Who would you vote for...


Recommended Posts

Ron Paul

I am intrigued by his claim of cutting the deficit by $1T within his first year in office. That's his plan anyway. He even states that it would require public and congressional backing. Cutting 5 departments through attrition, and cutting foreign aid and war spending.

I really like his approach at what the President's salary would be changed to - median salary of around $40K. Although with any other money he has coming in or has saved up, a presidential salary would really be insignificant to their purse. But the message it sends is that they make what the majority of us make and puts us on equal footing.

~ Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shane:

Yes, I would.

I still have immense concerns about his foreign and defense policies, but I am taking a hard look at his concept that the "defense budget" is not directly related to the defense of this nation.

Mr. Newt, who I admire tremendously, said last night that he is a hawk, but a cheap hawk.

Restructuring our entire defensive paradigm within the current world political, economic and religious lines is critical to our survival.

Iran is a direct threat. How to defend against that threat is open to analysis.

China is a direct long term threat, but that is nothing new. I am less concerned about China, short term than Iran because of the Iran's willingness to use nuclear weapons based on their Twelver Religious psychosis.

India is a comfortable buffer to China for the next decade. Additionally, China does not have the naval resources, or the aviation resources to constitute a genuine short term threat.

Domestically, I do not find much that I disagree with Dr. Paul about.

Constitutionally, he is as spot on as anyone I see who is holding elected office.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

C'thulu

Why vote for the lesser of evils?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Ron Paul makes the distinction between defense and military budgets. He said that the unnecessary military spending actually puts our defense at risk. He wondered how to justify the US paying for bases in Korea, Japan, Germany and about 150 countries around the world, not to mention the cost of undeclared wars and now advisors in Africa! Curious how right after Ron Paul made these points, that Santorom said he would not cut one penny from the military budget!

Do you think that any other of the candidates would address the Federal Reserve the way that Ron Paul would? IF no one else would, don't you see this as a crucial election. If the Fed is not dealt with, and sound money restored, there is a risk that the dollar would lose its world reserve currency status and would ultimately fail, with dreadful consequences for all Americans, e.g. hyperinflation, food shortages, widespread civil unrest with looting etc.

Domestically Ron Paul might implement his fertilized ova is a human being with rights agenda.

Truly a crossroads in our history.

gulch

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

Ron Paul makes the distinction between defense and military budgets. He said that the unnecessary military spending actually puts our defense at risk. He wondered how to justify the US paying for bases in Korea, Japan, Germany and about 150 countries around the world, not to mention the cost of undeclared wars and now advisors in Africa! Curious how right after Ron Paul made these points, that Santorom said he would not cut one penny from the military budget!

Do you think that any other of the candidates would address the Federal Reserve the way that Ron Paul would? IF no one else would, don't you see this as a crucial election. If the Fed is not dealt with, and sound money restored, there is a risk that the dollar would lose its world reserve currency status and would ultimately fail, with dreadful consequences for all Americans, e.g. hyperinflation, food shortages, widespread civil unrest with looting etc.

Domestically Ron Paul might implement his fertilized ova is a human being with rights agenda.

Truly a crossroads in our history.

gulch

Gulch:

You should reread what I posted.

The domestic agenda of Dr. Paul is virtually completely acceptable to me.

I stated that the size of the defense budget is not necessarily related to a proper defense of this nation. As to our widespread set of bases in the world, they clearly should be reduced significantly.

Where is a strategic question and has to fit into the new paradigm for strategic safety which, I will add, involve a severe withdrawal from many of the farthest reaches of Asia and the Middle East.

As to our "bases" Europe, they are certainly expendable.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul should be on the cabinet of another President.

He hasn't convinced me he could do anything effective as a leader dependent on a Congress made up of people who do not agree with him.

I think a Paul Presidency would not get rid of the Fed, would only change the parts of foreign policy that depend solely on Executive privilege or that expire, and would not resolve much of anything. Essentially, he would be able to change a few things where he would have the power to do so, but for the most part, what doesn't fall apart would stay in place.

I see four years of rigid gridlock with a butt-load of yelling.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon

Going to the candidates’ debate

Laugh about it, shout about it

When you’ve got to choose

Every way you look at it you lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bluerepublican.org/ <<<<Blue Republican website...very nicely done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Ron Paul should be on the cabinet of another President.

Would this really improve his chances of effecting change? As President, I could see him vetoing a lot of BS by nearly having the final say.

He hasn't convinced me he could do anything effective as a leader dependent on a Congress made up of people who do not agree with him.

I think he would have a pretty decent chance with bipartisan cohesion since he's more towards the middle than Obama is.

I think a Paul Presidency would not get rid of the Fed, would only change the parts of foreign policy that depend solely on Executive privilege or that expire, and would not resolve much of anything. Essentially, he would be able to change a few things where he would have the power to do so, but for the most part, what doesn't fall apart would stay in place.

While I don't think he would bring down the house of cards, he could surely put a lot more visibility on the Fed and eventually get them held accountable. I like his approach to foreign policy of non-intrusion. We're sand in a lot of people's undewear.

~ Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get a load of this, Palin haters:

Palin Praises Ron Paul For Foreign Policy Position On Libya

Real Clear Politics

I would embed the video, but there is on embed code.

Note that Palin praised Ron Paul on Hannity.

(Note to Shane. I'm still with Cain and I stand by my opinions, but if you support Ron Paul, go for it. It's all good compared to Obama.)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now