I can't vote for Ron Paul he is Unelectable
76
introduction
I will never vote for Ron Paul for several reasons. I know that a lot of his supporters are good patriotic people that mean well. I agree with most of them on a lot of financial issues. But, Ron Paul is not the savior that they seem to think that he is.
Ron Paul's radical Government cuts
Ron Paul’s policies would tear this country apart. Do you want to see the Divided States of America, then vote for Paul. Do you want to see half of the federal government torn apart upsetting federal employees the way that Wisconsin upset teachers last year? We will have riots on the streets, and a possible declaration of martial law if Ron Paul is elected. Can you imagine the Wisconsin protests on a national level? Think about that before you get all gun ho about Ron Paul eliminating half of the federal government like he has promised. It will be a mess, and I would not be surprised to see bloodshed. We do need to roll back some government, but allowing a ideologue like Ron Paul to go crazy uncle on the place could have devastating results.
Wisconsin Riots would be national under Paul
Ron Paul's reckless decision making
If you want to support a man that undermined John McCain and helped Barack Obama get elected, then vote for Ron Paul. This is an example of how reckless Ron Paul is. Rather than picking his battles and telling his supporters that they should oppose Obama and vote for McCain for the good of the country; Ron Paul tells them to vote third party. Is this a patriot? Is this a man that you trust to make wise decisions? Since Ron Paul decided that he wasn't going to support the Republican nominee --guess what-- I won’t support the Republican nominee if Ron Paul gets the nomination. We call that blow back. He still has not ruled out running third party either. That would be another tactic that Ron Paul could use to help Obama win his re-election.
Ron Paul wants Legal Heroin
If you want to see drugs legalized then vote for Ron Paul. If Ron Paul has his way the US government will allow drugs to flow freely into our country. Another one of his great ideas (note sarcasm)! Look at cigarette usage. Is it down because of government restrictions? Yes, a lot of people quit smoking once cigarettes were heavily taxed and they became socially frowned upon. Ron Paul cannot see past his extreme libertarian ideology to see the dangers of drugs. He wants to go in the opposite direction and make drugs less expensive and more socially acceptable.
Ron Paul in defense of legal heroin
Ron Paul will destroy our infrastucture
If you want crumbling interstate highways (repeal of federal tax on gasoline) with no government money then vote for Ron Paul. He rarely uses the interstate highway system anyway, so what does Ron Paul care? Ron Paul is a 30 year career politician that is too busy voting no on everything to travel by car. This career government employee spends millions on charter flights, so you better send him more of your hard earned money. He envisions an America where we take private trains to travel and drive on toll roads if we can afford it. He is from Texas, what does he know about road repair? We have freeze and thaw cycles up here in the north. Sometimes a road needs to be repaired after only a few years of use. Do you think that these private companies are going to keep their roads repaired? Do you think that government officials that are bribed with campaign money will force them to pave their roads?
You can travel on Toll roads and Trains
Ron Paul is a 30 year political expert when it comes to skirting the tough issues
Always skirting the issues by pawning them off on the states, Ron Paul uses that tactic on immigration too. Carefully not to lose the support of Mexicans, Ron Paul will not say that he is against immigration. He will however state that he does want to take education and welfare away from illegals. Since he wants to take welfare away from Americans, who cares that he is going to take it away from illegals? We have high unemployment right now; I think that we can find our own vegetable pickers. Ron Paul disagrees. Ron Paul is still supporting “legal” immigration, and he is against protecting the border with a fence. John Stossel asks in an interview “Would you deport the millions that are here already” and Paul responds “I don’t think that you could find them.” That is a great way to skirt the issue Mr. Paul, never give a straight answer. He continues saying that we would deport criminals, and welfare recipients if they show up to collect their check. Wait a minute; he just said that he would get rid of welfare, so when are they going to show up for it?
