I agree with jgger. Ron Paul has some nirvana type ideas, but the execution would kill us.

 

I would take that gun to my head versus the cannon that is being held to my head today.

The democratic party learned their lessons on what not to do with a bad candidate, in a bad situation, in the 1980 election.
The MSM is being used to steer the primaries to a center of the road, RINO candidate.
Anyone that could "Ronnie" Obama is not going to be allowed in the election. If they go 2 party on the ticket, they don't want an overwhelming number of the electoral votes to go against Obama. That would sully his reputation as a POTUS in the history books. Just like Carter, Obama would be considered among the worst presidents, if this happened.

The Ron Paul wack job part comes to light if he does not get the GOP nomination and still feels he can do the correct thing, and runs 3rd party. Posted in another thread, look at the 1996 election to see what is going to happen. In his quest to bring the country back to its roots, he would seal the deal for another 4 years for Obama. That would be helping the country for sure.

 

If this was the case, do you think big business wanted Obama in charge ?
Any of the laws Obama supported, where they good for big business ?

A Democratic candidate in bad times is not a good thing to have. History has proven this.
Do you think big business wanted real inflation out of control at that crucial point ( 2009 ) ?

Look to more localized elections, if big business has this type of control, how could the petition for a recall happen in WI, all for the governor doing what he said he would do.

jgger posted it best, big business does have influence, but at the same time unions have just as much influence. This is why unions did not want corporations to be involved in elections, they could match the money being spent on elections by unions.

 

Guys I see what you're saying and agree on many things except your assumptions on Ron Paul. He is not an isolationist. You should read some of his books and it will explain his views better and how he is anything but an isolationist.

Any way, I don't think things will change much at all getting a repub in office. The candidates that are provided are the same repub or dem other than ron paul in my opinion. Either way this country is screwed. They are taking away our rights at an ever increasing rate. Patriot act, NDAA, SOPA etc. The screws are tightening a lot faster than they used to and voting for the lesser of two evils isn't going to stop it IMO.

 

How?

 

I don't have to read Ron Paul's books. I've seen him plenty in the debates, where he has plenty of opportunity to explain his views.

I love almost all of his domestic agenda, but his ideas on foreign policy are way off.

It's not just 'big business' that is opposed to Paul. Plenty of us everyday Americans vehemently disagree with his views on international politics for our own reasons. It's insulting for Paul supporters to imply the reason we don't support Paul is that big business is pulling the wool over our eyes, or that we just don't know what Paul stands for.

We know about Paul. We don't like him on foreign policy.

FWIW, I would certainly vote for Paul over Obama.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrAmp...eature=related

 

Thats all good but please explain how Romney or any of the other candidates are better than Paul. If you only disagree with a candidate on one thing and disagree with others on multiple things wouldn't the candidate you disagree with one thing be the candidate you would choose? Im confused by your logic.

 

Might not be a bad idea to read one or two of his books. In a debate someone can slip and explain things incorrectly or just say something to thwart one person's point or to make the audience cheer. Books require much more time and reflection and can be held against a person better than something they said at some debate when they were "in the heat of the moment."


That was funny str8t six He makes an excellent point that there is a difference in the kinds of spending and how one can be slimmed down. We shouldn't be trying to lump everything related together like we are doing TurboTax on our lunch break.

 

Romney, Santorum and Gingrich understand the threat Islamic Extremists pose to the USA, Europe and Israel, and they will conduct foreign policy accordingly. This is how they are better than Paul.

Frankly, Paul's shortcomings in this area are so serious, if far outweighs the fact that I like the his stance on cutting spending.

While I do like most of Paul's domestic agenda, it's not like foreign policy is his only shortcoming. As detailed by others, I have serious questions about his leadership skills and potential to accomplish his domestic agenda.

Franky, I'd take Bachmann, Cain and Perry above Paul. He has always been at the very bottom of my list for GOP candidates.

Oh, and if Paul runs as an Independent and gets Obama re-elected, I will curse him till my last breath.

 

sure, vote for romney who is a typical lying BS politician who dodges questions and will say anything to get into office, just like OBAMA!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhjkL...eature=related


i agree that some of pauls foreign affairs policies are a little different, but you seriously cant keep fighting those people forever. they have been at war with someone since the beginning of time! the war is draining us of money and americans are dying everyday over there. how many more troops are you guys willing to lose over there for people who dont give a crap about even their own lives!! i certainly dont want anymore fellow military members lost due to these illegal wars.

 

FWIW, my outlook is closest to Santorum, but Romney or Gingrich would also be vastly better as POTUS than Paul.

Fighting wars is expensive and lives will be lost. Not fighting them can be even more expensive.

BTW, it's pretty hard to take you seriously if you believe Romney is just like Obama.

 

i was comparing them with lying and dodging questions, although they do have health care in common.....

 

His international ideas are great, in a perfect world. The world we live in is far from perfect and will result in grave danger/injury to our country. I gave just one example of why his domestic policy is not as workable as it sounds in another thread.

 

You don't end a war by simply not fighting, that's called quitting. You beat the enemy into submission, we have seemed to forgotten that with our current rules of engagement. What Obama has done in Irac is just that, quit. Things are far from settled or stable over there, and you are correct that they probably never will be settled. The down side is by quiting before it's finished greatly weakens our position as a world leader.

It seems to me that Ron Pauls position is only slightly different than Obama's, as he would have us doing a mass quitting across the globe. If we were to just disapear from everywhere we are around the world who or what would fill the void? Don't tell me that you don't care, because if this were to happen it would be a very short time till all the world's misfits would be trying to bring their (fill in the blank) here.

Ron Paul is just not the person we need. He is also very much like every other politician out there. If the man is so dead set against pork, why is his district one of the highest, if not the highest, reciepent of pork per capita? It's because he loads bills that he knows are going to pass with pork for his district, then votes against what he just put in the bill. All so he can say he voted against it. When asked about this, his answer is "well you have to play the game". That REEKS if he takes his job as a game. I don't trust him, nor am I star struck by him. He needs to retire and go away.