That Ron Paul will be weak on Foreign Policy and will invite another attack on the US.
Right now our military is spread too thin. This makes us weak. The US has no business policing the world. Why is it that all UN resolutions have to be enforced by the US? Lets get our military home, build them back up to full strenght. Then if someone attacks us, and we go to war, go to win it and get it over with.
2007-12-17 04:52:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sambo 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
I have no reservations at all about Ron Paul. He might actually achieve half of his goals with a Republican majority Congress. Go Ron Paul. If he gets the nomination, then the Presidency is his. America currently has more homeowners than at any other time. This was possible through controlling the Income Tax at the Federal level. Ron Paul is the strongest candidate for workers to keep more of their money. My concern in this election is to stop Clinton, Obama and Edwards - the Real Threat to Freedom and the American Dream. Even the tight BUTT Dufas in California, Schwarzenegger has caved in to the Democrat Pervert MOB that run the State of California, and there is no end in sight to Tax increases in that State. California has a record number of foreclosures, and the Democrats are going to increase the State Income Tax rate on people who can't afford their mortgage payment. Yeah, it's a no brainer that Ron Paul or any Republican Candidate will be the intelligent choice in this election.
2007-12-17 04:55:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'd say the biggest misconception is that he is an isolationist. Paul’s non-interventionism is not isolationism. In case of an imminent threat to the United States, he would take the necessary steps to protect us, even military action as he did after 9/11. He voted in favor of entering Afghanistan in a direct response to the attacks.
He consistently advocates using diplomacy & trade with countries around the world.. not secluding ourselves..
2007-12-17 04:50:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
People are unaware of their misconceptions. If I had a misconception about Ron Paul (or about anything) I would be unaware of it -- I would think I was correct.
You are a supporter and from what you have written you think this guy is terrific and that his problem is that he is misunderstood. He seems a little nutty to me -- kind of like Ross Perot (remember how he seemed to make sense then sounded truly demented about people trying to ruin his daughter's wedding?) Paul is like this. To my mind he is right on a good number of issues but he doesn't know when to censor his more outrageous ideas. He has misconceptions.
2007-12-17 04:32:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by JP 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
the guy has alot of marvelous recommendations. yet on the comparable time, i might prefer to confirm those recommendations unfold worldwide. purely then might there be a manner we are able to all inhabit this little globe peacefully. Ever get a wager, ask him approximately area exploration. he's one hundred% for it. yet he additionally concurs that we could grow to be extra conservative(ie smart) in how we use our organic components right here. as quickly as we accomplish this, then the opportunities are infinite for us as mankind. whether, like me, he does not think of government interference is the respond. Which it fairly is no longer.
2016-11-03 14:05:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That he is Radical.
Radical is a matter of perspective... personally I find bankruptcy, corporate/special interests running our government, pointless wars (and not going after out reall enemies), anti-constitutionalism, taking away freedom for security (both foreign and economic), stealing money, policing the world, fighting a pointless war on drugs, overspending, super-sized government tyranny, and not respecting national sovereignty as Radical.
But what do I know... Radical is just a matter of perspective.
2007-12-17 04:21:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Elutherian 4
·
4⤊
2⤋
The biggest misconception anyone has about Ron Paul is that he may stand even an Ice Cubes' chance in Hell of winning.
In any election between 30 and 35% of people are die hard Democrats who vote for whatever Democrat is running as nominee. Between 30 and 35% are also die hard Republicans who vote for whatever Republican is nominated. Another 30 to 40% of people are: crossover voters-who vote Dem one time, and Repub another time-or Independents, or non-voters.
To get elected, one needs a huge majority of the traditional die hard Democrats, or traditional die hard Republicans, to vote for him/her...and he/she needs a large number of either crossover, or independent, voters, or both, to vote for him/her.
Non-voters do not vote, so it does not matter who they support verbally.
Ron Paul will never get the traditional die hard Democrat vote, in the General election, because he is a Republican. He may get some crossover, and independent, votes...but they will not be enough to make up for the lack of traditional die hard Republican votes.
Ron Paul will NOT get a large number of traditional die hard Republican votes...because he is against what most of the party is for (continuing the Bush agenda, INcreasing the war in Iraq, starting a war in Iran, etc), and because he keeps mentioning-and talking against-the war in Iraq at a time when the majority of the party want to just forget about the Iraq mess for awhile. The GOP want to ignore the Iraq mess until after the election, when they will intensify it by sending in more troops, etc. Iraq now is like Viet Nam in 1968. The GOP wants to hear as little as possible about it, and what they do hear about it they want to be: positive, upbeat, pseudo-patriotic "we are winning, and will stay the course through to victory" BS. The last things the party wants to hear is that they were wrong to go into Iraq, are wrong to stay, and should get out before the last nickle of profit has been made from it.
Ron Paul speaks against the war in Iraq...which only reminds people that the Republicans started, and lost, that war. Everytime that Paul opens his mouth on Iraq, he costs another Republican mayor, senator, house member, etc, his/her job. The party will NOT reward Paul for such treason by nominating him...even if he has a hundred billion dollars to spend, and gets every registered vote in the nation. The GOP will NOT nominate Paul...no matter what, so he can't run in the General Election, and can't get Electoral College votes, and can't get elected President.
Paul is a guaranteed loser, as is anyone who is stupid enough to vote for him. Voting for a candidate who can never win is a waste of your vote, but do go ahead and waste it. As a Democrat, I relish the idea of Republicans voting for Paul, and so splitting the GOP vote, and making it easier for Hillary to win. I am honest enough to tell you that Paul has no hope of ever being President. Of course, I know that will only make you more apt to vote for him. Aren't I devious? Devious, but honest...that is a combination you will never find in the GOP.
2007-12-17 04:47:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
I think the biggest misconception is that he could be an isolationist President in a time of grave international peril, and that he could implement any of his ideas through Congress. Nothing he suggests seems viable and certainly nothing he suggests would get off the Senate or House floor.
His supporters seem wrapped up in a circle jerk not unlike the one performed by Bush's advisors prior to the Iraq invasion---government as "intellectual exercise" and Americans as "lab rats".
So I'm trying to be serious here---how can anyone conceive of a President-elect going to Congress with proposals to abandon the UN, leave NATO, abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve and repeal Wade vs. Roe?
Political suicide for most of congress, and collective suicide for America by ripping us apart even further than Bush has done.
2007-12-17 04:19:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
6⤋
That he's an advocate of "liberty and freedom" while he thinks the US government should control my uterus.
2007-12-17 10:59:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The single largest misconception is that he has no support.
2007-12-17 04:25:50
·
answer #10
·
answered by benni 4
·
4⤊
2⤋