Ron Paul doesn't want to end wars, he wants to end America's influence in the world
Ron Paul wants to eliminate America’s military presence around the globe. We need bases. Do you think that Japan and South Korea will side with America if we leave the region and China decides to strong arm them? Should we patrol for pirates that attack ships traveling along international trade routes? Should we have a presence in the Middle East to ensure that our flow of oil is not interrupted by a fanatical Iranian State? Paul will say that we are only experiencing “blowback” because he is a blame America first kind of guy. He thinks that America is to blame for most of our international problems. Ron Paul thinks that if we grovel before our enemies and do as they say, they will like us and trade with us.
We dropped a couple of big bombs on Japan and they aren't threatening us. Where is the blow back from them? The way that you stop any of this supposed blow back is to hit your enemies back harder. Russia has been meddling in the middle east forever; where is their blow back Paul? It doesn’t exist. What we are experiencing is a Muslim hatred toward America for supporting our alley Israel. How would Paul fix that? He skirts the Israel issue by saying that he would cut off all foreign aid, including aid to Israel. He also voted for the attack on Afghanistan even though he keeps on talking about ending these "wars" that he authorized.
2012 Copyright Michiganman567
This is what blow back is. I have learned well from Ron Paul's supporters
This is my example of blow back right here. I wasn’t going to write anything about Ron Paul, but his supporters are so obnoxious, that they drove me to writing out my objections to Ron Paul. There are more, but this is getting a little long. Oh, and comments are going to be EXTREMELY censored. If you are a Ron Paul supporter do not waste your time writing a page of comments because no one will ever see it. If you keep it short and respectful and I follow you or you follow me then I will allow a comment in defense of Paul.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (6)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (5)
CommentsLoading...
Thank you for your comment Kadmiels. There is too much that I don't like for me to look into the little bit that I do like.
You've made some very good points Michiganman and I have to say I totally agreee with all of them. I am NOT a Ron Paul Fan, and would NEVER Vote for the man, for he Frankly Scares me! I do not like his stand on Israel, and I just don't trust his thinking.
I will Vote for Romney though, and think he will be an Excellent President for our Country, and make us proud to be Americans once again!
I look forward to Following your Hubs and Hub you will honor me as well.
Bill Maher just endorsed him.....that puts the end to him for me. Forever.
Thank you for the comment and follow B. Malin. I am glad that I'm not alone. He has several outspoken supporters here on hubpages.
@JSChams, that doesn't surprise me. I bet that deep down those two are nearly ideologically identical.
Out of all the Republican candidates, he's the only one that has any truth and honest, decent understanding of where America needs to be. Romney will just be like any other runner, compelled with lies and fake-promises.
Ron Paul's tactics may be a bit extreme, but at least he's trying to make America a more understanding country, one which doesn't have to defend the world from every problem.
Sorry if my comments are misguided, I'm from England so I don't get as much news of the election running as you do.
Thank you for reading and leaving your comment Indigital. No honest man sits in that snake pit that we call the US congress for 30 years.
Let's not forget on Paul believes we brought about the events on 9/11 ourselves. That's a game breaker for me.
In a way, if the US hadn't of went into the Middle East, 9/11 may not have happened.
One thing about Paul -- he sure kicks up some dust among voters! Your point is well taken and well stated. I'm still one of those folks trying to make up my mind but one thing's for sure -- anyone but Obama! Voted Up. Best, Sis
JSChams, I think that he is a believer in several conspiracy theories, but he won't come out and admit to it. Another example of "honest" Ron not being honest with people. You do not give Alex Jones the stamp of congressional approval if you believe that he is a nut job.
@Indigital, that is like blaming a woman with a short skirt on for getting raped. If she didn't where that skirt maybe she wouldn't have been raped. I don't see the world through those eye.
Thank you for your comment Angela. I wish that Ron Paul said that last election rather than telling his 3 million fanatical supporters to waste their vote on third party candidates.
Great job! I think Ron Paul has some good points on monetary policy, but that's about it. That's why I'm supporting Rick Santorum. He is a professional politician, but I agree with him on most issues and think he can start to wean us off the federal government teat. Ron Paul would be a disaster.
