Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I completely understand your point of view on why you would not vote for Ron Paul. In saying so, who do you believe should be the next POTUS? And why would he/she be better for America and its people?




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by yourboycal2
 


I am more in favor of thinking with the mind than the heart. He is just another right wing republican with a bend. He will continue the agenda of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else. All you have to do is look at his positions and its plainly visible. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, gut environmental and labor protections, and eliminate the social safety net. This is just the same bag of goods they have been selling since Reagan, with disastrous results. You can pack manure in a pretty box and gift wrap it and spray it with perfume, but it still contains manure.


Yea cause that's what he's done up till now right? wrong.

Out of anyone up there, he's for the people. That's enough for me out of that sad group of candidates.

Thing is, a lot of people don't understand why RP wants to cut these programs, and make "extreme" moves..yea, constitutional adherence is viewed as extreme nowadays.


You have to try to look at the big picture with the moves he wants to make.

I know a ton of people are completely against his views on foreign policy, but really, i think he's dead on. We need a few years of not trying to control every country in the world..it'll do america some good.

We need change, if not just for the hell of it, and he is the only one that will bring about some sort of change.

The man is the truth, no scam here..now can you say that about Mitt? Newt? Bachmann?

i dunno, i'm not trying to change your mind (well i guess i am) i just want you to see that he's the only candidate that would take the steps to end corruption and put things back in order. And yea, the process of doing it will bring about major "growing pains" but i believe it's worth it to reach the light at the end of the tunnel.

gooday brotha.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion
I completely understand your point of view on why you would not vote for Ron Paul. In saying so, who do you believe should be the next POTUS? And why would he/she be better for America and its people?


Closeminded2011 already answered this, he is going to vote for NOBODY. But apparently only directs his troll posts to Ron Paul and his supporters. The only reasons for this post is to :

1. Nicely piss people off.
2. Gain more notoriety for the site.
3. Learn from peoples answers.

He claims he wants information on his questions from Ron Paul supporters, refuses to research himself saying we are representatives of Ron Paul and should answer his questions. And then denounces anyone who gives him answers. His mind is long been made up. Questioning under the guise of ignorance to troll the responders.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


Your answers are based on your personal opinions as a biologist. Am I allowed to disagree with you?



WOW closeminded2011,
Your posts are based on your personal opinions. Are WE allowed to disagree with you?



Didn't you call all RP supporters sheeple? Once again its the complete opposite. Anyone who goes along with how things are now in the govt. as if its OK, are sheeple. You are the sheep, you are the instigator, you are the problem and the solution, without you here.. there is no problem.. solution found.

Its boiled down to the fact that you're either dumb, or just really bad at having any idea what you are talking about. Or defending it, or making any sense what so ever with your constant hypocritical contradictions and ignorant statements. Your original post had merit, but since that post you have done nothing but prove you have no idea what you are talking about for OR against RP. After reading every post and response. I'm 100% sure you know exactly what you are doing. Just trying to get a rise out of people. But hey, it worked!

Can we stop feeding the troll now?

Ron Against the Machine!
edit on 2-1-2012 by sKILLsEw because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sKILLsEw
 





You said Ron Paul would bring a "return to the guilded age of powerful elites???" TOO LATE! That's where we are now. That's why we want to elect Ron Paul, because he will change that.. Why do you think the media and powers that be don't want Ron Paul to be elected, because he will change that. Funny how your entire last comment was a REASON to VOTE for Ron Paul, you just got Dr. Paul confused with Newt Gingrich, I understand. Such an obvious TROLL thread you started here.


1. I have not attacked anyone personally on this thread.
2. I have attempted to keep the tone civil in any discussions regarding this thread and alluded to do so.
3. YOU have been hostile "closeminded2011" That is baiting and trolling and this kind of thing I believe is s TOS violation.
I see that you are new to the site. You had better go back and read the rules.
edit on 2-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   


I have said what I felt I had to say on this thread, I will say one more thing. IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER YOU WANT, if you think Ron Paul is the man to be president, by all means vote for him. But make sure you look at every aspect of his platform, not just the ones that appeal to you. That is what has concerned me, and that is why I posted this thread. I agree on his position that we should keep our noses out of other peoples business and stop being world policemen But his domestic policies are troubling to me and I feel would harm a lot of people who are already barely making it. So I wanted to call attention to them. IT was not my intention to demean Mr Paul or anyone chosing to vote for him, I just wanted to bring to light some things I think people should pay attention to. Peace and good luck to us all.
reply to post by sKILLsEw
 



There is a reason I wrote that. Because I wanted to have a discussion and I got reactions very similar to yours. I realize I cannot have an open civil discussion about this and will no longer do so because of this.
edit on 2-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by sKILLsEw
 


You may want to review what the three branches of government do.

I think Ron Paul needs to review this as well.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


I know dude, there's nobody else to vote for. Everybody else is either corrupt, stupid, or both. So even though people may see a few flaws with Ron Pauls presidency, as would be the case with every president in reality, he's by far the best choice out of that bunch.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Just out of curiosity, are you a Registered Voter in your State ? If not , that would kind of make this Whole Thread Pointless, wouldn't you think ?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Just out of curiosity, are you a Registered Voter in your State ? If not , that would kind of make this Whole Thread Pointless, wouldn't you think ?


He/she didn't post this thread to get honest opinions etc. He/she wrote this thread to stir people up and get attention. As someone who claims they won't vote for anyone, you'd think he/she would have labeled their thread something like this:

"Why I won't vote for Paul, Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, Hunstman, OR Obama"

Or he/she could have gone with:

"Why I won't vote. Period."

