I think he's way out of his depth when it comes to being capable of running this country. He's a decent guy, but he's just not Presidential material. He's very naive when it comes to foreign affairs - scary naive. Most people sense that about him too, that's why all he's got are his internet spammer crew and a win in a few county straw polls. He can't get above 3% in any national poll you can find. And I say thank God for that, he's got some real loony-tune ideas rolling around in that head of his.
2007-09-05 16:03:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
I don't think Ron Paul is an imbecile. I do think that his idea's are imbecilic.
Eliminate the CIA because, in his own post-debate words, they cause "a lot of mischief"? And I don't believe he ever corrected the moderator who said at one point he had stated he also wanted to get rid of the FBI.
Sean Hannity had a great question, and Ron Paul never really answered it: How would Ron Paul know if Iran ever developed nuclear weapons? Yeah, he'd know once they fired them at us, and he'd wipe them right off the face of the earth. Big consolation, especially since ANYONE could do that. I want to know how he'd stop a nuclear attack in the first place. "Talk to them". What a simplistic answer. Even Bill Clinton and Barack Obama know that it takes more than that.
2007-09-06 00:02:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by Paper Mage 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
He's not an imbecile...I leave that to Jeff, what's "Dumper than a stump..." Jeff?
He is right we should talk to the Iranians and go before Congress for a declaration of war prior to engaging in a war over their nuclear capabilities. And he is right, Israel has enough nuclear capability to take care of themselves. if by some chance Iran managed to launch an attack against the US Ron Paul would wipe them off the map.
2007-09-05 23:22:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tater1966 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
YOU: "It has been a well documented fact that should Iran become nuclear capable they would "wipe Israel off the map"
ME: And what does that have to do with us??
2007-09-05 23:04:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ron Paul continues to stick to his principles and, in my opinion, gives the most honest responces. I felt that the the "frontrunners" - Romney, McCain, and especially Giuliani - avoided answering several questions truthfully and completely. If Iran wants to try and wipe Israel off of the map, good luck to them b/c they will need it. Ron Paul was right when he said that Israel can take care of themselves. Israel doesn't need the U.S. to fight the bullies for them. Don't forget that Israel beat up on all of those Mid-East countries in six days back in the 1960s. (I want to say it was in 1967 but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me.)
2007-09-05 23:08:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by Brian R 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Hahaha Ron has 35% of the text vote after the debate. Ron is honest and knows where we went wrong as a country. People are seeing that. Thank god. The Revolution is underway!
The snub that Fox tried on Dr. Paul backfired on them and Im damn glad.
RON PAUL 2008
2007-09-05 23:13:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by crucial_master 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why is it that so many people resort to mean-spirited insults, vulgar language, childish name-calling, and juvenile barbs when they pose a question (or an answer) regarding someone to whom they are politically opposed?
I suspect it has a lot to do with an absence of information, inability to properly ask (or answer) the question, or simply the lack of any substantive support for their accusations and/or criticisms.
At least Eric, RI was able to provide an intelligent, detailed, forthright answer to a rather dullardly question. -RKO- 09/05/07
2007-09-05 23:09:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
and he went on to say Iran is complying with the sanctions on them, so in this hypothetical situation we should proceed cautiously. He also pointed out Israel has 480 nuclear warheads and can take of themselves.
2007-09-05 23:02:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Among all candidates, Dr. Paul is now first in total donations from military personnel and veterans. While this may come as a surprise to some, Tom Engelhardt identified the primary reason when he asked rhetorically, "why should (military personnel) want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land?" (see Why the US Military Loves Ron Paul).
Why, indeed – President Paul would bring them home now.
Ron Paul has stated that he wants very strong borders and he was appalled that our government had taken border guards off of our borders to send them to Iraq.
On July 15th, the Federal Election Commission announced the 2nd-quarter fundraising totals for each presidential candidate. In the Republican field, Ron Paul's $2.4 million placed him:
3rd in total receipts for the quarter
4th in total receipts to date
3rd in total current assets (ahead of former front-runner John McCain, and just $800,000 behind Mitt Romney)
Thus far, 47% of the contributions made to Ron Paul's campaign are donations of under $200 from individuals (John McCain's 17% is the second-highest percentage). This is a telling statistic, as it highlights the fact that most other candidates rely heavily upon donations from corporate interests and political action committees (PACs) (i.e. moneyed, influence-seeking sources who can readily afford to contribute large sums). Since Congressman Paul has always voted against special favors and privileges for anyone, special interests know they have nothing to gain by stuffing Ron Paul's campaign coffers. As one member of my local Meetup group put it on a home-made sign, "Ron Paul is thin because he won't let special interests buy him lunch."
2007-09-05 23:00:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Eric Inri 6
·
5⤊
4⤋
If you believe Ron Paul is an imbecile, you're not paying attention.
2007-09-05 23:03:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by evans_michael_ya 6
·
3⤊
2⤋