ron Paul is a FREAK wrote:

He's a freak. Ron Paul is against human rights. He's a fake-Christian right wing nut job.

Can you back up that claim with any evidence whatsoever? I didn't think so.

He is the only one up there who actually believes what he is saying and isn't acting like a trained monkey. I don't agree with many of his positions, but he doesn't bull shit you.

Family Guy was right.

Of course that person can't back it up. Ron Paul is interesting, but ultimately unelectable. Someone like Romney is a much better choice because of fiscal responsibility and a more moderate electable set of planks.

[quote]Shumeltr wrote:

I am impartial on the Republicans because I'm a Democrat who supports Dennis Kucinich. quote]

This is proof postitive that Ron Paul is a freak. Kucinich supporters like him.

rabatin wrote:

I watched yesterday's Republican debate, and Ron Paul was the only candidate who gave straight, definitive answer to every question asked. The other candidates consistently gave vague answers that were not even based in reality most of the time, using phrases such as "The American Dream" and "Family Values." I know double-talk and BS are a part of a politician’s job, but why is Paul the only one who actually gives any real answers?

He doesn't have to worry about alienating voters with his answers. If you don't have any support you don't have to worry about losing it. Seriously.

philadelphiaphantic wrote:

Of course that person can't back it up. Ron Paul is interesting, but ultimately unelectable. Someone like Romney is a much better choice because of fiscal responsibility and a more moderate electable set of planks.

Maybe I just read this incorrectly, but did you just write that Romney is a better choice than Ron Paul because of among other things, "fiscal responsibility"?!?!?

hahahahahaha

Did anyone else notice how many of the debaters give "optimism" as a solution to America's problems? What a pie in the sky, glass half full, rose colored glasses bunch they are. I guess if we all just hope for the best, this whole unpleasantness in Iraq will just clear right up.

rabatin wrote:

...why is Paul the only one who actually gives any real answers?

Because he is the only Republican candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning the primaries.

As an aside what'd y'all think of Ronald Reagan...I mean Fred Thompson? He's definitely got the fatherly voice thing going. I'm kind of leaning towards more acting and less politicking. Best bet for the Republicans and I'm a Hillary fan.

Props to the OP.

Wejo keeps deleting all my pro-Ron Paul threads.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

I wouldn't vote for him because his name is too close to Ru Paul, and that...thing...gives me the hee-bee-jee-bees.

That's WHY I'm voting for him!

philadelphiaphantic wrote:

Of course that person can't back it up. Ron Paul is interesting, but ultimately unelectable. Someone like Romney is a much better choice because of fiscal responsibility and a more moderate electable set of planks.

Romney comitted political suicide the other day. Unlike Ron Paul, he appears to hate sick people and wants them to suffer & die: