Why wouldn't everyone vote for Ron Paul? Can we save America?

Question

The current and past governments has sold us down the river, the car industry is no longer in the US, no more industry, manufacturing, farming, and most jobs have been sent to India and China, we are being taxed to death, greed has taken over everything and left us with lies and little else. Ron Paul is the only hope to get America back. The media (owned by the large corporations) wont cover Ron Paul or acknowledge his supporters because it would bring down all the profit above all else greedy people... but.. my question is, if a person really examined each candidate, how could they vote for anyone other than Ron Paul? This appears to be the only hope for America and honest hard working Americans.

Bring our jobs back, stop buying from China, close the borders, stop wars for oil, develop solar, wind, hydro and other clean fuels, reduce taxes, stop government spending, special interest influence.. help me out here, How long can America last with the current rate of decline?

Answer 1

he has my vote


concerning the patriot act and laws like it, Hitler and Stalin , had even more severe laws concerning tapping of phones , surveillance etc etc , hell they didn't even need laws they would just kick down your door if they wanted to and take you away

why do we now think we can stop terrorism, by stripping away our rights as citizens of America, when Hitler and Stalin couldn't stop bombings and terrorism with in by the resistance groups ,

to me we are setting dangerous precedents, all in the name of stopping terrorism when there is no way to protect us 100 % from it. now this little thought is more for the guys that say Ron Paul would be unsafe because he is against the patriot act , and because he wants to scale down our many many FBI CIA NSA etc etc groups.

i think he has the right ideal because talking to people who have disagreements with our country is allot more productive than what we are doing now

Answer 2

I certainly hope we can save America. I agree with you. I watched the debate tonight, and Sam Brownback had to wait a few seconds to speak because he was next in line to answer after Dr. Paul. I know that some of you will accuse him of bringing his own cheering section. You're entitled to your opinion, but the applause was much weaker and shorter for the others.

I believe he picked up a bit more support tonight.

I loved the comment by the emcee who introduced Tavis Smiley. He thanked the audience for being there, then thanked those watching at home: "Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain and Fred Thompson". That was precious! :)

BTW, the Federal Reserve IS privately owned.

Answer 3

Ron Paul is a dinosaur. he's not a sensible selection. the full libertarian appropriate resembles a glorification of the strategies of the previous west greater suitable than the rest. In a XXIst century economic equipment, with XXIst century worldwide politics, that stuff is merely no longer sensible. you may desire to besides be working on a "strengthen our cities" platform. as a count of certainty the full is greater suitable than the sum of its areas. the thought society is merely an amalgamation of man or woman acts is fake. we've inflation rates, and externalities (pollutants); we've particular concepts of cultural integrity and issues that we would desire to maintain culturally. maximum folk does no longer prefer to bypass away training completely interior the palms of the loose industry (that's a formula for a philistine society). we would desire to have regulations that avert the various from imposing tyranny on the few. (merely on account which you very own each and every construction bloc in a city, does no longer mean you get to evict all black human beings). the only factor I do admire approximately Ron Paul is he's very almost the only one (with different few outstanding exceptions) who has the braveness to publicly state that u.s.'s foreign places coverage is frequently incorrect. additionally, voting for somebody through fact he happens to be an atheist is, nicely sorry... yet a exceedingly dumb reason to vote for somebody.

Answer 4

The main reason Americans won't vote for Ron is because he frightens the powers that be.As such, he does not get air-time on government-monitored, corporate-controlled, monopolized media.

Can you save America? YES!
...By standing up for your rights.
...By researching the facts and revealing the Truth.
...By speaking out against hypocrisy and LIES.
...By using every available resource for factual information and truth.
...By resisting violations of your Constitution.
...By refusing to buy the consumerist agenda or its corporate goods.
...By recognizing the EVIL of the Federal Reserve,
...By ABOLISHING the IRS.
...By resisting and refuting "authority."

...By VOTING for the only brave, honest, old-school realist on the platform...
RON PAUL for PRESIDENT !!!!!!!