Exactly, I would support Ron Paul for treasury secretary, but that is it. The rest of his "vision" for the country is ridiculous. I would like to see him run as a democrat against Obama, but he would rather sabotage the Republican party.
I am no expert on Ron Paul but I understand that he is a man in favour of no Government regulation in a country that is bankrupt by the lack of regulation. Like most of our Political leaders he is filthy rich and can not claim to not have a conflict of interest. I think he is from Texas and all Politicians from Texas are criminals regardless of party, then again most politicians are elected by lobbyist in DC. In the end it probably will not matter who gets elected any way. The no money party except for me party is all that is left in a bankrupt nation.
Thank you for your comment SanXuary
Good commentary. His supporters are obnoxious.
They will do anything to destroy a third party candidate I am sure. The last thing anyone can believe is the media and any Politician.
Ron Paul is a Republican Candidate. He is a member of the Republican Party. If he runs third party, then he is a traitor to the party that made him what he is. Can you trust a man like that? A pure opportunist!
Ron Paul is a complete idiot who most likely is a Ddemocrat plant. He is as liberal as Barney Frank on all moral issues and has openly stated he would agree with states voting in legal prostitution, legal heroin and all forms of immorality. He is NO CONSERVATIVE in any means.
His stance on ending wars, well, who started them? MUSLIMS started every major war in the world today, if he wants to stop endless wars, he needs to stop Islam, and you cant do that without a strong USA Military with forward force projection.
I agree Jim, thank you for your comment. I thought about including some more social issues where Ron Paul is off of the reservation, but I didn't want to write a book. Thanks again.
I'm a Democrat but I will vote for Romney if he wins the nomination. I believe he is the one Republican candidate who is really worth voting for. Perfect he is not, but he's a lot "cleaner" than most of the others and is not a radical like Paul. Also, I see him as being someone who will be able to work both sides of the aisle...we've seen what not being able to do that has done. I think Paul means well, but he is not a man I would want for President. Good hub!
Thank you for the comment Timetraveler. Your guy Mitt is in pretty good shape right now. He didn't do very well in the last debate though.
I think Ron Paul is a very passionate, honest American. He has been the same for his entire political career. He is prinicpaled in his beliefs.
With that said, I think you have nailed it on him. He is NOT what this country needs right now.
His foreign policy could be disaterous...along with those other issues you talked about.
His own son said that he should NOT run in a third party, that he would hand the election to Obama if he did. I hope his son has enough grit to convince his dad to let it go.
Thanks for a very informative hub,
Chris
Thanks for the comment Chris. I'm not totally convinced about Rand Paul either. Right now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I heard him starting to go off the edge on the drug thing.
Leo 4 hours ago
I certainly hear your objections about Ron Paul and do not discount your arguments but two decades of Presidents exceeding Constitutional authority and out of control spending by Congress convince me that serious change is necessary. I support Ron Paul's candidacy and hope that you will find the attached link to a statement by Voddie Baucham to be enlightening on the candidacy of Ron Paul.
Leo, I did not post your comment directly, because my article is not for the Ron Paul platform, or for sending people to websites that support his platform. I do not need enlightenment when it comes to Paul. I thought that the knowledge, and research that my article would show that. I know that Paul's supporters are fanatical and believe that Paul can do no wrong. But, as an objective observer it is not hard to find so many holes in Ron Paul that he becomes nothing more than a neoliberal. I really do believe that he could be more dangerous to America than Obama. At least Obama does not get bipartisan support for his crazy ideas. Ron Paul might be able to get both parties to gut the military and legalize drugs.
I agree that ideologues are undesirable leaders. The sobering questions that must be considered are, "How bad is the current political climate in this nation?" "How quickly does change need to occur; can we afford incremental change and gridlock in politics right now?", and "If the changes do need to be drastic for the situation to be corrected, do the American people have the resolve to weather hard times to get this Nation back on track?" For those who see the current situation as very serious, and see a need for quick action; who are willing to endure the hard times and sacrifice that will come as a result, Ron Paul seems like a reasonable choice. For true conservatives that want to float along with business as usual, relying on the United States reputation to take care of international affairs, such as foreign debt, then Romney is solid.
