What's your view on this year's race? Who will (or would) you vote for? Play nice! I am personally in support of Ron Paul. From my perspective, his policies make sense and have not changed from election to election. He also seems like the best overall option of the bunch. I could keep going, but I am willing to bet most people have already heard it all... As far as the other candidates: Mitt Romney - Seems like the usual businessman that flip-flops on issues. Rick Santorum - All jokes aside, this guy is scary. He does not need to get anywhere near a position of power. Christian theocracy? No thanks... Newt Gingrich - The man seems like he knows what he is talking about, but his past is a bit questionable. Barack Obama - I wasn't in support of him in 2008 and I still find a hard time trying to support him. He is a bit "soft" (see: NDAA and Israel) and has a socialist agenda. That being said, I think he would be the best option behind Ron Paul. The three others would be even worse than Obama.
I would vote for Ron Paul (i'm german). As you said, the others would **** you up. But i don't think the whole world will change because a new president is in charge.
I'm voting for Ron Paul. While he is on the GOP ticket for this election, he aligns with libertarian principles much more so than his fellow party members. Barack Obama, like TexasGamer said, is a bit too soft. While I like his environmental policies and work, I feel that he lacks the wherewithal to put forth ideas irregardless of the opposition. Newt Gingrich is an interesting character. He is not only politically aware, but also incredibly intelligent. He would be very effective and getting done what he wants to get done, but that is not in alignment with my opinions. In any other position besides that of president, I feel he would be a great asset. As for Rick Santorum, ^ Overall, I just think we need more, and better, choices. I still disagree with Ron Paul on multiple key issues, yet he is the least worst choice. We need to reduce the barrier of entry or resolve bloated campaign funding to both allow more parties and more candidates.
Exactly. Congress needs to be reformed as well, but the office of president seems like a good place to start.
Thank you for being more intelligent than the majority of Americans. ("Derp herp he doesn't want to stop abortion, so I'll vote for someone that will do that, but do no good anywhere else...")
I find some of Ron Paul's policies absolutely nuts (like abolishing the federal reserve, pulling away from foreign affairs in an increasingly global world, etc.). I find Rick Sanatorium to be a nutjob. I find Newt Gringrich dangerously radical in his views. I don't know what to think of Mitt Romney. A lot of his purported views came to light when he ran for presidency. He might believe them, but even then, there's not much I can concretely say about him. Being a businessman could be a good or bad thing, who knows! Obama is a genuinely clever man and he has been fairly strong on foreign policy (barring his positions with Israel and the settlements, as well as the escalating conflict with Iran). He's done a good job at improving the image of America in the world while still asserting control in ways far more subtle than that of his predecessor. He's also done a fairly good job of carrying through with a lot of his campaign promises (or at least trying), from the little things to the big. The economy hasn't improved substantially, but maybe he was successful in prevent it from collapsing?
I'm a bit surprised that I agree almost 100% with SK. I thought we'd have conflicting views for sure. Ron Paul has a few interesting ideas, such as putting more emphasis on state law over federal law. However the idea of allowing individual states to, if they choose, legalize things such as dangerous drugs for example, is a bit off to me. I see where he is trying to come from and what he wants to convey, but I don't think it's a good idea. He and his followers are strong believers of less government. And I see why. Government is messing up lately in its finances, but I don't believe that removing all of these policies will fix the problem. Lol Rick sanatorium. Newt Gingrich has a lot I could talk about. But he wants to lower/cut taxes. Which is stupid, I am a strong believer that Tax breaks and Budget cuts are not a good solution in ANY way to the economy. So hes a no for me immediately. Mitt Romney. Again Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts. Why does he want to cut taxes for industries by 10%? I don't know. That's ridiculous, and a huge portion of income for our government. I don't care for it. As far as Obama goes, He gets my vote and basically what SK said. I feel like Obama has the right ideas, the right mindset, and the right plans, its Just all of his plans involve 'easing in' to new policies, and this country is obsessed with now, when they see his law get put into place and not much change a year later, they immediately freak out. Health care reform is important but takes time, Economic stabilization does not happen over night, and we can't simply say "Okay troops everyone come home tomorrow." Things don't work instantly.
