Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

reply to post by openminded2011


Paul only sees these things as not the federal governments business according to the Constutition. I believe that these departments and regulations would be enforced by the states........

Be realistic these things would not disappear but they would be delegated to where they belong.

reply to post by CaDreamer

You wont answer them because you dont know.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

You wont answer them because you dont know.

Obvious troll is becoming obvious... just continue to ignore other's answers and posts, it only makes you look foolish.

reply to post by openminded2011



" He is just another right wing republican with a bend."

You mean he is a true republican , mixed in with other republicans who have lost there values of party ?


He does what is sound and within the consitution . He upholds it , not spit on it and disrespect it like the others . All the things you mention he has a purpose and sound reason and logic behind it , but that takes a little reading . You seem to just pick up MSM headlines and cry wolf with it , without understanding the context and reasoning behind it ,

is it not just easier to close your eyes and vote for whomever?

His stance are to benifit the citizens , not strip them of what little they have left , and leave bones for future generations.

The american ship is sinking. There is a life boat waiting to help you , but its blocked off by waves called MSM , congress , and fake republicans .

I have watched some of the debates, RonPaul has the answers of a person who would run a country WITHIN ITS MEANS.

The others are the same clowns we see every election. Its no competition by along shot. If you really think it is , i would advise you to do a full platform check on all candidates because clearly you missed the elephant in the room.


Here is a great website to help you .

2012.republican-candidates.org...


Just click and read . Its very simple, Then use your "openmind" to see tsimple truth any rational person would see

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

And you should stop getting your info from PRO Ron Paul sites only. I am being objective, and one thing I have noticed about Paul supporters is that they cant look at the facts unless they come from a pro Paul perspective.

Although I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter, I've always been candid that I don't agree with every one of his views although I certainly respect the thought he's put into his positions and would welcome and honest debate (instead of a politically motivated debate) about the wisest courses of action.

I can't speak about the EPA but I know RP wants to dissolve the department of education. I think the dept of ed is useless in its current state but I could see a much smaller dept working together to push the educational standard forward several levels.

So we're not all sheeple blindly following Ron Paul for what we believe is a weed smokers paradise (another fallacy) but instead are like minded citizens wanting to bring back honest and integrity to politics.

If you don't want to vote, that is your prerogative but then tell us what you plan to do about the situation? The Tea Party (unlike OWS) is obtaining results while working with the system unlike the anarchy that OWS and others would wish upon the USA.

reply to post by Shark_Feeder

The EPA would be much more effective and powerful if there was a group for each state...instead of a massive overreaching federal agency...and this is from a biologist.

Can you tell me how this will be specifically accomplished and where the funding will come from to accomplish it?

Also under common law it's illegal to dump ANYTHING into anothers' land, water, or air. It would seem that enforcing common law would go a long way towards fixing the mess this country is.

And I guess there is no chance a polluter might locate in a state that will look the other way when they DO dump things?

Minimum wage also should be varied across this great nation, living in NYC is alot different than the backwoods of TN...see the recent story of SF raising the City's Minimum wage to over $10.

And I guess there is no chance companies will gravitate to the states with the lowest wage, right?

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

You wont answer them because you dont know.

i am very well versed on Mr Pauls stances on nearly all topics, i happen to disagree with him on a few even, i just happen to REFUSE to do your research for you. you are posting out of ignorance, you do not have the facts at all. you are only spouting MSM rhetoric and have no clue when it comes to Mr Paul.

reply to post by CaDreamer

If you truly support him you should be a reprentative of his positions and be able to explain them to anyone who inquires.

Originally posted by openminded2011
Can you tell me how this will be specifically accomplished and where the funding will come from to accomplish it?

Similar funding that it has now I imagine, the only difference would be it being part of the state budget. See one states budget would not be directly tied to the others. This systems would provide multiple fail-safes as healthier states could come the aid of ailing ones. Rather than all of us getting screwed like today's federal budget.

