I'd actually consider voting for Ron Paul except for the fact that his social policies are bad, his foreign policies are bad, and he seems to be nasty and dishonest and crazy. Yeah, he's the only real alternative we have. And I find him unacceptable.
“...and he seems to be nasty and dishonest and crazy.”
Pretty much the same thing was said about Sam Adams.
Thanks.
We’ve watched the debates and autopsied every word ... we watch and waited for a *miracle* candidate to emerge... do we vote for someone who will win? anyone but Hussein? or someone who best represents limited government? or hold your nose?
What if Judge Nap is right? What if these weren’t just hypothetical or rhetorical questions? What if?
What will you do?
I agree that RP is a squirrely sort; I think of him like the Dr. Kevorkian of a government that has overstepped its bounds.
What harm can he do to national security? If the Congress want the country to go to war, as is their prerogative, Ron Paul would have no choice but to do so. It is a lot better to have a chief executive that does not want war, than one that does. If he ignores treaties that tie us to defending an ally, don’t you think Congress would have no problem with impeachment? THAT right there, is reason enough to vote him in. Reinstate the doctrine of separation of powers, and a non-tyrannical President.
There is a huge difference between the 2 parties.
The Republicans just get in trouble when there is not a watchdog such as the Tea Party, to remind them of what they should be representing.
The Democrats have hard core Marxists doing the same thing on the other side.
The big picture failure was the Reagan's revolution should have just been starting point; and not a high water mark.