Oh gods.. I am for Ron Paul 100%, All of the other candidates are just not the men we want in office. I think everyones covered the bad of them so I'll try to help you see why I like Paul. Yes his abortion stance is a great thing, the feds should have NO place in telling us what can and cant be done to our own bodies. Also he's if my information was correct the ONLY pro gun candidate. He also may be wanting rid of the federal reserve but the reason behind this is simply because 'hey we need more money! FIRE UP THE PRESSES!' is NOT a solution. Personally I'm not a druggie but no one can deny our 'war on drugs' is a complete failure, this is something he wants to try and fix by eliminating minor offences. Is weed really a bad thing? It's been proven to have many helpful effects for cancer victims. Why not legalize it so we can use that to maybe make some money? Tax it and watch the money come in. Not having it be against the law will also release many people from being sent to jail (spending more of our money to care for them.) On the issue of same sex marriage, Why should the government even have a say in "Holy Matrimony" Allow the weddings but dont force it on religious groups that are against it. Government is totally unnecessary for gay marriage laws (May 2011) Hmm, let me just save myself some typing, http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm The link may say 2000, but unlike other candidates he sticks by his stance. READY TO DODGE BRICKS!
mostly agree with sk. Santorum: Scares the hell out of me. Will move to Canada. Newt: Now, Newt is a smart guy. But Newt is also a master of doublethink. He uses his intelligence to choose positions that offer wealth and power. Whether or not he truly believes these positions as a human being is up in the air, but he can pull off backing something that gets him his way. Master of hypocrisy, but great social tact to escape the situations somehow, and easily turn them into another discussion. Outside of that, I dislike him as a person because of his marital douchebaggery and his constant insistence that he has a clean record, despite the ethics violations he was charged with while Speaker of the House. He presently claims he was cleared of all charges, but he was actually cleared of all but one, for which he did pay a fine. I see a pretty big red flag having ethics violations while serving. Romney: Just wants to be liked. He is like an unsuccessful Newt. He will try to say whatever gets him out of the present situation or is the most desirable position in terms of received power. But he lacks all the social skill to pull this off, comes off cheesy and stiff. Seems like a nice person, not ridiculously radical or power hungry. But he still wants to play the big-dog game of lying for power regardless of what you really believe, and plenty of people see through that. I mean, regardless of what he believes I still don't agree with what he says. But its funny to watch a Newt who sucks at lying. Ron Paul: May be the only genuine candidate up here. Do I agree with most of what he says? No. But damn if I don't respect him for being real. Guy is consistent, has nothing to hide, and is the only person who truly believes in what he says, and will try to prove his reasoning. Respect. Still pretty nutty on some choices, and I don't agree with a good amount of his logic, but I can see how he could land there. He's a little wibbly-wobbly with his voting record on Fed gov't intervening with personal lives/rights though. (e.g. voting YES to ban gay adoptions in DC) Obama: I voted for him. I am disappoint. Nothing tragic, but certainly not much hope in a second term. Just more meh. The only way Obama isn't another auto-vote from me is if Romney gets the nomination and centers-off. A moderate Romney might have some sense of rationality in him. Still 85% unlikely I'd vote for a moderate Romney to Obama, but I would certainly listen up and think about it.
