http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/
What do you think of him?
I had pretty much given up on the Presidential election and was looking at the House, Senate and local elections. However, the more support this guy gets, the more it seems the 'undecided' vote is deciding where to roost. I could be wrong, and am not sure he will make it through the primary, even if he takes the undecided vote. However, I note that about 20% of Democrats are undecided too, and think his platform may appeal to them.
He's a bit off the wall, but kinda in a good way, I am starting to think.
He is against NAFTA, CAFTA, SPP, for the Constitution, against the Iraq war....
What do you think?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
2007-11-06 03:17:04 · 8 answers · asked by DAR 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
notadummy - that would have been true for me with Perot, because if I had voted for him the Republican party would have wasted my vote (since I planned to vote Republican). However, in the primary, the Republican party is the only one running, so it can't split the vote, and given the frontrunners I would have a hard time voting for any of them. I was fully planning to 'throw my vote away' to vote principles. It would be a complete windfall if a lot of people joined me.
2007-11-06 03:27:07 · update #1
cincy - thanks for the correction. The news services kept updating the number, and I guess I didn't get the final one...
2007-11-06 03:36:06 · update #2
Chuck, I appreciate it. I did ask, because I don't know him or his positions deeply, and I didn't know about that bill. I'll look into it, and why he did that.
However, I do want to suggest a different reason behind his law - the 10th Amendment guaranteeing all other rights to the states. For the same reason my opinion is that states determine who can 'marry'. It simply isn't a federal question. States can pass good laws too, not just bad ones, though. However, I say that from California where abortions wouldn't be curtailed, in any event.
2007-11-06 03:45:35 · update #3
And Chuck, as to 72, with all else equal I would agree that was an issue. But who else is there?
2007-11-06 03:46:43 · update #4
45 Cal - hm. Hadn't heard that. I'll look further.
2007-11-06 04:07:10 · update #5
Chuck, I know about Roe v. Wade, but I honestly do think the SC was out of line to rule on it. I don't carry a torch on the issue, I just think it was poor interpretation of the judicial function.
2007-11-06 04:19:46 · update #6
I think it is a very empowering show of support for Dr.Paul. I continue to be baffled when people say that he is not a legitimate candidate. His record speaks for itself-and it says that people support Ron Paul.
I guess people just see what they want to see-like when Fox News says that their own polls "don't count" every time Ron Paul wins. If anyone *else* won they'd be treating their poll like the Gospel Truth-too bad Ron Paul wins all of them and forces them to discredit their own information.
It's the same today. People will see what they want to see-despite record breaking campaign contributions and over 30,000 brand-new contributers in ONE DAY people will continue to say that Dr.Paul's unmitigated success "doesn't count".
I wonder what they'll choose to see when he is elected President.
2007-11-06 03:30:27 · answer #1 · answered by lovelymrsm 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The main reason I like him is due to his stance on the topic we are under: IMMIGRATION.
He will do something about the illegal problem and he will protect our borders. And since we are already at 300+ million people, growing faster then ever in history, taking in more immigrants then ANY other country we need to slow it down and I HOPE he is the man for that issue as well. This summers water shortages and record gas prices will hopefully educate people about too many people immigrating here too fast.
2007-11-06 04:26:20 · answer #2 · answered by youarewrongbobisright 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul looks good on the surface.
Scratch that surface and he doesn't shine quite as brightly.
He claims to be the leading advocate for freedom in DC. In fact he proclaims it on every page of his site...
That's all well and good until you get to this part:
"the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."
Taking away a womans right to choose.
Dealbreaker.
Also, he's 72 years old.
In my mind that automatically excludes him. We have enough Seniors in Government now that are out of touch with the reality of the 21st century. We don't need another one running the Country.
Hey...you asked...
Edit: Who else is there? The same choices we've had in several of the last elections....
The lesser of "WHO CARES"?
Sad isn't it...
The Roe v. Wade decision came under Federal jurisdiction the minute SCOTUS ruled on it. In order to apply the 10th amendment literally, you'd have to junk the federal courts appeals jurisdiction on state law issues.
2007-11-06 03:38:10 · answer #3 · answered by chuck_junior 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The more nonsense that I see from the other "mainstream" Presidential candidates, the more that I like Ron Paul....
At least the man takes a stand on issues---
2007-11-06 03:31:27 · answer #4 · answered by GUARD DOG 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul is Hillary's Ross Perot like puppet. A foolish old man emboldened by pretend supporters to run as an independent to split the GOP. It worked last time. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...
2007-11-06 03:23:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hiding in a hole is not a good idea>No CIA or FBI Get rid of the military> Help no other country>No my idea>
2007-11-06 04:05:56 · answer #6 · answered by 45 auto 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Such a waste of good money.
2007-11-06 04:30:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually DAR...it was 4.4 mil
:)
2007-11-06 03:30:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