Replies

Jack, the problem with Ron is not that 70 percent of which you agree with, nor the 30 percent which you find him unsuitable. It's his complete and total inability to ground himself in reality to explain HOW he'd accomplish that with which you agree.

The mark of a true loser is a person who, when pressed for specifics, just shrugs his shoulders and hopes you won't notice. That description fits Paul to a "T".

His ideas SOUND good and appeal to those angry with the government, but people aren't looking past their anger to understand what's underneath isn't even smoke and mirrors--it's a totally empty vacuum.

Both you AND JackRyan are dead on regarding Paul. His domestic stands are music to a conservative’s ear (at least to mine), but there’s a good deal of vagueness there as to how he would try to make them happen. I am still somewhat suspect of how he’d work on the immigration issue, but that may just be guilt-by-association with the big-L Libertarian Party and their open-borders “y’all come, y’heah?” stand.

As for foreign policy, his neo-isolationism just isn’t workable nowadays. Although, I do agree with him partially in that we need to drastically cut foreign aid, and we need to be much more selective about who we give it to and what conditions we give it under—and if they don’t want the money with the strings attached, then they don’t need the money that badly. We can, and indeed need to, be smarter about how we deploy our forces, and that may require some pullbacks and retrenching here and there. But to simply retreat behind our borders and oceans and think the rest of the world will leave us alone? Won’t happen.

}:-)4