Tell me why Ron Paul will not get your vote

I would like to know why the haters on here have decided RP is unworthy of their vote. Please list all specific concerns rather than saying he's nuts, he'd destroy America, he doesn't have a chance, or any other baseless fear mongering.

 

First off because I dont vote FOR someone doesn't mean I HATE them.

I wont vote for Paul FOR PRESIDENT unless he is the last man standing between OBAMA and the White House.

I would have voted these OTHERS ahead of PAUL.

1.Pawlenty of MN.
2. Hunstman of Utah.
3. Perry of Texas..

all Governors...all executive leaders..

I of course Champion ROMNEY 2012.
Executive leadership in Government and business instead of make believe beginners.

I am VOTING FOR SOMEONE instead of against someone..
I sleep better every night lately..

JOBS JOBS JOBS...

Its been the main theme from the start.


Paul and Romney agree on less government..cutting unnecessary garbage,and balancing the budget. That MAY be as close as Paul gets..and he should just embrace and work within...
On defense and war on drugs and terrorist Paul loses badly.

The delegate vote has HIM LAST ?

http://jimellisinsights.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/doing-the-delegate-math-exactly-whos-right/

• ABC News: Romney 105; Santorum 71; Gingrich 29; Paul 18

• CBS News: Romney 111; Santorum 44; Gingrich 30; Paul 15

• CNN: Romney 127; Gingrich 38; Santorum 37; Paul 27

• Fox News: Romney 107; Santorum 45; Gingrich 32; Paul 9

• The Green Papers: Romney 107; Santorum 43; Gingrich 43; Paul 35

• NBC News: Romney 84; Gingrich 29; Santorum 14; Paul 11

• New York Times: Romney 105; Santorum 71; Gingrich 29; Paul 18

• Real Clear Politics: Romney 99; Santorum 47; Gingrich 32; Paul 20

To recap, the eight entities don’t even show a consistent order of candidates – CNN and NBC have Gingrich in second place and the others project Santorum in the runner-up position. Romney ranges from a low of 84 pledged delegates (NBC) to a high of 127 (CNN). Santorum’s spread is from 14 (NBC) to 71 (ABC/NYT). Former Speaker Gingrich appears to be most consistent, tallying in a range from 29 (ABC/NYT) to 43 (The Green Papers). Finally, Rep. Paul runs the gamut from 9 (Fox) to 35 (The Green Papers).

Why the differences? First, even some states where voters have already participated – Iowa, Nevada, Missouri, Maine, Colorado and Minnesota – won’t actually apportion their delegates until convention events later in the year. Some of the aforementioned trackers are estimating what these states will eventually do based upon the public votes already cast.

END.

 

I've tried to figure out why everyone doesn't like Dr. Paul. It's fear. Fear of freedom. Fear of not starting a war with Iran. Fear of not being able to borrow more money from China. Fear of everything except the federal govt, and that is the thing I fear most.

 

My guess is, those who were tea partying for smaller Government, more personal responsibility, were only giving lip service.
Otherwise, all those who attended these rallies would be voting for Dr. Paul instead of status quo.

 

The thing that makes me laugh is how people are so in fear of his foreign policy. Let's take a look into it...

Does Paul wish to talk and trade with other countries? YES
Does Paul wish to strengthen our nations defense? YES
Does Paul support our allies, Israel included? YES
Does Paul want Iran to get a nuclear weapon? NO
Does Paul support going after terrorists? YES
Will Paul go to war if it's needed? YES
Has Paul been correct in predicting the foreign policy events of the past 10 years? YES!

Paul's foreign policy is misunderstood by a lot of people.

 

I would have voted for Ron Paul, I think he is the best, but I hate politicians who are "ready" to go to war because it is not them but us military age guys that have to fight those wars for them, for absolutely nothing in it for us!

 

Sure, just like the Brits tossed out Chamberlain for fear of not starting a war with Germany.

 

I like his sensible approach to foreign policy and his integrity is unmatched by any other candidate by a long shot. He pushes freedom and tries to bring attention to the biggest threat to the people, which is the out-of-control spending by our federal government. I don't know how I feel about his economic policy. He is easily the most effective in cutting spending; however, I'm not so sure about his free-market stance. It sounds great in principle, but in practice I don't know how well it would work. I think there needs to be some government regulation, but I definitely think it needs to be scaled down from where it currently is.

RP will get my vote mainly because of his stance for liberty and against the NDAA, which I find to be downright creepy. If we have an Obama/Romney ticket, both of these creeps support the ability of the Federal Government to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process. These clowns have the nerve to violate the Bill of Rights while swearing an oath to the Constitution. I know Obama wrote a note saying that he would never abuse this power, so what's the point of signing it into law? Any politician who supported this bill should be tried for treason.

