Monday, December 19, 2011
Ron Paul for President?
Lets make one thing clear people, Ron Paul could never beat Obama. I understand that the Tea Party is enamored by his anti-government stances that seems like every government function is an intrusion on our civil liberties but he could never appeal to the majority of Republican voters. Even most Conservatives would not vote for him because his foreign policies are a joke. He believes in isolationist policies that ignore the rest of the world. Its like a child hiding under the covers during a tornado saying this isn't happening, this isn't happening. Well guess what, the threats that the United States has is happening and their very real and should be taken seriously. Arab states like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan are all real threats to this nation and to have this belief that we can negotiate with them is absurd. That is the same foreign policy that Obama has and that didn't work so well. So now the United States has lost all credibility as a super power just cause of Obama being naive. Do you really think Ron Paul can change the view that the United States is weak? I highly doubt that and I don't believe for one second that anybody else thinks that as well. Don't get me wrong I love the Tea Party and support it fully but supporting Paul for President is just the Tea Party on a high that they need to get down from. I don't like government in my business and i don't like government spending my hard earned dollars on wasteful spending but even I realize that there is somethings that government needs to have their hand in. A vote for Paul is a vote for anarchy and its also, a vote for Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1) Almost any Republican can beat Obama. But Paul's the best bet, on the issues, and his record. Especially his foreign and monetary policies.
ReplyDelete2) Ron Paul's foreign policy is not a joke: it's actually extremely Republican. Mr. Republican, Robert Daft, has exactly the same one. Ditto with Jefferson. He believes in non-interventionism, not isolationism.
3) All those Arab states you listed -- I belive -- have problems as a result of American involvement. Leaving them alone would greatly allow those countries to leave America alone.
4) Obama continued the same practices as Bush, it seems. However, Bush's foreign policy (that he campaigned on) was to not nation build, and not police the world. This is what Bush and Obama have done, and not what Ron Paul wishes to do.
5) When did Ron Paul ever wish to change the view that the US is weak?
6) Ron Paul is a Libertarian: he is for smaller government, not anarchy.
7) I fail to see how a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.
Ron Paul wishes to legalize all drugs and that alone disqualifies him from national contension. Because many Conservatives would not go for a radical stance on such an issue. Ending the war on drugs is one thing but legalizing every drug is not very republican.
ReplyDeleteAs for Paul's foreign policy it is further left than Obama's. How could any Republican vote for Paul and complain about Obama's foreign policy stances?
The smaller government thing sounds all well and good but he differs in too many key issues to be taken as a contender. Because the majority of Republican's expect a man of conservative principles not someone who strays too far from party line.