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.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. Not because I think he's devoid of good ideas. I really like some of his stands on the issues. And I respect his willingness to buck the GOP establishment. But he has too many fringe nutty ideas for me.
One example: turning over public highways to private corporations to operate as toll roads.
Interesting about turning over public highways to private corporations
happend around here in the midwest
money from what i understand is pretty much all used up now
if it was such a grand idea my pressing question would be why are american investors not involved with this idea
the spanish consortium which leased the chicago sky way and indiana toll road is also bk
I dont know anything about ron paul
i do vote
voted for obama
and unlikely to vote for him again unless the field is full of the likes of sara palin
even after killing osama
Ron Paul is toast. On economic policies he might have a leg up. But his 19th century mentality of the role of the US in the world is simply warped and unrealistic. I am all about a "return to Constitutionality" but let's face it - we live in a globalized world and there are some responsibilities with that, which were likely unimaginable for the Founders.
What are the responsibilities exactly? When did the US Globalization initialize in result of assigned responsibility? Who made the US responsible for world affairs?
If you knew how much this "global responsibility" was costing you in taxes AND inflation, you'd be begging for a time machine. Here, I'll help you....US spends 707.3 BILLION on it's millitary each year. Since the US Goverment doesn't have any money, where do you think they get this money from? Take a look in a mirror to find your answer.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. Not because I think he's devoid of good ideas. I really like some of his stands on the issues. And I respect his willingness to buck the GOP establishment. But he has too many fringe nutty ideas for me.
One example: turning over public highways to private corporations to operate as toll roads.
Do you know much the goverment throws at surface transportation a year?
"Obama Administration has proposed investing a total of $128 billion in transportation in FY2012, a $53 billion increase…"
I'll pay a toll rather than $426 a year. That's what 128B is divided by 300M (the number of US citizens). It'll probably be managed better and be maintained a lot better than the federal goverment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
As a democratic leaning independent, Ron Paul is the ONE republican I have respect for. That doesn't guarantee I would vote for him because he is way too much of an ideologue in my opinion. He makes sense on most issues, but most importantly, comes out as an honest politician (a rarity), but he assumes the real world to be a replica of a utopia. Sometimes, too much of states' rights person as well, whereas I'm for people's rights.
Let me get this straight...you think the federal goverment has more interest in your rights than the states? How about the fact that Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist meaning he's one of the few politicians in this country actually fighting FOR your rights whereas the Federal Goverment is doing everything it can to tread on those rights. See Patriot Act (4th amendment), Gun Ban Laws (2nd amendment), Gay Marriage abolishment (1st amendment), Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1st amendment), Federal Income Tax Collection (1st Amendment).
What is it about allowing states to govern certain laws over the federal goverment that you feel is a stance on reducing people's rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130
I like Ron Paul. He's a great guy, and very friendly and grounded person. However, he has an extreme limited world view, and is not a NATIONAL leader.
Awesome for House representative, but not Senator nor President.
Throw Ron Paul in a room with any other politician and he'll tell you exactly why countries do what they do, why the attacked us, how long we've been in their country, and the history of their countries. Rudy Guliani tried to call Ron Paul out and was embarrased that he didn't even know that the US had a military prescence in the middle east for over 10 years. Ron Paul assigned him a reading list of books about foreign policy...but according to you he has an "extreme limited world view".
If anything, Ron Paul has a better world view and is just want you claim him not to be. He're more of a National leader as opposed to Bush/Obama trying to be Global leaders.
You should get your facts straight, read some material, stop watching CNN
Last edited by cdubs3201; 05-13-2011 at 09:41 AM..
Republicans will NEVER work for this country..they r a NIGHTMARE to this country..President Obama will be my VOTE for 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimpleMan
I'm wondering if the left that is unhappy with Obama's performance would consider Paul. That, and I think that a lot of Republicans are unhappy with the direction of the GOP and believe Paul could help getting them back on the right track. I just don't think Paul running as a libertarian stands a chance, not enough financial backing. If the GOP has the slightest clue about what's at stake, they won't put up another worthless turd (see McCain) against Obama, or they're going to lose (again). The smart play is to give Paul the nod. If I wasn't registered as an Independent I'd help him in the primaries. All I know is I will not be voting for Obama. If the GOP puts up a dunce, I'll write in Donald duck for president. The "voting for the lesser of two evils" crap is getting old.
Ron Paul would dominate the general election. The problem for him though is going to be winning the republican primary.
If he would get more coverage on the news I think he would get a huge boost in the primary polls.
Ron Paul is toast. On economic policies he might have a leg up. But his 19th century mentality of the role of the US in the world is simply warped and unrealistic. I am all about a "return to Constitutionality" but let's face it - we live in a globalized world and there are some responsibilities with that, which were likely unimaginable for the Founders.
Is it unrealistic, perhaps. However, winding it down a little would go a long way the downward slide this nation is going through like open borders, outsourcing anything that smells of manufacturing, wallstreet greed and for God's sake we are not the world's cop. Wind it down a bit for at least four years.
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.