First off, Ron Paul puts far too many things on the state. He says, for example. Abortion should be a choice the state makes. No. See, abortion should be legal period( in my opinion.) You will get a state like Texas or something that makes it illegal, and then things get messy. There are some things that states should not decide, that federal government should decide. Its good he believes that there should be some level of decision even if it is against his opinion, however. I respect Ron because he knows that voting is more important than what HE wants. Second, Ron supports Dont ask Dont tell. Eh, No. People should not have to hide who they are, especially when they do so much to serve our country. Don't ask Don't tell is an act with good intentions and a bad solution. However I recognize Ron Paul supports gay marriage, he is probably just supporting this because he has no other solution.... But on the flip side he decided to vote to ban Gay adoption in DC.... Why, I have no idea. He also decided to vote against enforcing Hate crimes on Gays... Ron Paul believes that Gender equal pay should not be enforced as it violates the idea of Voluntary contracts. Lol wait what? What? excuse me? Does this even need an explanation? I agree That he wants to legalize Marijuana, It does way more good than bad. I however disagree on "the feds have no right to tell us what we put in our body" If my neighbor abuses Cocaine at some point in time that will negatively effect me. If my mother or father Abuses a very Hard drug, that will negatively effect me in Serious ways if I am a minor. Drugs like that should simply not be legal because they do absolutely no good. Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, etc Just should not be in the body unless by some miracle it cures cancer or aids or something. He also wants to basically dismantle the public education system, and encourage homeschool and private schooling through tax breaks... Now, The public school system I believe is a good thing, it allows anyone to be educated essentially for free. Whether or not the public school system is teaching correctly is another matter, but that is not relevant here. We should not be discouraging public school use. IF anything we should encourage public schooling by making it more effective and less test oriented. Edit: Oh and I just found out Ron Paul is like 100% against Being Eco-Friendly. He thinks Recycling is a waste of time, and conservation/clean energy acts aren't worth it. Idk about that man, We've fucked our planet up a lot, and Clean energy research is super fucking important to reaching new technological breakthroughs WAT. Ron paul is against Net Neutrality According to the link above? I dont understand, does he Like SOPA and that shit or does he dislike it?... Hes to back and fourth, so he just lost all chances for my vote.
I always wondered how Pro-Life + Pro-Death-Penalty people put up with that cognitive dissonance. All human life is sacred, until a handful of people think you probably did something bad. They could be wrong. Whatever.
Pro-Life people believe everyone deserves a chance at life, not so much that all life is sacred. or at least, if they were logical that is what they would say. However I cant speak for that as Im Pro-Choice Anti-Death penalty
No no, he's against SOPA and ACTA and the other shit laws, I could've sworn he is pro net neutrality..
Ah. He voted against it, probably because it requires Federal Regulation. Thats my biggest beef with him. Hes so anti government its ridiculous. You just need federal regulation for some things.. Its a necessity for a successful country. Like the Net Neutrality example. It requires Federal Regulation, so what...? Vote Yes because its Net Neutrality
Freely spending our countries money on idiotic things, our oh so excellent war on drugs, the failing immigration policies, the federal reserve, mandatory schooling, slowly removing our rights for the sake of big business. I could go on until you want to slit my throat to silence me but I'm too damn tired. xD
This is why that DC gay adoption ban vote is confusing to me. He will sometimes vote anti-government despite what he believes (net neutrality, it seems), and other times he will vote what he believes, even if it means fed control (ban gay adoption). Outside of some of these things which we're picking apart, he does usually stand his ground though
The War on drugs needs to be rethought, yes. Immigration is a Lose/Lose situation. The only option that DOESN'T cost us a fortune is Amnesty. and Conservatives don't want that. You cant have it both ways. Demolishing the Federal Reserve is a terrible Idea. What do we do then, We have no currency control, do you suggest State-wide currencies? A No currency Economy? As long as a Federal government exists we need a Federal Reserve. Printing more money may lower the value of the dollar, but it doesn't change the amount of gold we have to back it up. We dont go further in debt by printing more money. Mandatory schooling? What does that mean. People must go to school? I strongly believe School should be mandatory, A country of uneducated citizens is an awful thought. If you mean Mandatory taxing to pay for public education. This is a good thing. Most people in this country cannot afford private schooling. Removing our rights for the sake of big business? Elaborate on this more. as it is now, Obama has been forcing Big business to pay more so we as individual citizens can pay less. Removing our rights for Big business sounds like something a republican candidate might do. Not our current president. So far, Only The war on drugs holds water in my opinion. Not enough to make Ron Paul a viable choice.
No as real, I think that some people who elected him the first time was thinking "Whoohoo, a black president !!" -_- Ok, USA did slavery and black segregation, but that's not acutal, we all know it, and we know it wasn't the case even before that barack obama becomes president, but some people thinked that this will show to the world that USA are free... and now, I don't know exactly what did barack obama, but for exemple, he received the nobel price of peace only because he "said" that he'll bring back some the army sent in the world, but he only said it !
