I don't know what you mean by "proof". But his political platform is pretty clear. He supports unconditional free trade and free market economics. The proof is that he's said so.
Here's proof of his financial deregulation stance. This is from a letter he wrote in response to the bill Gramm-Leech-Bliley, which is the financial deregulation bill which repealed Great Depression Era regulations on banks, allowing banks to gamble on Wall St and become too big to fail, resulting in the financial crash and bail outs.
So there you go. Ron Paul supports dangerous and reckless financial deregulation measures.
Here is the proof Ron Paul supports free trade. He's talking about his opposition to NAFTA, but he's not apposing it due to the job loss it causes, but because it doesn't go far enough. He wants total and complete free trade.
[video=youtube;prtR-h8oKqU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtR-h8oKqU&feature=player_embedded#![/video]
Free trade in combination with the deregulation of the financial services industry is responsible for much of the economic injustice, unemployment, stagnate worker wages, and the rise of the 1% that we have today. It's dangerous and I could never support any candidate for president who holds these values.
When it comes to fiscal issues, Ron Paul clearly lives in a bubble, only hearing what he wants to hear. He supports a very extreme version of right wing capitalism that most credible economists consider laughable. His ideas sound very appealing, but if you really stop and think about them.
Other than that I think he's pretty good on most social issues. But the damage he would do to the American people would be immeasurable. He would destroy the middle class. There would be a two class system with the ultra wealthy, and everyone else working poor. Socioeconomic mobility would come to an end. I know he appeals to a lot of people because he wants to legalize bud, but is that really worth the destruction of our middle class? I don't think so. Some things are more important than bud.
You must be trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill because i don't think you understand the Position. RP doesn't want to get rid of every financial regulation oh no, not at all, he wants to get rid of BUSINESS STIFLING regulations. Now either you agree that ALL regulations are business stifling or you believe that SOME regulations stifle small business. NO WHERE AND IN NO QUOTE YOU WILL EVER FIND does RP say he wants to get rid of all regulations everywhere, saying he wants that is just making up lies, which you have been doing for weeks upon weeks now. Even after being corrected you still haven't learned anything, your ideas in no way reflect what RP wants to accomplish since your ideas are not his.
You find RP 's ideas completely wrong becasue you do not understand his position AT ALL!! You make up ideas and say that they are his, he says he wants to get rid of regulation that hurt small business and you interpret that as him wanting to get rid of ALL regulations. A person can only speak the words he speaks, if you are unable to correctly interpret the English language I suggest another crack at 3rd grade.
Fiscal issues? he wants it to be just like the Constitution mandates it to be. The system we have right now is the wrong one, it makes the rich rich and everyone else poorer, but somehow the Boob Tube has convinced you that this is the best way to live life, to be happy by being a slave to the system. So sure that your way of life currently must be the right path you are unwilling to release your bonds for even a taste of true freedom.
BTW if you haven't noticed, the world is a changing, the rich are getting richer, the middle class is on its way out, yet you defend the system to your utmost because anything else would mean change, and people are afraid of change, are you? Those people that voted for Obama wanted change, they didn't get any though, so that there proves that people are thirsty for something better, real change, not this sleight of hand magic trick change Obama promised.
The video says nothing about NAFTA not being "Free Trade" enough, but does discuss the fact that Congress has delegated some of its Authority on trade to the executive, at the same time he says it is the duty of Congress to protect us and our liberties. That would make it Constitutional, but I guess you are against the Constitution seeing as you don't like most of what RP stands for, which is basically the Constitution.
Dr Paul knows more about economics and financial services and central banking than 99.9999% of all people in the world.
NAFTA and WTO create special interests that use the laws to further their agenda and take money out of OUR pockets, Dr. Paul discusses this, but you seem to have missed it, just like you seem to have missed the point of the entire video which you linked.
