What is the difference between Paul and a 2008 Obama?

Obviously, besides just about everything. Now shut up, don't type TL: DR and power through it.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make. A lot of young conservatives are excited about Paul because he seems like a genuine conservative finally speaking against the problems of the government on both sides of the aisle. To me, this sounds awfully familiar. In 2008, Obama ran on a platform of hope and change, but this isn't the reason he won the election or the primary. He won because he was genuine, he spoke out and said things most politicians wouldn't, and he meant all of it. Paul and Obama didn't flip flop their opinions when they went to different states, Paul especially was hit by a booing crowd in South Carolina.

More than anything, both these candidates were genuine. They believe/believed in everything they were saying. Or at least that's what liberals in 2008 and conservatives in 2012 believed/believe.

Obama: 2008

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

I don't want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.

When special interests put their thumb on the scale, and distort the free market, the people who compete by the rules come in last.

If we think that we can secure our country by just talking tough without acting tough and smart, then we will misunderstand this moment and miss its opportunities. If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics.

Paul: 2011

Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank.

Another term for preventive war is aggressive war - starting wars because someday somebody might do something to us. That is not part of the American tradition.

Me now:

I honestly feel like any of these quotes could have come from either candidate. So what does this come down to? Well Obama didn't exactly deliver on all of it, and its not because congress or the opposing party didn't let him but because of the people who control him. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay and he signed a bill allowing the detention of any citizen suspected of terrorism. He wanted to limit the powers of the president, but he didn't. So there's two possibilities: He was lying during the entire campaign, which is not my belief, or Wall Street and the corporate powers of America won't let him. When it looked like Obama was going to win, they helped fund his campaigns, now they own him.

Now whatever you believe, how is Ron Paul any different? He's either lying, which I doubt, or he's genuine. If he stood a snowballs chance in hell of winning and he is genuine you can sure as hell bet he'd be owned before he even took the oath of office.

I don't want to discount Ron Paul here, he's my favorite conservative running for president, but to all his supporters, maybe it would be worthwhile to acknowledge that someone like him already ran with the opposite stance and did win. I like him, and I'm sure most of you do too primarily because you feel he isn't lying through his teeth, but Obama was the same way.

I do wish him the best, because we need more people like him and Obama in politics. I would love to see him nominated because we wouldn't see debates about flag pins. We'd see true ideological discussions. I think its sad that that is a fools dream in the dream of a republic.

tl;dr.

Abridged version, please?

tl;dr.

Abridged version, please?

THE_DRUGGIE

They were/are both genuine when running for president. Obama wins and isn't exactly free to do what he wanted because, not only is the other side of the isle being mean and refusing to play with him, corporate interests, Wall Street, and more than likely his own party.

He said he'd rather be a fantastic one term president than a decent two term president. Something's changed since he won, and I highly doubt Paul wouldn't go through the same thing.

im guessing that Paul has been consistently saying the same things for about 30 years now. that's probably why people are going to believe in what he says and trust him.

im guessing that Paul has been consistently saying the same things for about 30 years now. that's probably why people are going to believe in what he says and trust him.

munkeypoo45

Paul's been in politics longer I'm sure but Obama has always been consistent, even after he was elected what he says is consistent to what he said when he was running, but he still ends up "regrettably signing" bills he doesn't believe in.

I like Ron Paul because of his anti-establishment ideas. He is consistent in his views and attempts to inform individuals when certain topics are brought up. He is not perfect by any means ( no one person is ) but he would get my vote over the other candidates. What really bothers me though is the media's attempt to make him "invisible". Many media organizations completely disregard his existence and when they do mention him, it usually is an attempt toreduce his support. :(

Obama didn't have any integrity. He was obviously your average politician who said things you wanted him to say. Did you read the quotes from the both of them? Do you actually think Obama would talk about Fiat money and central banks? Obama had no plans to actually fix the country and he had plans to "change" it.

Obama ran on the platform of Hope and Change because he knew it would get him lots of votes from people who don't know anything about the economy.

Ron Paul is running on a platform of Sound money, small government, and balanced budgets.

These aren't "opposites." One is typical polician speech and the other is talking about economic philosophy. They are nothing alike in any way.