 

I've said that about the tea party from the beginning. I simply cannot take them seriously. Not about them voting for Paul, but about them being disingenuous. The tea party is slightly more active here in Dixie than in the rest of the country and the people who identify with the tea party, for the most part, have spent the last three decades supporting the very things they now claim to be against. When W left office we had the highest level of spending on record (at the time), a new entitlement, and the largest, most intrusive government in our nation's history. Where were the tea party protests then? Thanks for playing.

 

Because most Neocons like big government, corporate welfare, and blowing (*)(*)(*)(*) up in third world countries. If most republicans were truly conservative, he'd win in a landslide.

He'll be getting my vote.

 

You still didn't say what, in Paul's platform, you think would be harmful for America. You also neglected to say what Romney would do to help.

So why exactly is Romney better than Paul? Because he has more delegates? Because he would start a war with Iran? Because he would continue with the failed war on drugs? Because he would allow the value of our currency to be determined by Ben Bernanke and his unelected shadowy cohorts?

 

Neocons are becoming a part of the past already. No one cares what they think anymore.

Republicans, despite their talk, have always supported bigger government. From Reagan on, their love affair with spending and the Nanny State has gone unchecked. Neocons just kept it going via the military industrial complex.

 

So is sanity.

Not that Paultards would take any notice, of course.

 

Thanks for bringing something relevant to the discussion! I'm sure you have more than plenty of invalid reasons to vote against Paul.

 

The original tea party was an answer to the republicans, not pbama. It was disgust at having no one who represented true conservatives and the Constitution. They were people who wanted to tell republicans that they couldn't vote for TARP, spend money like water, run a "moderate" in the election and keep counting on the votes of true conservatives. Those core people support Ron Paul in droves. They are tired of the "my big govt is better than your big govt" politicians. They are tired of hypocrites who are against big govt except when it benefits them, like bankers who were for TARP.

 

I like the guy more than I like any of the other humps the Republicans are trotting out. I just like Obama a lot more.

 

That may be true. But that is not what the tea party is NOW. Now that it's far larger. Just like the original Republicans bear little resemblance to 2012 Republicans. The tea party became (and is now) mostly just a bunch of Republicans whining about people doing exactly what the people they supported for 30 years were doing. They voted for all the people who gave us what we have now (and yes, Republicans are every bit as much to blame as Democrats). They have W stickers peeling off the back of their cars. So there is no way I can take them seriously. They are not against big government. They are against big government when they are not running it.

 

Why would I need those when he's such an obvious isolationist fruitcake?

 

What part of Obama's platform makes him your favorite? What do you think he would do better than Ron Paul or the rest of the GOPers?

Let us all start listing reasons behind our support or opposition of specific candidates.

I support Ron Paul because:

*Ending wars
*Ending federal drug war
*Make fed transparent if not end it. This would result in sound economics due to no more malinvestment supported by the government.

 

Isolationist implies ending all relations with outside powers. Ron Paul would only end the relations that involve us killing and policing those nation's inhabitants. Open and free trade is the recipe for a prosperous and peaceful world.

 

Because his supporters are like a religious cult who call anyone not agreeing with them on their choice of candidate "Haters"....

 

Sorry if my choice of words were too harsh for your virgin ears. I will try to refrain from using words like nutjob, crazy, or loony to describe ones I have disagreement with. Heaven knows nobody would describe a candidate nor his supporters in such a fashion.

I used the term to reference people on here like, Jason Bourne, who only seem to post about why they dislike RP.

In all seriousness though, this tongue in cheek response serves only to suppress the sound logic that is winning over all of Paul's supporters. There is a reason he doesn't lose support. His base only grows. Because once you know the truth it is Ron Paul or bust.

By the way, just because there is a large dedicated group focused on a goal that you are at odds with doesn't mean you get to label them a "religious cult."

 

No it does not. We can have all the foreign relations we want and still let our allies twist in the wind.

IOW, had he been President in 1945, he'd have given Imperial Japan space to regroup rather than "violate its sovereignty".

 

I'm not sure I'm following you. Ron Paul is against entangling alliances that would make us have to go to war to protect other countries' interests. He is for open and free trade though. I do not see why anyone would be against this.

And in regards to Japan, Ron Paul has said time and again that he would hold no reservations in executing a declared defensive war. They attacked us, so we would declare war, beat them, and come home.

 

The real reason is FEAR of real change, fear of waking up in a nation that has dumped the socialist/ welfare ideas...

Many people dont want to let go of the breast of the state(of other people)... shame..