While I have no doubts there is cheating in modern elections, from the evidence of cheating I have seen it (mostly) looks like "small-time" fraud which is only going to influence the closest of elections ... and most of that could be eliminated by forcing people to demonstrate that they have a right to vote. You can strengthen this even further with some basic/low-tech solutions like having everyone ink their index finger when they vote.

On the digital voting systems, having the staff at the polling station mark a paper ballot with a way to identify that they handed it out and using that balot to create a paper-trail associated with voting machines will limit all potential forms of fraud.

The fact that he spent his career within the insane asylum called "The Republican Party", the most ridiculed political party of our time, is evidence enough that he is not a very intelligent political leader. Other hints:

1. He's a Libertarian.

2. Wants to cut all funding to environmental projects.

3. Wants to cut funding to healthcare.

In fact, the only good things he stands for, Obama already mostly took care of last year; most importantly, ending the war in Iraq and greatly securing Afghan society. You can almost guarantee that Obama has a much better, and more sober plan for the future that won't f*** up the rest of the world. Ronulans! Put down the Kool-ade and come home from Jonestown.

1) What's wrong with being a libertarian?

2) Please define "environmental project" and provide a list of successful, cost effective, government run projects which would be cut

3) Being that the United States spends (roughly) as much on healthcare per capita as Canada does while providing benefits to a fraction of the people, please provide evicence that government funding of healthcare in the United States is cost effective and should be protected from budgetary cuts.

Beyond that, the end of the war in Iraq was Barack Obama following the exit plan of George W. Bush. Isn't it amazing that the same timeline everyone was so critical of Bush for these same people praise Obama for?

1.  What's wrong with being a libertarian? It excludes the well being of the larger portion of society in order to benefit the people who have the greatest investments (those who run the corporations and who can afford to buy up everything) and not the people who actually work. It ignores environmental issues, and issues of healthcare, and instead turns both into a business - which ignores everything that does not lead to a profit. It's essentially an evil ideology, and we know from history that Laissez Faire economics always fail.

2. He wants to remove restrictions on oil drilling, repeal federal tax on gasoline, lift restrictions on the use of coal and nuclear power, and eliminate the Environmental Protection Act.

3. I don't know about Canada, but public Health Care works everywhere else in the world. If you expect it to be absolutely perfect in the US after 1 year of implementation your deluded. If you think there is anything particular about American society where it doesn't work in the US, yet somehow works fantastically everywhere else, you're deluded. Being against public healthcare is essentially evil, and leaves hospitals and the medical profession in corporate hands - when this is something that should be eliminated throughout the entire world for the betterment of the world.

George Bush Jr's plan was to be out of Iraq in 6 weeks - and Iraq should have never been invaded in the first place - it was the leading cause to rising military expenses in the US that led to major colapses in the western economy. Obama's was the plan that worked, not Bush's. Bush failed.

Ron Paul has his heart in the right place, but he has to change his economic views to reflect that - not keep supporting econmomic policies that will widen the gap between rich and poor.

First of all, I'm highly disappointed that anyone would ever consider someone to be stupid based on political alignment. That is the most narrow minded view of politics you can have and not only is it limiting and counter productive, but it shows that you seem incapable of thinking for yourself. Never, ever judge someone based on their political party. You won't ever solve problems by constantly thinking along party lines. Think for yourself and don't assume someone is dumb just because they identify a certain way.

1. Wrong. Libertarians are for the most freedom for everyone. But the thing with freedom is that it comes with responsibility. And a lot of people don't get that. You can't have one without the other. The thing about not trusting government to take care of us comes more from the fact that if a corperation screws up, they can fail. If a government does, it can't. If the government hadn't bailed out all of those companies that mismanaged themselves, those companies would have failed. Then, the successful ones would have stepped in, and others would have risen to take their place. When the government screws up, you're stuck with it and you have to hope that you can vote in people who can change things for the better, which we have seen has not been working very well. Also, there are libertarians out there who are not at all rich; I believe we have a few on this site, in fact. Competition benefits the consumer, which is why making healthcare into a business is not a bad idea. There will be competition, which will lower prices and ultimately benefit the consumer.

