Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Ron Paul was a racist he would say so. He's not the kind of person to play the game of what do you want to hear.
He was pandering a bit on the fringe in the 80s and 90s BUT now that he has gained some respectabilty, he distanced himself and moved to the centre. It would be insane if Obama offers him a position on the constitution and health matters
I wouldn't be suprised at all if RP supported obama, since the only diffrences they seem to have is fiscal policy to some degree.
Also, a signficant amount of RP supporters came from Obama or rooted for him from the republican side since none of the other candidates have a thread of old-school conservatism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by walidm
Why isn't Ron Paul the nominee? He seems to have many of the traditional values of the Conservative Republicans.
Because the republican party has been hijacked by neocons and theocons, which pretty much hate anything conservative except tax breaks.
There lies the confusion of it all... I like and agree a lot with Ron Paul's ideas but among the other candidates, its all fragmented... I like Obama's foreign policy and I like McCain's tax cuts... Hilliary won't be here very much longer and there is nothing I like about that liar... so who do I vote for? I know Ron Paul will be giving up his bid come the national convention and that means I have to choose... There are many faults for both Obama and McCain... Obama wants to spend, spend, spend but has good foreign policies... McCain wants to threaten, war, and kill other countries but he also wants to cut down the tax bureacracy... If only McCain wasn't such a warmonger and Obama wasn't such a socialist... I am thoroughly confused... probably shouldn't vote this time although it would of been my first time to vote...
Thanks to Ron Paul. Now that Ron Paul has said that he 'likes' obama foreign policy, Senator Obama should say that he 'likes' ron paul economic policies of spending cuts.
evilnewbie-------I hate to say this but McCain wants to spend and spend too and continue to give young generation with debt, debt and debt. Of course, Obama and Clinton want to spend and spend too and then spend some more.
Its time we stop talking about tax cuts or tax increase and focus more on spending cuts.
I can't beleive that Paul supporters even thonk that hsi foreign policy stance is remotley like any of the three candat6es. The only thing is that he would pull out of Iraq like Hillary and Obama. But the he would pull our troops out of afganistan ;Korea and evry other country.Obama and hillary have stated againn and again theirr support for afganistan operations. They also have never talked about removing troops from the other countries. In that Payu is a isolationist. He also is a states right advocate and neither is that. In fact he would eliminate fed depts and they would increase the number.Imakes you wander what is wrong with the hearing of pauls supporters or do they never listen to Obama and Hillary.No democrat would evr support Paul's domestic policy statementas they would be kicked out of the party.No republican including Ronald Reagan would ever agree with his foreign policy statements any more the democrats candidate.Paul sounds more like George Wallace of the 60's really than either party.That is why is is in the same position as nader as far as popularity goes.
I can't beleive that Paul supporters even thonk that hsi foreign policy stance is remotley like any of the three candat6es. The only thing is that he would pull out of Iraq like Hillary and Obama. But the he would pull our troops out of afganistan ;Korea and evry other country.Obama and hillary have stated againn and again theirr support for afganistan operations. They also have never talked about removing troops from the other countries. In that Payu is a isolationist. He also is a states right advocate and neither is that. In fact he would eliminate fed depts and they would increase the number.Imakes you wander what is wrong with the hearing of pauls supporters or do they never listen to Obama and Hillary.No democrat would evr support Paul's domestic policy statementas they would be kicked out of the party.No republican including Ronald Reagan would ever agree with his foreign policy statements any more the democrats candidate.Paul sounds more like George Wallace of the 60's really than either party.That is why is is in the same position as nader as far as popularity goes.
This post is a classic example of the militant liberalism that has infected the contemporary Republican Party.
First off, Ron Paul is far closer to Barry Goldwater than George Wallace and is by far the most conservative candidate we have seen in a generation. Secondly, even Ronald Reagan wrote after he pulled the troops out of Beruit that the US should refrain from intervening in the Middle East because nothing good would ever come of it, something he regretted.
I keep hearing this tired phrase over and over that Ron Paul is an isolationist and that is just a load of cow chips. In fact, a better case could be made that our current foreign policy creates an air of isolationism far more than if we were to pull back our empire to a more humble size. Our intervention into more than 200 nations has created a world view that America is a power hungry, antagonistic nation that is bent on total hegemony. Whether true or not, it is the general perception of a growing number of people in the world. In addition, the funding to maintain a global empire of military bases around the world is a huge and massive expense that in the current climate will soon become unsustainable.
While I support Ron Paul I don't agree with all his views or stances and I never believed he would have more than 15-20% support for two basic reasons. One is that he is a true advocate of smaller government and this is something he isn't just paying lip service to. Being that as it is, there is no wonder there is little political support for a man who wants to shrink government. After all, why would government support a man who wishes to reduce its own size when it could be their jobs on the chopping block. Would you vote to have your company downsized?
Secondly, his ideas on returning to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal tax system is far too radical for mainstream consumption. In addition, he advocates that individuals have more freedoms and the cost of these freedoms happens to be more personal responsibility and this is something most Americans do not want. Most people in America want to be coddled, cared for and kept safe from everything from slipping on a wet floor to hot coffee to backward Muslim kooks in caves a half a world a way, much like a child fears the dark during a storm. The very thought of having to be personally responsible for more of their lives scares the living day lights out of people when they merely consider that it may take more effort.
All the same, what he represents is a more tradition old school conservatism that no longer exist outside of small pockets in government. Despite the fact that I do disagree with several of his positions I know that if he were to become President, he could be counted on doing things strictly in alignment with his platform so there would be no surprises. This kind of honesty in government is rare regardless of the party and it is something I respect.
In any case the contemporary Republican Party is little more than liberals with rifles, beer and a bible paying lip service to personal responsibility while they spend their children's future during an infomercial in the NASCAR pre-race show. They would no more know what it means to be conservative than Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Boxer.
Oh, and don't kid yourself, Hillary and Obama aren't leaving the Middle East or anywhere else anytime soon. What they say today they say to the left for the primaries, how they act tomorrow if they were President is a whole other ball of wax and I will not believe it until I see it with my own eyes.
Ron Paul likes Obama's foreign policy plans because Obama said he would "talk" to foreign leaders. Talk is cheap (i.e. It doesn't cost anything.) Ron Paul is all about things not costing anything.
Beyond Ron Paul's ideas on the monetary system, I think he's off on his own little planet. Government does spend too much money on stupid things but Ron Paul goes completely in the opposite direction. He'd like to not spend any money on anything.
I can't see Ron Paul supporting many of Obama's other ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