I like Ron Paul because of his anti-establishment ideas. He is consistent in his views and attempts to inform individuals when certain topics are brought up. He is not perfect by any means ( no one person is ) but he would get my vote over the other candidates. What really bothers me though is the media's attempt to make him "invisible". Many media organizations completely disregard his existence and when they do mention him, it usually is an attempt toreduce his support. :(

Lunarblade1

I agree with you, it annoys me that every candidate except him has been the front runner for a month. It could be because they don't like him, or maybe its because they made that mistake already with Obama, where any publicity for him is good publicity. Maybe they're afraid of him. But that's closer to what a conspiracy theorist would say than anything. But your right, he deserves more attention considering the young support he's been getting. You'd think the party would use that when they choose a nominee and he endorses somebody.

Not much really. Obama has the country in terrible shape and refuses to pass any bill to help the economy. Paul wants radical change, and has ideas that will never pass through congress thus......the status quo doesn't change.

If you want to know the name of someone who is the opposite of Ron Paul who is atleast decent when it comes to believing in what he says then look up Dennis Kucinich. If Dennis had become president and you made this same thread about him I might actually be agreeing with you right now.

I'm going with colour. No racial.

Ron Paul is racist, homophobic and bilking the "young" masses by promising to legalize marijuana...

Obama tried to live up to everything he said, and was unable to due to republicans fighting him on every single thing...even if they agreed with them.

No similarilities.

Obama had a very limited record in Congress and ran on platitudes.

Ron Paul has a thirty year record of consistency and will cut goverment not expand it and spending by record amounts.

Ron Paul is not a conservative.. He in NO ways embodies the conservative policy EVER in the past 50 years.. His foreign policy is something that hasn't been accepted in politics for the past 70 years on either side.. Ron Paul's domestic policies have in no way represented either side for the past 60years either.sSubZerOo

I don't know much about Obama's time in the senate, but Ron Paul has been in the game a long time and still hasn't sold out to special interest groups, so I believe him when he says he wouldn't even talk to them. Unlike the other candidates running, virtually all of Paul's donations have come from individuals. Even if he was elected I don't believe he would be able to do much, and he would probably only be able to serve one term. What most people fail to understand is that the President's powers are not infinite. Paul as President would be unable to do practically any of the things he promises. He's had a long career in the House and has been unable to get any of his ideas passed, so to think that as President (where he would only be signing bills into law, not introducing them into Congress without having somone in the House or Senate help him) is foolish. I do not believe Paul would sell himself to the special interests, but he would get nothing done simply because almost everyone else in Washington has. I will still vote for him though.

I don't know much about Obama's time in the senate, but Ron Paul has been in the game a long time and still hasn't sold out to special interest groups, so I believe him when he says he wouldn't even talk to them. Unlike the other candidates running, virtually all of Paul's donations have come from individuals. Even if he was elected I don't believe he would be able to do much, and he would probably only be able to serve one term. What most people fail to understand is that the President's powers are not infinite. Paul as President would be unable to do practically any of the things he promises. He's had a long career in the House and has been unable to get any of his ideas passed, so to think that as President (where he would only be signing bills into law, not introducing them into Congress without having somone in the House or Senate help him) is foolish. I do not believe Paul would sell himself to the special interests, but he would get nothing done simply because almost everyone else in Washington has. I will still vote for him though.

captainexploder

That is another thing that would concern me. He doesn't really have much support from the inside and I feel that would hinder his ability to get all that he wants accomplished. Very unfortunate.

Paul is a libertarian and is running as such. Candidate Obama just ran on a less authoritarian position than bush and favored a more controlled market. Ron Paul wants to deregulate the market and have states have the right to legislate on abortion, gay marriage etc. Candidate Obama ran against the wars, gay marriage and for more regulations, So basically President Obama is somewhat of a less authoritarian Bush (you could argue more so though :P). Ron Paul wants to get out of the wars and give the states the right to legislate laws regarding abortion, drugs, gay marriage while protecting our civil liberties. The only thing Ron Paul had in common with candidate Obama was foreign policy and protection of civil liberties. Economically they were on two different planes as well as socially.Dy_WarriorsXoXo

Obama only ran against the Iraq War. During the campaign, he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to ramp up the effort in Afghanistan.

To answer the thread, the biggest difference between Paul and candidate Obama is the same biggest difference between Paul and President Obama: ideology.

I like Ron Paul because of his anti-establishment ideas. He is consistent in his views and attempts to inform individuals when certain topics are brought up. He is not perfect by any means ( no one person is ) but he would get my vote over the other candidates. What really bothers me though is the media's attempt to make him "invisible". Many media organizations completely disregard his existence and when they do mention him, it usually is an attempt toreduce his support. :(

Lunarblade1