My biggest concern with Paul would be that he would have success on all of the crazy things like drugs, defunding the military, and infrastructure while failing on any positive issues that I would support.
I certainly understand that Ron Paul is outside of the mainstream of Republican thought but I perceive that you are as closed minded as the fanatical Ron Paul supporters whom you dismiss. Thank you for confirming my initial instinct concerning your contribution to the ongoing debate.
Yes I am. I am closed minded on the though of legalizing drugs and removing Americas influence from the world scene. Thank you for confirming that. I have no use for Ron Paul. I have been following him for several years. I do hear that George Soros really likes him though.
Touche michiganman! Spooky Dude George Soros as a fan is the true kiss of death!
Ron Paul has two serious issues. First, he's right on several issues and way off base on several others. Secondly, he's not as mean and vicious as the others. The hard right is mean and that's a quality they seek in their nominee.
Dr. Paul is a 21st century don Quixote.
Plus he doesn't know that he's being used by
George Soros. When he teamed up with Barney Frank to slash military funding, it was Soros team that wrote the entire bill.
nice guy, but should have stayed in obstetrics.
@J Elaine Thank you, I just recently heard about spooky dudes connections to Paul. It makes sense. I bet that spooky dude had a hand in that whole 9/11 is an inside jobby job movement that helped get Paul's message out.
@Eric Pearson We probably disagree on the issues that he is "right" on, but thank you for your comment. I don't think that the right is mean. I think that the right just views things differently. We have enough progressive history now to see that those policies can't work.
@Vrajavala Thank you for your comment. Thanks for helping to link Paul to Barney Frank. Can we call them banking buddies? Maybe Frank has been working on Paul about gay marriage all of these years?
I am often struck by the notion that had Bill Clinton or Al Gore been oin office when 9/11 occured you would never have heard a word about an inside job.
So Michiganman who will you be voting for in the 2012 election?
Isn't if funny how Cindy Sheehan isn't camping out in front of Barack Obama's house, or harassing him while he is on vacation. No one is picketing his wars in Afghanistan or Libya. No calls for impeachment from the left for illegal wars. Obama is not a war criminal. Gitmo is alright all of a sudden. What a bunch of hypocrites.
That's funny I thought she did at Martha vineyard in 2009? Pretty sure also in 2009 she was arrested along with 60 others for picketing in front of the white house for continuation of wars in Iraq and afghanistan... Are we trying to mind wash here?
I don't follow Cindy Sheehan's personal appearances. I know that she was in your face with Bush, but excuse me for missing her one appearance 3 years ago. She is a career woman you know. Maybe she didn't get the memo that the media will not be covering the war while Barack Obama is president. Will you go so far as to call Barack Obama a war criminal? Or is that over the top.
That's not exactly a fair comparison Mich. President Obama didn't start the war in Afghanistan, so it's not "his war", and he didn't open Gitmo. He said he'd close Gitmo, and I expect that he will, but anyone who's been paying attention knows that he's met with some level of resistance from the right side of the aisle on every single issue. My suspicion is that Cindy Sheehan knows all that. I certainly do. Now, if Mr. Obama should illegally invade a country without provocation and lies about the reasons for it, he very well may be and absolutely should be described as a war criminal. If that happens, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mr. Boehner will be seeking a trial.
Obama had a filibuster proof majority. He could get anything that he wanted passed. These are his wars like it or not. By not ending them, he bought ownership of them. Obama illegally invaded Libya and illegally kills people in Pakistan all the time. Be consistent.
