I made up my mind months ago that I will not be supporting Obama in 2012. While I do support his view on many issues, I find him to be a coward who caves at the first sign of trouble. He is so focused on looking like the "balanced" president who supports bipartisinship, that he tends to sell out his own beliefs and give Republicans what they want, even at the expense of the American people. So, since I'm not voting for Obama, that leaves me to choose someone in the Republican Party. Of course, 90% of Republican politicans make my stomach turn. The only two candidates this year that are worth anything are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. However, Romney flip flops so much on issues that it looks like he has Parkinsons Disease. Paul, on the other hand, is an old school republican. Not only does he believe that we should get out of both Iraq and Afganistan, but that we should bring back a good number of the 40,000 troops we have throughtout the world as well. He also wants to limit the power that corporations and private interest groups have in the government. Paul is willing to do what needs to be done to get america back on track and he does not base his entire campaign on rhetoric and useless propaganda, unlike most politicans.
Well I'm not gonna support Obama for reelection, so it's either Ron Paul, or one of the dumbasses who are running against him
Nice choice, Daggdag. He's the only candidate who wants to end the economic fascism, the wars that are bankrupting the nation, and reverse the authoritarian policies that are transforming our nation from the land of the free to the land of the controlled.
He wants to turn you into isolationists. While most of the rest of the world wished you were, it's a tad facile in a globalised world, dontcha think?
You are incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism Do you support Obama's entry into Libya?
Why not? We even supported your entry into WW1 and WW2 when you eventually got over your fetish for staying out of stuff you were responsible for creating. But you should try to restrain yourself to stuff you can win.
Because it is not economically sustainable for the US to intervene into every nation that is not doing what we want them to do.
Ron Paul believes in true free trade and not these free trade "agreements" set up by nations for the benefit of large global corporations and wrapped in red tape. He is anti-isolationist when it comes to economics. Those who impose sanctions and tariffs on nations are the isolationists. He doesn't believe in imperialism and sticking our nose where it doesn't belong, when once again it only benefits the large corporations (oil companies and military industrial complex). It costs the taxpayers, just as the 10 year war in Afghanistan helped topple the Soviet Union, we have been in Afghanistan for how long? We cannot afford to be the world police even if it is for good intentions. He's also the only candidate who believes in liberty, classical liberty.
It cost you peanuts. No great or glorious American died. And who said "every nation" - apart from you?
Ah. So he wants the benefits but not the costs? Now where have I heard that before? I think it comes out of the Bank of America manual.
Fortunately, keeping America's grubby influence out of world affairs is now down to the Chinese, not some Republican wannabee.
Yep. I gave you honest answers. Take them or leave them. I really don't care. You would call me an ideological isolationist, when in fact I am a non-interventionist.
What you really mean is that you would stay out of world affairs unless you could make a profit out of it. Like the profit you thought (wrongly) you would make in Iraq.
Republicans wish they could be Ron Paul, but they're too immoral and corrupt to come close to his flawlessness. The two parties of cronies have bankrupted the nation and turned the world against us. Obama was bankrolled by Goldman Sachs by the way. My heart will go on.