No if I voted at all, it would be a write in vote which can still be done. By refusing to answer my question, you have proven a lot to me.
Proven what? That I'm concealing something from you which I have openly stated for years now (and in a thread on this very forum like just yesterday)? My preferred GOP candidate 4 years ago was Romney. I still think he's the best choice out of the current GOP pack (haven't seen anything yet to change my mind, although you never know). This is hardly a secret. What did you expect?
But on the subject of your vote, let me repeat my statement about pragmatism versus idealism. While I'm sure somewhere "out there" exists a completely perfect conservative candidate, I'm more interested in making sure that a liberal candidate doesn't win office than holding out for that perfect choice. It is not a matter of "perfect candidate or bust". It's a matter of choosing the better candidate out of those who can win. Given the way our electoral college system is set up, that means that you either vote for the GOP candidate, or the Dem candidate. Any other vote is thrown away.
As a conservative, if you vote for anyone other than the GOP candidate you are effectively casting half a vote for Obama. So unless you honestly believe that you'll be no worse off under Obama than Romney or Perry (or whomever wins), then you are being a monumental idiot to vote for anyone else. BTW, this is part of what I meant by "not helping". I'm all for raising issues. But don't vote for the issues candidate instead of the guy who is the best match to your own positions *and* has a real chance to win. That's a surefire way to ensure that you lose ground on your issues instead of gain ground.
I wouldn't vote for him because Perry is a crook.
Um... Ok. So pretend that the only two possible winners are Obama or Perry. You'd rather Obama win? Which is the "better" candidate? It's not just about who is perfect.
Ron Paul has been saying these things for over 30 years. Now because his views are finally taken more seriously, you have his competitors using words like "Ponzi" and "Fed".
Yes. That's the purpose of an issues candidate. To raise the issue on a national level and make them have to be addressed publicly. But you don't actually vote for the issues candidate in a write-in when he loses to the more mainstream candidate in your own party. The point of raising these issues is to try to get the mainstream candidates to adopt more similar positions on those issues as well. If the result is splitting the party vote and helping someone who holds the exact opposite position on those issues to get elected, then you have hurt your cause, not helped it.
The bottom line is it's you that are mistaken. You shouldn't judge a candidate on their speaking points, you ought to pick them based on their record.
Do you know anything about his record? And not just what you've read on pro-Paul sites? Honestly, about the only consistency in his voting record is that he does whatever seems to generate the most controversy. Again, that's clever marketing for an issues candidate, but not a great record to base real leadership on.
It's funny that nobody can find any dirt to sling at Ron Paul.
Kinda depends on how you define "dirt". I suspect this is really just ignorance on your own part.
I don't expect magic out of Paul, but I do hope to see some changes. The rich are getting richer and more corrupt because as all politicians put it, it's all because of lobbyists. The difference between Paul and these other candidates is that Paul doesn't have a record as a flip flop.
Well, except for the time in 2003 when he voted no on a bill that would protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, then in 2004 voted yes on a bill that limited frivolous lawsuits, then in 2005 he again voted no on a bill that would limit frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. All of this despite claiming to be staunchly pro 2nd amendment, property rights, and free markets. So he's either being inconsistent about supporting the second amendment, or he's being inconsistent about opposing frivolous lawsuits, or he's being inconsistent about believing in a free market.
But I'm sure, since you mentioned his voting record, that you already know all about this and have a perfect explanation.
For those that voted for Obama, look at all his campaign promises and look at which of them he even tried to pass. Obama sold us on a dream, but he never lifted a finger.
Yes. And this is who you'll be voting for if you write in Paul's name in the next election. So I guess you want Obama to serve 4 more years.
Lastly, I support our constitution and freedom, there aren't any choices but Paul.
Yeah. Because he's the only person on earth who cares about freedom and our constitution. Geez dude. Take your head out of the punch bowl for a second and look around.
I'm sick of the nation building and the wars. Oh by the way, if history is any indicator, Paul will be killed by some lone crazy man. Anyone who has gone against the system is dealt with according. JFK blown away :P
Yeah. Because the political establishment really feels threatened by Ron Paul. Ron Paul cares about Ron Paul. He knows that by being controversial and "different", he can attract a core group of fanatical followers who'll praise the ground he walks on, and who'll follow him around chanting his name. More importantly, they'll toss tons of money his way so he can keep his job in Congress.
Oh and speaking of flip-floping (or just being inconsistent). He's a man who claims to believe in term limits, but apparently not for himself. If he was a true idealist, wouldn't he voluntarily step down? And then there's that whole pledge in support of transparency with regard to campaign donations, but voting against exactly that when it came to passing any legislation. He's also one of the worst offenders in terms of keeping secret donor lists.
But he's got nothing to hide and he's an open honest man with your own best interests at heart! He told you so, so it must be true!!! Edited, Sep 9th 2011 5:01pm by gbaji