Ron Paul for president

Notes on Pro's Arguments: Pro's dictionary definition of ideological does not really apply to the usage of "ideological" in politics. I said Paul was too ideological to be president. Of course, having ideas is important, but Pro presents a false dichotomy between "having ideas and not having ideas". I reject this. As I stated previously, history shows that one of the most important traits in a president is adaptability. International situations are very complex, and being restricted to a static political ideology is not helpful is solving crises. Again, the Constitution delegates few powers to the president, and the president must work with Congress. Paul votes against more Congressional bills than any other member, and therefore would probably veto most bills as president. This fundamentalist libertarianism would allow the government to adapt very little to our current problems.The two links Pro cited do not represent the American people. One is California Republicans, one is a Values Voters convention, and the third is the Iowa Straw Poll. I have three points:1. There are only about 50 million registered Republicans in the USA and 38% of Americans identify as Republicans [1]. Therefore, polls only from Republicans do not offer an accurate picture of the American voter. In fact, the same citation as above shows that more Americans identify as Democrats, and it is common knowledge that there are about 70 million registered Democrats. I doubt Democrats are willing to elect a libertarian. 2. Straw polls are extremely inaccurate ways of measuring popular support. Unlike official polls, which sample a random group representative of the voting public, candidates actually bribe their supporters to attend these pathetic straw polls, in order to look popular. In the cited Iowa straw poll for example, candidates actually bribed voters into turning out by offering them food and live music [2]. Pretty ridiculous actually. 3. Read to the end of the article Pro cited. Last sentence: "Only one Republican has won the straw poll and gone on to occupy the Oval Office: George W. Bush." Straw polls are extremely bad indicators of actually winning the nomination [3].Pro says "the people" love Ron Paul. What people? All the people? Some people love Paul, just like some love Romney, Cain, or Obama. In actuality, only 8% of Republicans support Paul according to the latest Gallup Poll [4]. The same poll indicates that Paul has the most "unfavorable" and "highly unfavorable" ratings of any Republican candidate, with 36% of Republicans polled stating so. Huntsman is second with 34%. As for Pro's analysis of Paul's foreign policy, I do agree. I also find it stupid when Americans state that we were attacked because we are "free". Many freedom indexes show that the United States is not even the most free country in the world. We were, in my opinion (and also Paul's), attacked because we have military in 150 of the world's approximately 190 countries. Bin Laden explicitly stated that it was military bases in Saudi Arabia that caused 9/11. But what is Pro's point? The fact is, both the Democratic and Republican parties would never support the downsizing of our global empire, and the president is not authorized to withdraw troops from these bases without congressional approval. So even though I agree with Paul's sentiment, as president, he would have even less power than he has now as a Representative. And the video Pro posted of Paul "predicting 9/11" is ridiculous. He simply stated that there would be retaliation from the Middle East for US foreign policy, but that is hardly equal to predicting a 3,000 casualty attack on US soil. Even if he explicitly predicted 9/11, this does not qualify him for president. [1] http://www.gallup.com...[2] http://articles.latimes.com...[3]http://articles.cnn.com...[4] http://www.gallup.com...