Okay, first of all let me just say that I really appreciate the fact that you guys are willing to debate the issue with me. I might sound like I'm getting bent out of shape in some of my replies, but the truth is that I really respect ANYONE who pays attention to what's going on in politics at the national level, whether you agree with me or not. I'm at the lower end of the economic spectrum (blue collar) but literally 90 percent of the people I work with have absolutely no interest in politics at all. They don't even have any idea who is running. They bitch and whine about how crooked at the politicians are, but are too lazy to even take a few minutes to research ANY of the candidates or even take a couple hours a year to go down and vote. So like I said, ANYBODY who actually cares enough to even take the time to debate the issues on a message board has my respect.
Having said that, I'll get back to it. First, it's more of a chicken or the egg type of deal. You think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate, and therefore doesn't get any major campaign contributions. I think Ron Paul is a marginal candidate BECAUSE he doesn't get any major campaign contributions. The way our system is set up the vast majority of the time, the guy with the most money, wins. As I said before, most of the electorate is completely uninformed when it comes to national politics. The only information most voters are going to receive is from campaign ads that come on during their favorite television show. And if you don't have the money to put out campaign ads, you're pretty much screwed. There's basically no other way for you to get your message out in front of the people. Take a look again at those campaign contributions. Ron Paul consistently comes in either second or third in most major polls of Republican voters. He's doing that well with virtually no money. Do you really think he'd still be a marginal candidate if he had even a fraction of the money Romney or Obama had to spend?
Second, there are HUGE differences between Paul and other Republican's regarding economic policy. First of all, the centerpiece of his campaign is to do away with the Federal Reserve. I know that sounds radical, but hear him out. The point he makes is that when we were on the gold standard, our money actually had value. Once we got off of that, it allowed the Fed to literally print money. The more money they print, the less value each dollar has. Supply and demand. Just like any commodity, the more you have of something, the less valuable it is. So every time the Fed prints up a bunch more money, the value of the dollars you and I hold goes down. Hence, inflation. The point Ron Paul makes is that this system is unsustainable. We can't just keep printing money indefinitely. Eventually, we're heading for a crash. Just like the housing bubble. And when hyperinflation occurs (and with the current system, it's inevitable at some point) it's the poor and middle classes who, as usual, are going to get screwed. (By the way, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who, ten years ago, actually predicted the financial collapse... If you like, I can post a link to the YouTube video of the speech he gave in 2002 in which he laid out, almost to a tee, exactly what eventually occurred.)
In my opinion, the reason for his unpopularity in some circles is his willingness to speak unpopular truths. He's the only guy willing to point out that Social Security and Medicare are UNSUSTAINABLE. He doesn't deny that these are good programs that help lots of people. The point he's trying to make is that they simply can't go on forever without bankrupting us as a nation. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, if present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare ALONE. Forty percent of our entire private sector output will need to go to JUST these two programs. All he's saying is that we need to figure out a humane alternative BEFORE we get to that point. The "mainstream" candidates know this as well as he does. But they don't want to talk about it because they know the idea of doing away with those programs is going to be unpopular. So instead they ignore the elephant in the room, and put off dealing with it for the next guy. But eventually, we're going to get to the point where there is no next guy, and the system is going to collapse. And the sooner we deal with it and come up with a solution to the problem, the less pain and misery we're all going to have to deal with when the collapse inevitably occurs...