Bonus Post 2: The Argument So Far

     Ron Paul argues intensively for his stance of government nonintervention. Predictably, he does so through facts and numbers that are interpreted in his mutual favor, a clear indication that a candidate is a substantive threat. He presents his case as a rationale for the book in the start and then moves onto explain his points in no particular order. Indeed Paul tacitly appeals to both liberals and conservatives/libertarians who grow disgruntled with the current politicians who intermingle their ideas with unprecedented  thoroughfare. As a libertarian he presents his side with solid numbers while touting his own ideas as the only sensible answers, a smart tactic that helps to clout party doubt-fulls under the same uniform umbrella that appears sensible and welcoming. Although it is clear that the disproportionate number of conservative mentions amounts to far greater pandering to that political spectrum, it is also a reflection of  his realization that a much greater number of his following has previously identified as conservative. Disappointingly, though predictably, Ron Paul presented virtually no fair view of liberal or conservative alternatives, instead opting to point to the Founding Fathers, most of whom were conservatives themselves at the time, and stressed very basic core functions as justifications through the quotations. To supplement his points, Paul points to the constitution and has a lengthy discussion throughout about it. However, how will Ron Paul continue to justify the outright exclusion of popular programs like social security at the moral level?