Interesting new developments, I would apreciate opinions

Some new stances from Ron Paul has surfaced, some say these are bad stances and I would like everyone's opinion on them please.

How do you think they aren't bad stances?

1) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
2) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
3) Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
4)Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
5) Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
6) Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
7) Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Some new stances from Ron Paul has surfaced, some say these are bad stances and I would like everyone's opinion on them please.

How do you think they aren't bad stances?

1) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
2) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.
3) Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
4)Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.
5) Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
6) Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing.
7) Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.

#1) Well, he is a baby doctor, so that is almost a given.
#2)We need to end aid to everybody on the planet and start taking better care of people here at home. The US has become the third world's soup kitchen, and dependence is debilitating to those who get it, in the long run.
#3) In a nation where there is equality, having an unequal playing field builds resentment among those who are not favored. If we're all equal, then why give an extra advantage to any one group based on ethnicity?
#4)I cannot understand the logic of this one, and make no excuse as it seems flat wrong headed.
#5)See #3--Same thing really.
#6)He believes in free enterprise to all. This does not mean that he supports union busting like in the "bad old days", just that if an employer wants to give incentives to avoid a union workplace, they should have that and other options.
#7)As I recall, he thinks that by closing the borders, the increased competition for workers will naturally drive up wages. This is more of his idea of keeping the government out of the lives of the citizens to the largest degree possible.

No candidate is going to be perfect for everyone. Even friends here on ATS disagree, and that does not stop this site from being the best. Ron Paul cannot do everything for everybody, and unlike those politicians in the past, he doesn't bother lying and saying he will just to get elected.

What is important is that overall he will be good for America. And if enough people pressure him to act on something, he will follow the will of the people who elected him. As an example, the people he represented may have been against #1 even more than he was, and the same could easily have been true of #7.

In the end, the fact that we could have a President that tried to follow the desires of the American people, instead of thinking he/she was so much greater that they had no need to listen to anybody, is something our nation needs.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, running as a Republican.

All these things listed are tenents of Libertarianism. Libertarians want no government interference at all. I guess that is why potheads love this guy, as he also wants mariquana legalized also. The anti-war crowd loves him too, because libertarians don't want the U.S. involved in any outside conflicts.

There are some good things about Libertarians. No income taxes, no welfare, no minimum wages, etc.

Of the seven stances. I agree with Paul on all of them except # 4. A nationwide Amber alert is a great idea and should be supported. But being a government program, it would be taboo for Paul to support it.