Sorry Mich, you're wrong again. The republicans have either filibustered or threatened filibuster on numerous occasions. Having a majority does not necessarily give one total control. Each Senator is free to vote the way he or she sees fit. Your argument on this point does not hold water. Or, as we say here in the backwoods of the South, that dog won't hunt. Ownership, in this case, is purely a matter of opinion. Had Bush and Cheney and their league of warmongers not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not be there today. Those are now and forever will be, their wars. I think your opinion here is misguided. Regarding Libya, you need to check the facts. Mr. Obama and The United States did not invade that country. NATO conducted that operation. I may have missed something in Pakistan, it is on the other side of the world. I am however aware of the hours long "invasion" that killed Osama bin Laden. I know Ron Paul faults the president for that one, but I don't. I know I'm not perfect, but I do believe that a lack of hypocrisy and a high level of consistency are two of my strong points.
ok, republicans all wanted socialized medicine and the porkulous package. It is hard to claim that senators would vote one way or another when Obama never pushed for a bill to end the war. He has been quite content fighting his wars.
Im not talking about Osama, I am talking about drone attacks in Pakistan. Obama is killing all kinds of unknown people in a country that we are not at war with. Obama loves it. He is blood thirsty.
NPR is hardly a right wing news source. The democrats comment on the loss of thier filibuster proof majority
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story
Neither is the NYTimes: Obamas illegal Libya war. NATO does not run our country
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21Ackerm
MSNBC: Obama's illegal drone attacks on Pakistan
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37474231/ns/world_news
Can we call him a war criminal now? What are we doing in Afghanistan anyway? The whole middle east has turned lawless since Obama took over. What interest do we have in that worthless mountain country?
You obviously have no interest in having an intelligent conversation about this issue. That's fine with me. Just talk to someone who's on that same level. I'm proud to say that I just don't fall into that category. Have a nice life.
I can't have an intelligent conversation with a bot. Enjoy your life. If you are still on the left after this president, you are hopeless!
Ron Paul is a libertarian. A libertarian is neither a liberal or a conservative. If you want to use the words "conservative" or "liberal" you can say he is liberal with social issues and conservative with the fiscal issues. Ron Paul is more conservative than his liberal. Their is nothing liberal about cutting a trillion in debt in the first year.
It actually makes sense to see a libertarian in the Republican party. The republican party is closer to libertarian views than the Democratic party. Also, third party candidates know that they have a better chance of changing one of the two parties then getting elected with a third party.
Personally, I am a libertarian and I do endorse Ron Paul. I would vote for just about anyone from the Republican Liberty Caucus for president at this moment. For me, I think they have great ideas. I don't drink, smoke or abuse drugs illegal or not. I'm also a christian and a lot of what Ron Paul believes lines up with my beliefs.
I wouldn't worry about Paul right now if you don't like him. It's not that "he cannot win". He won't be allowed to win.
Actually Ron Paul is a Republican. What party nomination is he going after? What party is his son in? What party does he run under for his house seat? If he is a libertarian then he should run as a libertarian. He will even tell you that he can't win as a libertarian.
If you are a Christian, then why don't you capitalize the term? A lot of so called Christians endorse Obama and do not see a problem with it. A serious Christian can not endorse Obama or Paul without having serious conflict between their beliefs and endorsement
I don't know if you can compare Ron Paul with Obama, they seem of a different calibre, and Paul seems somewhat conflicted over issues, and quite independent. I'm on the fence here. I like politicians who don't necessarily tow the party line. It's the reason the American Banks are not running the world, without government legislation at their heels, of course. Isn't it?
I think that Ron Paul might be more dangerous than Obama. Paul could get bipartisan support for some of his crazy ideas, Obama can not. It's alright if you disagree with me. I know that at least half of the population disagrees with me.
I think Paul is going to stay in it until the convention....then he will wheel and deal with Romney (I'm guessing he will be the nominee)...make Romney make some serious commentment to reduce spending and such....I think Paul also see's the danger of a third party...it would give Obama four more years.
I think that he knows that his son's political career is OVER if he decides to run third party. If his son wants to be a career politician like daddy, then Rand Paul needs to keep daddy under control.
