I find it hilarious that the pundits here are talking about a certain candidates “electability” as if the whole idea of the primaries are not to find that out. And yes I am referring to the media “pundits” as well as those “pundits” here. The “electability” argument is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to sway public opinion. And as I have mentioned before if the voters in each state of the primaries are not the ultimate voice of who is electable then why have the primaries?
So those here and in the media call some one “extreme” and “unelectable” , knowing that people want to be reasonable and elect a candidate who can change the policies of the current administration. In a way it’s being the judge, jury, and executioner of the argument. In other words it’s a fallacy. I will not buy into that.
IMHO, the primary debate should be about the ideas each candidate brings to the table. Hash those out with logic, facts, and mature discussion. But to discuss someone’s “electability”? Come on people.
By the way I have seen people call Dr. Paul an extremist but there is nothing more extreme in this debate then all of the other candidates supporting the NDAA. Dr. Paul is the only one who has a reasonable stance on that issue. If one believes in the Bill of Rights that is. I make the prior statement because I believe that one of the main characteristics which separates America from any other country now or through history is due process. NDAA basically makes the President a king who can take away that right at will. That is extremism to the nth degree.
The reason that I support Dr. Paul is that he’s the only one who has a detailed plan to substantially change the current direction of this administration.