Vote for Ron Paul and save the U.S.A....
come on, don't be a misinformed drone,
you know that the UNA and eventual World Government headed by UN control is on the table, you know that our government is controlled by the TC, CFR and all the candidates are Rockefeller CFR puppets, don't you?
Well, know it.
We are losing our country and our sovereignty and it happened right under your nose because the MSMedia hasn't done its job as they are gov. propagandists.
2007-12-16 02:17:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Everyone wants to"save the country".Most of us just don't think he's the one to do it. I am neither a puppet nor a drone. I follow politics very closely and listen to all sides. I have listened to him for the last time.
2007-12-16 02:29:35 · answer #1 · answered by doctdon 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Outside of all the conspriracy theory stuff related to a one world gov and the CFR. Ron Paul is obviously the best Republican Candidate. No taxes, Limited gov, and power to the states, which by the way translates to power back to the people. People please look at the issues and not the other stuff.
2007-12-16 03:27:13 · answer #2 · answered by stunna3m 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, i think of he'd do an outstanding pastime of putting us lower back on the the terrific option song. No single guy or woman is ever going to be waiting to "shop our usa", yet having a President who respects the form and the concepts of our founding would enable for an more suitable result. area notice: a number of you men have weird and wonderful innovations. Rmagedon, your incontrovertible fact that Paul's innovations are "socialist" is utter nonsense. i don't think of you even understand what the be conscious skill. no one is extra from socialist who's working at present. i will purely anticipate you're working for yet another candidate. And King Henry, precisely how are libertarians "risky"? ok, I propose, sure, dwelling in a loose international is risky, yet are you incredibly announcing you will fairly stay in a police state? i don't comprehend what you're merchandising. And doctdon, i think of you have some confusion approximately what Dr. Paul is featuring. First, he's working not hassle-free to close off our borders. on the different hand, he sees no component in battling Iraq while the bombers got here from Afganistan. sure, there would continuously be terrorists, yet we are able to decrease their assaults if we circulate after purely people who attack us, fairly of attacking people randomly. Paul supported, and nevertheless helps doing away with the Taliban and looking out Osama. likely, the present administration has forgotten approximately that maximum needed terrorist in our efforts to unfold the chaos. i'm not extremely as "non-interventionist" as Dr. Paul, yet in at present's international, his physique of strategies is in all probability what we could deliver us lower back to stability. Our default place could be non-intervention. Dr Paul would purely attack people who've attacked us. He would say we could continuously in no way initiate up using stress, yet we could continuously respond. i don't discover something in that this is incredibly questionable. Do you always decide directly to attack people who have not attacked us?
2016-10-11 09:49:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dr Paul believes in the power of the people.
To answer the second part of your question, I think it's because the majority are younger people who grew up under the corruption that we call politics and think that's the way it has to be.
I sometimes wonder if history is taught in schools these days. If it isn't, WHY NOT?
2007-12-16 09:13:32 · answer #4 · answered by Eyes 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I never heard his name until recently. Now he wants to run for president. I don't think he's got a chance; because he isn't known by enough people. They all talk nice and maybe have good intentions, but that doesn't get the votes. I wouldn't vote for Hilliary either. She is smart and knows a lot, but she and her husband have no character. They put on a show to get what they want. He never was affectionate toward her in the past; now he's touching her and giving her a hug or kiss in public. It's all fake to me. I'd rather vote for Obama any day than Hillary.
2007-12-16 02:32:39 · answer #5 · answered by Barbra 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because they the average American (legal) thinks that if they have batteries in the tv remote, beer in the fridge, and money in the bank, life is good and they don't have to do anything else.
2007-12-16 04:27:22 · answer #6 · answered by KD7ONE 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Until we can get rid of the Electoral College, we will never see a government that is "for the people, by the people". That group of self serving "kiss a $ $e$" that are at the end of big money's leash will never put him in office.
2007-12-16 02:37:21 · answer #7 · answered by Tom S 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I honestly think it is because people don't think Congress will work with him. Congress is mostly Democrats & Republicans. They are just not likely to let a Libertarian do anything while in office. It would be a stalwart administration.
2007-12-16 02:21:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Yes, everyone knows it, they just don't want to believe it, the man does not have a chance b/c he is not affiliated with "big money" and it takes "big money" to win a presidential election over here, I am quite certain you know that.
Just wait, we won't last that long with the apathy that runs amuck.
2007-12-16 02:22:22 · answer #9 · answered by bck2liberty 3 · 4⤊ 6⤋
I think you are wrong on both parts of your question. I will not vote for Ron Paul, under any circumstance.
2007-12-16 02:20:59 · answer #10 · answered by regerugged 7 · 7⤊ 6⤋