2007-11-01 15:44:29 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ron Paul does have some good points in principal, but he has no clue about the war on terrorism and the threat to our freedom that Islamo-fascism is. That makes him dangerous.
2007-11-01 16:42:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
I am mixed about Ron Paul. When I read his articles I have exactly 2 responses. Most of the time I admit my response is total agreement. Its like the man is on exactly the same wave length I am and is saying what I have longed to hear a politician admit for years. The other response is "Huh????" He has a few ideas that are so far out I wonder if he is serious or too innocent for politics.
I definitely like him. I believe he is honest and dedicated to helping. I like his record for the most part. Even on those occasions that I disagree, I believe his stance is motivated by a sincere desire to do good. I think that he is one of the few people capable of maintaining that honesty and dedication to his country regardless of how high an office he holds. I am not convinced that all of his ideas are realistic but I am convinced that he would do his best and never betray the trust of his countrymen.
I guess I agree.
He isn't perfect but he is the best to stand up to the task and probably the only one in a long time who wants the job because he wants to help and not because he wants the power.
2007-11-01 23:04:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. He's probably the one with the most real integrity.
However, Ron Paul's platform/agenda is not based on the political realities. Rather it is a collection of idealized principles--which may be all well and good. But ideals are not a substitute for workable ideas-policies that can--or at least stand a chance of--being put into practice.
Thisis a general weakness of "libertarian" political patforms at this point in time. I'm not oppposed to much of the libertarian philsophy--quite the opposite. But so far, libertarians have not carried out the hard work of translating their lofty ideals into practical policy. Until that happens, they simply don't have anything to contribute.
2007-11-01 22:53:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
being the 'best candidate' out of the current crop is not exactly setting the bar in the stratosphere...that said, i still cannot agree that there's anything especially noteworthy about ron paul-typical social conservative, and after checking out his website, it seems that he's he's (surprise, surprise) just another politician angling for another office...his campaign WAY overestimates his support! without the internet, he wouldn't HAVE a candidacy-as it is, he seems mired in the low single digits-where he belongs. he does have the novelty factor of being the first presidential candidate entirely dependent on the internet for sustaining his campaign...but that just proves the point that well over 50% of the internet is pure junk
2007-11-02 03:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He is Unelectable!
(Just like, almost, the entire field is)
The only politician who is making any
sense is Dennis. But he looks like a
little troll. If he looked like JFK~
he might be electable. Presidential
Politics is a "Beauty" Contest!
Hardly NO Substance!
We are stuck with Rudy & Hillary.
Too bad Ralph is NOT running!
2007-11-01 23:02:20 · answer #5 · answered by LedHead 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's been flying under the radar, but I think he's yet to prove he's the "best" candidate. They all do. A lot of college students and young people seem to think he's the "best." Truth is, all of the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, and anyone else wanting to run for that matter, needs to prove that they truly are the "best," and not simply seem like they are.
2007-11-01 22:49:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul is like Dennis Kucinich, good ideas, a little eccentric, and non electable.
2007-11-01 23:25:52 · answer #7 · answered by Professor Sheed 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, Ron Paul has a new radical plan for the u.s.
RON PAUL 08'!
2007-11-04 09:23:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He's not a real candidate. He's just been but forth by the Republicans so that, after losing the primary, he can throw his loony-tunes libertarian support to the winner.
Seriously, that's what fringe candidates are for: collecting fringe votes for mainstream candidates.
In the history of the US, only one fringe candidate unexpectedly took his party's nomination and went on to win the presidency. It was Jimmy Carter. Look how well that worked out.
2007-11-01 22:56:03 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Nope.
He has some great ideas, and I can respect that. BUT only 5% of his own party supports him.
Ron wants to take us backwards in time. So no.
2007-11-01 22:51:30 · answer #10 · answered by Villain 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