|
|
#1
05-26-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Ron Paul Negatives
What are some of the big negatives about Ron Paul? I've only read positive stuff, and I am sure there is more information out there. Any of you guys have any main reasons you dont like him?
|
|
#4
05-26-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
I always thought he was lacking in the charisma department. Ron Paul doesn't strike me as being very presidential, he is small, skinny, figity and has a very whiny, nasal voice, and I think he looks weak in a tough debate.
However, he's been pulling some very gutsy moves since the Republican debates that are getting him a lot of positive attention. The Giuliani reading list was a pretty cool move imho. He's doing an excellent job for the cause of liberty, and the only thing that I see as negative is that more people aren't doing it. Ron Paul rules!
|
|
#5
05-26-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
I don't like his posistions regarding blowback and changing policy. My problem with it is this; he's basically saying "If we piss you off, and you blow us up, we need to change our policy." This is not inherently untrue, but it opens the door to people who we piss off believing that if they use terrorism, or attack the United States, they will get us to change our policies. I don't think the United States would benefit from such a weak appearence that would be set by that precident.
That's one negative I feel he has, just my posistion though, but its a big one for me. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see him elected, I'd like to just because I think it'd be really interesting to see what this policy would result in. Edit: Also, his posiston on gay marriage/civil unions. And I'm not a big fan of his abortion stance either, for both of these I prefer Giuliani, try to lessen the amount of abortions by promoting adoption.
|
|
#6
05-26-2007, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like his posistions regarding blowback and changing policy. My problem with it is this; he's basically saying "If we piss you off, and you blow us up, we need to change our policy." This is not inherently untrue, but it opens the door to people who we piss off believing that if they use terrorism, or attack the United States, they will get us to change our policies. I don't think the United States would benefit from such a weak appearence that would be set by that precident. That's one negative I feel he has, just my posistion though, but its a big one for me. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see him elected, I'd like to just because I think it'd be really interesting to see what this policy would result in. Edit: Also, his posiston on gay marriage/civil unions. And I'm not a big fan of his abortion stance either, for both of these I prefer Giuliani, try to lessen the amount of abortions by promoting adoption. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you completely on the gay marriage and abortion stances. I disagree with Ron Paul on both issues. However, since Ron Paul is against big government. He wouldn't vote to allow government to ban gay marriage or abortion. So, it ends up following my beliefs anyway. So, although he believes differently than me in his heart, he would vote in my favor. (somebody correct me if im wrong here, but I reviewed his past votes and the only anti abortion legilslation he voted for was the partial birth abortion law.) I think he said about abortion its up to the states to decide. Which I am fine with. As to the blowback policy, I think you may actually agree with Dr. Paul. They asked him what his reaction to 9-11 would have been, and he said he would have gone after them. Them being osama bin laden and the people responsible. However, at the same time he would review his policy that lead up to 9-11 to see what caused it and if we were doing anything wrong. The people that commited the act would pay with their lives. He talked about how bush has given up on Osama. Osama is most likely in pakistan, pakistan gets nukes, so bush gives them money ::thumbs up:: Ron would have focused on osama. Edit: That is, I agree with Ron on what the role of government should be, which makes points like gay marriage and abortion moot because we both believe it is not the federal governments responsibility to police these things.
|
|
#8
05-26-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
[ QUOTE ]
His "non-interventionist" foreign policy is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1939. [/ QUOTE ] Can you elaborate? I don't think Ron Paul would disagree with our involvement in WW1 or WW2. While we held a policy of non-interventionism at these times, we still got involved. As we would again, if necessary. However, our current degree of involvement in the ongoings of other nations would not be tolerated. I could very well be over looking something. I am not as highly versed in the history of our foreign policy as I would like to be.
|
|
#9
05-26-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
[ QUOTE ]
for both of these I prefer Giuliani, try to lessen the amount of abortions by promoting adoption. [/ QUOTE ] At the risk of hijacking, Giuliani's record on adoption is pretty bad. Yes they were higher during his administration than before, but the trend was going up until he got in office, but down throughout the time he served. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...g_numbers.html
|
|
#10
05-26-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ron Paul Negatives
[ QUOTE ]
His "non-interventionist" foreign policy is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1939. [/ QUOTE ] AS apposed to the "interventionist" policy that is is simplistic, naive, and was proven wrong about 1400 BC. look again he voted for Afghanistan and has said repeatedly that if you are going to war "declare war, go to war and win it. but don't go to war for political reasons or to fight for the UN" hes not an isolationist hes just against overstepping ourselves and causing international turmoil.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
