Ron Paul question

are you a spelling nazi too? pointing out what are obviously typo mistakes is pretty lame. but i've fixed it so you can relax now.

 

back to the op's question, you're right...RP is not a woman's candidate (unless she's june cleaver), a gay's candidate (unless they're hardcore maso), a progressive candidate, or a candidate who has any sort of grip on the needs of the populace as a whole in the coming decades. he's a political dinosaur wrapped in the cloak of constitutional rights. don't be fooled. you're not gonna wanna live in his world.

 

Quoted For Truth!!!

 

his world? president aren't the supreme rulers of the land. we have congress for a reason. congress wont let him make crazy decisions. and i don't believe Ron Paul intends to make crazy decisions and completely flip the country upside down. he will simply try his hardest to fix Real problems facing this country. platforms aren't promises they are ideas.

 

yeah, right...the president of the US has no influence whatsoever. i don't know why we even care who gets the job.

 

That basically in no way countered the point that Paul or anyone who gets elected still needs to deal with congress, let alone someone like Paul who's already hated by most of congress as it is.

 

when did i ever say the president had no influence?

the political discussion in the marijuana forum is more intelligent that this shit.

 

well, then...why is bush so widely hated? surely congress could have prevented him from doing all the damage he has...right?

 

congress has the right to impeach him for starting an illegal war... i dont know why they haven't.

 

well, you certainly implied it with your comments. i'm saying his vision for a perfect world is majorly fucked up, and i don't think the young people who are supporting him understand that. don't you think a leader whose vision for an ideal country that most closely matches ours is what we should be looking for?

 

but they haven't...and i don't see how this is advancing your argument that RP couldn't also wreak havoc while in office. he's all for taking a giant step back socially. he's the opposite of progressive. i don't think that's what you really want, is it?

 

i think Ron Paul's vision of the country is what the country is supposed to look like.

what kind of harmful things do you think Ron Paul has planned?

 

You're forgetting the fact that Bush had the wide support of most Republicans prior to like 2 years, and the Republicans controlled congress. Most Republicans in congress were of the same breed as Bush. People complain how now that the Democrats took control of congress they've done shit but what they don't point out is that many of the Democrats that beat out incumbent Republicans were a good deal from southern/mid western states where it's a more conservative wing of the party then the part the leaders of it are in.

However, going back to all the bullshit Bush has done, the irony is Ron Paul is probably one of George Bush's worst enemies in congress.

Though that'd probably be true for any president.

 

actually i take back what i said. i do know why they haven't impeached bush... because the congressmen are making a lot of money off of the war.

sadly we as a country are going into debt because of the war... i think thats the opposite of what the government should be doing. the president should be making the country money, and congress shouldn't be bought by the president. and just as congress would look over Ron Paul, Ron Paul and his potential running mate will look over congress. he would never make a decision just so congress and himself make money. and his voting has proved that over the years.

 

i think he'll use all of his influence to take away women's reproductive rights, which will set over half the population back decades. i think he'll use all of his influence to get rid of or gut government programs that benefit children, elderly, disabled and poor americans. i think he's an old-school sexist, racist and homophobe, and he will basically take the country back over 50 years...wiping out much important social progress that has been made along the way. don't just read the rhetoric. take the time to study the man's history closely. this is not a good guy.

 

abortion will never be fully illegal. and i don't believe Ron Paul will do that, because he personally believes its not his job as president to do that. and he is right, its not a federal issue, it should be left up to the states. hopefully that will get people back into state and local elections which matter the most, IMO.

i agree that he will gut or cut programs, but i think that is a good thing in most cases. a lot of these programs very flawed. i personally believe in personal responsibility and privet charity/programs. i am a traditional republican and i act so. i donate hundreds of dollars to privet charities each year. i am not a rich man, I'm a 20year old high school dropout with a part time job and bills to pay. but its my responsibility to donate what i can to non profit charities to keep the programs alive. with lower taxes we can gain the ability to donate more to charities that we decide are right for our money. instead of bush spending the money on the war and keeping the flawed programs flawed. i also think most Dem candidates want to raise taxes and give the money to the already flawed programs and keep them flawed because that have no other solutions.

i cant say if he is a sexist racist and homophobe. i don't think he is, but there is no way to prove it.

 

Cheers!

 

Just because there are federal programs for helping the poor, elderly, etc. do these programs actually help, or help as much as they actually could, or are they more effective for politicians to just claim they are doing something while padding the pockets of friends? Are there more effective, efficient alternatives? What happened before these government programs? Has things actually improved under these government programs? These are valid questions that anyone who actually cares should be asking and finding the answers to.

 

Why do you think this?

 

Please forgive my ignorance of USA politics, but what does it change wheter an issue is federal or of the state?