2. What are the successful ones again? Also, why are we so intent on getting rid of fossil fuels, when we depend so heavily on them? In time, the market will naturally move away from them as the supply decreases and price drives costs too high. But more importantly than that, why not use them now while renewable energy sources are still improving, so that we have cheap energy now, and can transition later when the renewable energy sources are as cheap? Especially limiting nuclear power; we have the technology now, we have the capability to provide it relatively cheaply, and it could be a great way to transition into the renewable fuels. It's not any more dangerous than other energies as long as the proper precautions are taken.

I wonder if that's so... (Nevermind the Laissz Faire Economics thing, people always point to the great depression,ignoring the fact that Hoover increased government spending more then any other president up until that point.)

Lets look at Economic Freedom and Contrast that with Gini Coefficent

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Freedom_in_the_50_States.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

5 Most Libretarian States Economically/ Gini Coefficent Ranking  Lower = More Equal

South Dakota/17
New Hampshire/4
Colorado/29
North Dakota/8
Idaho/8

5 Least Economically Free/Gini Coefficent Ranking Lower = More equal

New York/ 50
Maine/12
California/44
Alaska/2
New Jersey/34

I'm not really seeing a correlation either way really.  Of course it's not controlling for a lot of things though.

First off, there have been several decent definitions of what Libertarianism is over the past several posts; and I suggest you read them.

Beyond that, while I would ask for evidence that "Laissez Faire economics always fail." being that the longest period of economic growth of the western world occurred with governments having the smallest involvement in the economy and with heavy government involvement today we're risking economic collapse on a constant basis, Libertarianism would not require a strict believe in Laissez Faire economics. Most Libertarians I have ever known would argue for a small regulatory system that focuses on eliminating harm, not the elimination of a regulatory system.

If the companies are required to follow modern environmental practices, and are liable for any environmental impact they have had on the land they leased, what is a matter with oil drilling?

Besides drive up costs to consumers, what does the federal tax on gasoline achieve?

If people are using modern/safe reactor designs, like a thorium reactor, what is the harm of nuclear power?

Beyond that, while any opponent can list off several green projects that were failures costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and projects that created short term "green jobs" for only $250,000 to $500,000 per year, it is amazing that no one who ever questions cutting green spending can ever list a cost-effective successful green project.

It's not one year ...

For decades government spending on healthcare has experienced a steady increase and before Obamacare was ever passed government spending as a percentage of GDP on healthcare in the United States was (roughly) equal to Canada even though less than 1/3 of Americans were covered. While I am very critical of the care we have available in Canada, the fact that Americans spend so much more per patient and don't see it as being wasteful is disturbing.

If you look at income inequality in the United States since World War Two, incomes were steadily becoming more equal throughout the United States up until the middle of the 1960s. "Coincidentally" in 1964 the war on poverty began, and since then social spending have risen ahead of increases in income inequality.

While I'm reluctant to say that increased social spending causes income inequality, the fact that it has failed for nearly 50 years to prevent increases in income inequality should give significant doubts to supporters on its effectiveness.

Are you crazy?? Public healthcare is shitty in most countries of the world. Only on select europeans contries an maybe Canada and Japan have a "good" healthcare.

But that doesn't mean that I disagree with you. If I was in USA I would voted 100% for Ron Paul, But I still fear his libertarian thing and how corporations will be even more unregulated than now.

I was in the USA for 6 months between June and December 2011 and watched a few of the republican debates and Ron Paul was the only one who impressed me. He came across as honest, intelligent, never wavered from his policies and answered the question that was put to him! Michelle Bachmann used to never answer the question that was asked and other candidates had scripted replies for their most of their answers.
If I was American and voted republican then Ron Paul would be my choice... although if I was American, I probably wouldn't vote republican. Past Presidents and current candidates give the republican party a bad name, in my opinion. And the whole healthcare thing too.