Just due to the fact that he/she singled out Paul as a NON voter is pretty telling. This kind kind of childish trolling should be banned from ATS. Just look at all the "I won't vote for Ron Paul" threads lately where the OP refuses to talk about what candidate they would vote for. Lame.
edit on 2-1-2012 by Wookiep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
That's enough...

On topic posting with civility and decorum or not at all...

It's post removals and post bans from here on out...

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrunkenshrewSmall government means, many of those employed by the state will lose their state-provided jobs. In Russia, people lost also parts of their pensions. In Russia, the free market did not provide much alternative sources of income for those, who have only those skills they developed to cope with the previous environment. To hope for a different outcome in the United States is in my opinion wishful thinking. Most of your productivity has already been outsourced. Health care will become unaffordable for even more citizens than today. The unemployed often develop depressions. In Russia alcohol addictions skyrocketed and many depressed Russians committed suicide.


This is the main reason I won't vote for him -- that, and his "gold standard" concept. It's not workable in today's market, because it's too easy for the wealthy to suddenly end up with all the gold. They can't end up with all the electronic currency, however. Nor are metals easy to transfer -- I don't hanker after sending a boatload of gold bullion to Amazon to get access to download an ebook days later.

Well, that and his support of things like no air pollution standards for cement plants. He obviously hasn't lived close to one of them or treated patients that live close to them.

(And before you ask, I'm voting for Obama again. I've voted for both parties in many elections. This time there's nobody in the Republican camp that I'd consider voting for.)
edit on 2-1-2012 by Indellkoffer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
Just due to the fact that he/she singled out Paul as a NON voter is pretty telling. This kind kind of childish trolling should be banned from ATS. Just look at all the "I won't vote for Ron Paul" threads lately where the OP refuses to talk about what candidate they would vote for. Lame.


You honestly want someone to take you seriously?

Some people actually see the reality of Ron Paul in charge.

And its damn scary.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Wookiep
Just due to the fact that he/she singled out Paul as a NON voter is pretty telling. This kind kind of childish trolling should be banned from ATS. Just look at all the "I won't vote for Ron Paul" threads lately where the OP refuses to talk about what candidate they would vote for. Lame.


You honestly want someone to take you seriously?

Some people actually see the reality of Ron Paul in charge.

And its damn scary.


Take me serious? What's the problem? I guess you want to bomb Iran too? If you're trying to state that the constitution is dangerous, then go ahead with your friends in the media. We'll see what happens. Go ahead, vote for the establishment, take your pick!! We'll see what happens. If Obama is your game then, he'll play that same game. Let's keep going with the status quo's agenda then we can talk about who's dangerous. Pffft, You people literally make me sick.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
(Inflammatory statements the OP made)

Originally posted by Openminded2011
1.)I know a lot of people like him because of his isolationist position on world affairs and his willingness to legalize weed.
2.)So lets live in a feudal oligarchy, but at least you can smoke weed?
3.)On abolishing the EPA: The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico would become one of many disasters if this is allowed.

^^
Misinformed statement. (You HAVE to know better, you're just trying to make people mad.) You honestly believe that anyone would allow that??


Originally posted by Openminded2011
I am more in favor of thinking with the mind than the heart.


Originally posted by Openminded2011
He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and I am worried that people dont seem to see this or want to see this.


So we Ron Paul supporters are blind brainless zombies ambling towards the voting booths?


Originally posted by openminded2011
I am not trying to attack anyone, I am sorry if bringing these points up makes people uncomfortable.

Yes you are."pollute with impunity" Lies.

----------


Originally posted by Openminded2011/i]
You wont answer (my questions) because you don't know.


Originally posted by Openminded2011
Please explain this. I dare one RP supporter to give a valid explanation for these positions.


Originally posted by Shark_Feeder



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wookiep
If you're trying to state that the constitution is dangerous, then go ahead with your friends in the media.


The constitution is a framework.

Corruption is not size limited. Giving power to the states - - only magnifies the problem times 50.

What a mess.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Giving power to the states - - only magnifies the problem times 50.


So you believe that every single state government is hopelessly corrupt? If that is the case changing the state government(such as running for governor) is alot easier than altering a massive overreaching government(running for president).



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by Annee
Giving power to the states - - only magnifies the problem times 50.


So you believe that every single state government is hopelessly corrupt? If that is the case changing the state government(such as running for governor) is alot easier than altering a massive overreaching government(running for president).


I'm saying the Constitution is a framework. A good framework for a government to run an entire country.

Giving power to 50 "little countries" will create chaos and division. It would be disastrous. IMO.

I watched the destruction and corruption of a bordertown near me of less then 25,000 people. The personal needs and greeds of the people is what destroyed it.

Corruption/Bureaucracy has no size limit.

Knowing that you must provide the basic tools for 312,794,168 diverse people is an extremely difficult task. It really can't be personalized. For me the less individualism in government - the better. Sounds "hard" - - but its a reality.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by Annee
Giving power to the states - - only magnifies the problem times 50.


So you believe that every single state government is hopelessly corrupt?


I have no doubt if they're not - - they will become so.

Of course - - corrupt needs to be defined. People tend to be very selfish. If they don't feel their individual needs are met - - they might consider a government corrupt.

IMO - - Leaders are born. Its part of their genetic makeup. A person/leader probably starts off innocent with an idealistic approach. But once they get a little bit of control/power - - they want to do more. It is who they were born to be. Corrupt? Power Corrupts? - - Well - - it all depends on how you look at it.

Giving states power - - certainly isn't the answer.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join