BINGO!
You point out some interesting Ron Paul debate issues. I am still not sure who would be the best candidate -- is there any out there who would actually bring us back to a solid nation? I would like to see more of Paul's plan to bring jobs to America and his stand on foreign affairs. Thanks for writing the hub and helping us to make a more informative decision.
Thank you for your comment teaches. I am glad that my hub was able to inform you about some things that the Ron Paul supporters never want to talk about.
" Oh, and comments are going to be EXTREMELY censored. If you are a Ron Paul supporter do not waste your time writing a page of comments because no one will ever see it. "
I would need a page to explain to you how badly your logic is flawed, and how baseless this article really is.
Oh, and Ron Paul supporters love to talk about the issues (all of them). That's kinda the whole point of our movement.
Exactly, I don't want to debate Ron Paul all day in my comments. If you want to write an article in support of Ron Paul then you have that option. My comments are not here for you to write that article.
My perspective is from the left, but I think that regardless of your ideology, Ron Paul is a disaster.
As a veteran, I agree that we can't give up all of our international military bases. There are places where we don't need them or we don't need as many because the bases were there because of Cold War strategy that needs to be redone, but there are places where we do need a strategic presence, and Japan and South Korea are right there at or near the top of the list.
Also, I appreciate someone on the more conservative side standing up for needed infrastructure. I grew up in WV and I live in PA now. When I had to go to Pittsburgh in my WVU days, I did not need a sign to tell me that I had crossed the state line. I knew because WV has nice roads and PA has awful roads. (There is a similar, but not as pronounced, drop off in the quality of roads when you go to OH.) Well-constructed highways are much safer (for example, just changing a 71-mile stretch of US 19 to a four lane road has probably saved hundreds, if not thousands, of lives over the last 15 years) and building public transportation reduces traffic, which keeps roads in better shape. It costs $1 million a year to keep good highways, but apparently anti-government fantasy land thinks that it will just fix itself once you get those pesky bureaucrats out of the way.
Thank you for your comment Steve. It is good to see Ron Paul bringing the left and the right together. Unfortunately for him we are coming together against his ideology.
I think that a lot of people on the right are for infrastructure as long as it isn't awarded through cronyism, it serves the public's interest, and it is economically worthwhile.
michiganman, please enlighten me on how you think Romney will be any different than what we have now? Do people forget every four years? Is there a pandemic of Alzheimer's going around? Four years ago this is the exact reason that people voted for Obama. Yeah that worked out well. I guarantee that if Romney gets elected, it will still be the same. Sure there will be minor changes, but nothing major. They are all the same. Ron Paul is the only one that is different. You say you are afraid of the man and how he would rip the country apart with his cuts. Well, we haven't cut in recent years, how is that working out for us? You don't like the guy because of his stance on Israel? Last I checked, Israel can protect themselves. I believe they have more nukes than any other country in the Middle East. They are the only one to actively use nuclear weapons. Why is it okay for them to have them?
Where did I say anything about Romney? I will take the status quo over legalized drugs. I will take the status quo over military isolationism. I don't know if you have noticed, but Israel doesn't exactly threaten its neighbors and threaten their very existence. That is the difference. France has Nuclear weapons too. Why is it Ok for them? Because they are a civilized country.
If you want to wrap some Ron Paul financial ideas with a reasonable candidate, then I would support him. Accepting the entire Ron Paul platform based on one or two of his ideas is lunacy. That is why I do not ordinarily waste my time responding to his lunatic supporters. Do you really support a nuclear war in the middle east? Is that Ron Paul's foreign policy?
I like how quickly you resort to calling me an "lunatic supporter". I do not think anything that I wrote was lunacy.
Are you really suggesting that threaten neighbors?
Are you suggesting that Iran is not a civilized country? Have you been there? How do you know? I haven't, so I can't make that claim.
Does RP want a nuclear war in the middle east? Of course not, do you? Ron Paul is the guy trying to stop wars, it's the other GOP candidates and current president who provoking them.