Answer 5

The proper way to ask is why shouldn't everyone vote for Ron Paul. The proper answer is everyone should vote for Ron Paul.

Answer 6

Insofar as I've been able to tell, none of the conditions you mention seem to have been the fault of the Federal government, nor is there much that the Feds could do to correct them. Sen Paul has lots of big sweeping answers of the type that typically sound real good because they're wrong.

I am a fan of Sen. Clinton, the only grown-up in the bunch.

Answer 7

The reason I won't be voting for Ron Paul is I believe his ideas on National Security are naive and dangerous.

He's great at pointing out the failings of how we got where we are. It's his proposals of where we go from here concerning terrorism and the war that scare me. Basically they boil down to "we'll leave Afghanistan and Iraq and everything will be just peachy." Hose manure!

Answer 8

The number one reason I wouldn't vote for him, is because he's never accomplished ANYTHING in his entire life.

Secondly, unemployment is just barely over 4%, which is OUTSTANDING!!! Most countries would kill to have that kind of employment. Jobs going overseas is not a real problem, it is only one made up by the media.

Answer 9

Ron Paul is blowing sunshine up the collective hinnies of those who believe he can do all he promises. If he is such a libertarian, why is he inclined to stuff pork into bills with the same zeal that is characteristic of most every one else in Congress?

Answer 10

1. He is a liar - claiming America was "forced into Iraq" by the UN - when in fact we went in withuot UN approval.
2. He is a hypocrite - claiming to be in favor of small government while earmarking $400m in pork this year. Also claiming to support the constitution while advocating laws in breach of the 14th amendment
3. He is frighteningly ignorant of the US banking and monetary system (claiming the Fed is a private institution) and wants to remove the flexibility in our monetary system that moderates the highs and lows of the business cycle
4. He is dangerously opposed to any multilateral organizations or agreements that are required to address global issues in a global world
5. He is cruelly lacking in compassion - advocating regressive taxation
6. He is hopelessly unrealistic - wanting to get rid of the IRS - a process that will force every business in the US to become tax collectors - resulting in billions of dollars of compliance costs.

Paul is still the same loser as the one who ran as a Libertarian. Do you think Americans who overwhelmingly reject the Libertarian party as a pack of nutjobs are suddenly going to embrace one of them because he is wearing a different hat? Get yourself a real candidate.

In response to Jessis
1. "Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations". http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/
2. This argument is laughable. Paul represents his people. If they support moves for a smaller government they will support a candidate who does so too. If however they support hundreds of millions of pork coming thier way - they will support Ron Paul.
3. The Federal Reserve System is not privately owned. Like every other federal department it does business with and through private institutions. Fed net revenues are rebated to treasury - not paid in dividends to shareholders so it is not a "for profit" business. Inflation rates have been lower and more stable in the last 30 years than most of history. All banks create money out of nothing. M1 - the amount of currency and federal bank guarantees in the economy has not grown substantially since the early1990s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply.svg
You describe the boom bust cycle as if it is a creation of the Federal Reserve. Rather the job of the Fed is to manage and moderate this. You blame the Fed for the Great Depression. The US money supply was controlled by the gold standard (Paul's on size fits all answer to monetary policy) during the great depression. The Fed had far less power then than it does now. It was the lack of flexibility within the money supply that led to the issues of the GD
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Components_of_the_United_States_money_supply.svg
4. You have repeated that Paul wants to isolate American from multilateral organisations such as the UN . As more and more of our issues become global, cutting ourselves out of influency global solutions is pure lunacy.
5. Your lack of a response I suppose indicates that you agree with taxing the poor at a higher rate than the rich.
6. The country and the economy has grown since 2000 (as has Paul's appetite for government spending). Saying all we have to do is return to 2000 levels of spending is ridiculous. You have not asked me (or any liberal apparently). I like income taxation. It is progressive as opposed to regressive consumption taxation (which would also incur the compliance costs on business that you have not responded to).