After reading a few discussions on here about Ron Paul I wanted to create one that actually fostered some good debate about his views. Whether you are for or against him please explain why, and use some specifics, not just "he's nuts!" or "he's the best!", support your claim.
I'll start by saying right now he will get my vote because he believes in this country as it was founded and wants to run it accordingly. He's for small government...most issues should be handled at the state or local level, not the federal government, without limited government you can't have true liberty. He also seems to have a grasp on our economic problems. And I support his foreign policy of not getting involved in wars we shouldn't be in. Most importantly he has a proven record of walking his talk, something you don't see much today.
Edit: For an in-depth explanation of his views/opinions read his book "Liberty Defined"
Last edited by kansasdeerhunter; 07-21-2011 at 05:34 PM.
First, to be honest I really don't know enough about him to give him my nod as of yet.
One of the negatives I've been "hearing" about him is that he's an isolationist. There are those that may believe that that is a good idea. To those I would say. How did that work out for the USSR, and China throughout history?
__________________
Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't~ Thomas Jefferson~ Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held it's ground~Unknown~Just because your offended doesn't mean your right~Unknown.
I agree with a lot of his positions, but the problem I have with him is let's say we bring all troops that are based throughout the world home like he is suggesting. We completely just let our allies fend for themselves, and we let the rest of the world do whatever it is going to do while we only concern our selves with what happens in our own boarders. The question I have is what is his plan B if that don't work. He seems to believe that it is our fault the Islamic terrorist are attacking us, and that turns my stomach.
America is a great nation ( even though Obama is trying his best to cut us down to size) in a dangerous world, and I don't believe his isolationist views will serve us too well.
Again, what is his plan B if our enemies don't shower us with their blessings by "getting out of their business?"
C. Davis
__________________ Am I greedy because I don't want to give you what is mine?
or
Are you greedy because you want to take what is not yours?
I agree with a lot of his positions, but the problem I have with him is let's say we bring all troops that are based throughout the world home like he is suggesting. We completely just let our allies fend for themselves, and we let the rest of the world do whatever it is going to do while we only concern our selves with what happens in our own boarders. The question I have is what is his plan B if that don't work. He seems to believe that it is our fault the Islamic terrorist are attacking us, and that turns my stomach.
America is a great nation ( even though Obama is trying his best to cut us down to size) in a dangerous world, and I don't believe his isolationist views will serve us too well.
Again, what is his plan B if our enemies don't shower us with their blessings by "getting out of their business?"
C. Davis
I think (and I could certainly be wrong...this is just my interpretation of what he's said) that if he were President we wouldn't pull ALL our troops home, only those that aren't fighting a battle against an enemy threatening our border or attacking another soverign country. We wouldn't leave everyone else to fend for themselves, but we wouldn't get involved where we're not needed. We certainly wouldn't go into another Iraq/Libya. Our military is WAY too overextended, and the cost is too much. I don't think he would just yank everyone home without assessing the consequences first. He's smarter than that.
As for whether he believes its our fault Islamic terrorists are attacking us, I don't he's placing the full blame on us. He's simply pointed out that our foreign policies have been pretty jacked up, ruining a lot of friendships and tarnishing our reputation. Take for example Libya, we actually worked with Qaddafi to fight the terrorists, and now we are working with the terrorists to fight Qaddafi.
Last edited by kansasdeerhunter; 07-21-2011 at 05:39 PM.
Care to elaborate why? (for this apparently politically unobservant person)
I like a lot of Paul's positions, disagree with some. However, unfortunately, much of the electorate looks at the "show" rather than the substance. A significant problem for Paul, from my perspective, is that he could borrow three fourths of Hillary Clinton's testosterone, and still have less... He just doesn't look, sound or act "Presidential," and regardless of how right he may be on the issues, that creates a significant barrier to election.
For those wanting to view some of his positions, here they are:
I like a lot of Paul's positions, disagree with some. However, unfortunately, much of the electorate looks at the "show" rather than the substance. A significant problem for Paul, from my perspective, is that he could borrow three fourths of Hillary Clinton's testosterone, and still have less... He just doesn't look, sound or act "Presidential," and regardless of how right he may be on the issues, that creates a significant barrier to election.
For those wanting to view some of his positions, here they are:
I've watched countless hours of video of him giving speeches and answering questions...and I don't see how he doesn't look/act "Presidential". Sure he looks more old & skinny than most other Presidents, but he speaks & answers questions well, and comes across as someone who understands what he's talking about. Plus he gets more donations from active military than any other candidate (including Obama...who IMO doesn't look "Presidential" either), so the military supports his testosterone levels lol I think its extremely unfortunate that people would consider him unelectable because of the way he looks. We pick leaders to lead...not look good. GW didn't look Presidential either. I would probably agree Clinton looked Presidential, and so did Bush #1, but where did that get us? lol
I appreciate the ontheissues link, however I think its a somewhat misinformational because it doesn't explain why he voted yes or no on any of the bills
Last edited by kansasdeerhunter; 07-22-2011 at 09:54 AM.
We don't disagree with every one of Paul's positions, but there are too many with which we disagree to enable us to support him. Don't ask me to list them. There are too many and some of them are a little silly.
That said, if it comes down to Ron Paul v. Barach Obama, Paul will get our vote.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
We don't disagree with every one of Paul's positions, but there are too many with which we disagree to enable us to support him. Don't ask me to list them. There are too many and some of them are a little silly.
I get that many people don't agree with some of his issues, that's why I started the thread because I want to learn more about why they disagree with them. I don't agree with every one of them either. But I'd love to know what issues you disagree with and why. If there are too many to list then pick the top 2 or 3.
Ron Paul for Prez?