Do you remember the impending doom of Iraq getting nukes? Iraq has WMD we must invade. Another great plan that worked out well. You think it's different in Iran? What money are we using to start another war? The USA is broke!
Your lunacy comes from your cult like following of every word that flows out of Paul's mouth. What do you disagree with Ron Paul about?
Iran just sentenced a Christian to death for leaving Islam. Yes, I am claiming that they are not a civilized country. What do you think? Is that civilized, can we expect that type of civilized treatment in a Ron Paul America since he likes to equate the two countries?
Ron Paul is trying to stop what war? The one in Afghanistan that he voted to start. That is the only one that we are fighting. The Iraq war is over.
I didn't read where I endorsed attacking anyone. Why don't you read what I said instead of assuming my positions. First you have me supporting Romney, then you have me bombing Iran. You have your perfect little diametric going there don't you. I guess that is what someone needs in order to support Ron Paul.
I don't have time to read through all of the comments. I would like to point out that Ron Paul has way more power than you'd probably like to admit. He will either lead the GOP to victory or leave it in shambles regardless of what you think about him. His supporters are now very involved in the GOP. They've taken roles as delegates and are general woven in to the fabric of the Republican party. When he's out of the picture, they aren't going to roll over and support Mitt, Rick, or Newt. It's going to get very ugly.
Ron Paul has a son to think about. If his son wants to be a career politician like daddy, then Ron Paul's supporters better play ball.
I really can not under stand why your gov borrow money from China and gives that money to Egypt through foreign aid, and all that will pay american citizens
No one knows why our government does a lot of things. Most of us do know that Ron Paul has some good ideas, but he has them wrapped together with a lot of crazy ideas.
^ That's you told!
The biggest problem I see with Ron Paul is that he wants to decriminalize drugs, and thinks that we should just stand by and watch other countries build Nuclear Weapons to kill us with. We can not do without the CIA, etc. I do think he is a nice well meaning man, but I would vote for Mitt Romney out of all the GOP candidates. Mitt Romney has his flaws, but I would feel much better if he were president rather than Ron Paul. The USA would be in hot water if Ron Paul was president. He is unelectable anyhow.
Ron Paul is the kind of guy that was running France before WW2. Just mind our own business and wait until we are attacked. I would rather fight on their soil than our soil any day. Ron Paul would fight every single war on American soil. And if you think that he would keep the military strong, then you are severely mistaken. If Ron Paul's ideology ran the government our military would look like Canada's in 30 years.
So michiganman567, what is your all-knowing solution?
"my lunacy"? I do not agree with everything that RP says, but I do think he is on the right track. People who want to continue the wars, even though WE HAVE NO MONEY, are the only crazies I see.
Let me also say that you are the one putting words in my mouth. I never said that I agree with all of RPs views. You assumed that I did. I think you should stick to reading what I wrote and not what you think I said.
You choose not to answer my questions, so I choose not to answer yours. If you want to have a conversation then you need to address the questions that I asked you, not glance them over. Provide an answer, what do you disagree with RuPaul about? If you simply want to rant, then go somewhere else. I did not put any words in your mouth, that is what the question mark at the end of my statement means.
I can't believe this is still even an issue with people.
Folks Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee. He hasn't won a single primary. I can appreciate that you feel strongly enough to support him fully. i also support a candidate that is not likely to be the nominee.
Too bad, so sad. We have to suck it up and get behind the man who is because you really don't want:
A.Barack Obama for four more years.
2.Someone(Ron Paul)to decide he wants to be third party like Ross Perot. That would guarantee A.
Ron Paul isn't a candidate. He is their life! They have too much invested in their messiah to let him go quietly. Delusions of brokered conventions are dancing through their heads.
Kadmiels Level 3 Commenter 4 months ago
ron paul is not a savior but someone who has the ideals of a tue american.. So we need to get the word out on why you need to vote for him not why you would not