And I guess there is no chance a polluter might locate in a state that will look the other way when they DO dump things?

Hows is this any better than the EPA deciding where is the best place to dump the filth? Any better than a corrupt federal government...oh wait, corruption is easier to fight at state and local levels

And I guess there is no chance that companies will gravitate to the states with the lowest wages, right?

How is this any different than companies outsourcing all our jobs overseas? Oh wait, each state could easily provide tax incentives to potential employers moving into the area, that and much improved public education of course.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

If you truly support him you should be a reprentative of his positions and be able to explain them to anyone who inquires.

you are not "inquiring" you are making baseless attacks on a presidential candidate. an honest person would have read his thread and realized that every question you asked me has been answered, try reading shark_feeders posts.

i am not a "representative" of mr paul, i am just an informed voter.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by PhoenixDown

 

I will NOT vote if I don't have a good choice, to vote for the lesser of the evils is to still vote for evil. I don't plan to vote for Obama either.

Then why even posting this misleading title? Why even bother making a thread at all? Why not edit your title to reflect your true feelings instead of being an obvious troll looking for attention? Your title should reflect your true stance and should read "I will not be voting at all", or "I will not be voting for any establishment representatives".

Instead of making this just about the fact you will not vote for Ron Paul why not include all the others as well? Troll threads like this should be removed because I am sure there are some threads with this title already.

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

If you truly support him you should be a reprentative of his positions and be able to explain them to anyone who inquires.

you are not "inquiring" you are making baseless attacks on a presidential candidate. an honest person would have read his thread and realized that every question you asked me has been answered, try reading shark_feeders posts.

i am not a "representative" of mr paul, i am just an informed voter.

edit on 1-1-2012 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)

How are his attacks baseless? He has stated his reasons and proof for not voting for Paul.

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by PhoenixDown

 

I will NOT vote if I don't have a good choice, to vote for the lesser of the evils is to still vote for evil. I don't plan to vote for Obama either.

Then why even posting this misleading title? Why even bother making a thread at all? Why not edit your title to reflect your true feelings instead of being an obvious troll looking for attention? Your title should reflect your true stance and should read "I will not be voting at all", or "I will not be voting for any establishment representatives".

Instead of making this just about the fact you will not vote for Ron Paul why not include all the others as well? Troll threads like this should be removed because I am sure there are some threads with this title already.

Had he made exactly this same topic about Obama, you would be praising the TC and flagging him to the heavens. Only when Paul is criticized is someone a troll.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by CaDreamer

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

If you truly support him you should be a reprentative of his positions and be able to explain them to anyone who inquires.

you are not "inquiring" you are making baseless attacks on a presidential candidate. an honest person would have read his thread and realized that every question you asked me has been answered, try reading shark_feeders posts.

i am not a "representative" of mr paul, i am just an informed voter.

edit on 1-1-2012 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)

How are his attacks baseless? He has stated his reasons and proof for not voting for Paul.

he stated inaccurate twists on Pauls stances and zero proof that any of the OP's allegations are true.
when the OP posts links to proof that show any of the things that are being debated thus far in this thread are correct as he wrote then it will be given the title of proof until then it is only opinions.

he stated that Paul is an isolationist that is utterly false

he stated that Paul is pro pot that also is utterly false

reply to post by openminded2011


You obviously havent really thought through the repercussions of Pauls policy or what he is really advocating.

Yes, he wants to cut taxes for the rich. But he also wants to cut taxes for the poor.
As you even stated he wanted to go to maybe a 10% tax rate. Wouldnt that mean we would be keeping 20% more of our income to spend as we wish? His plan is to reduce the federal government, and therefore the bill required to pay for it. Which would translate into tax cuts for everyone.

Also, as another poster pointed out and you seem to have chosen to ignore, Paul wants to replace National/Federal laws with the right of the state to implement them, and the people of that state to pay for them. So if Paul eliminates the EPA, do you really think any state is just going to let corporations pollute as they wish? Really?

What I have heard paul point out many times is that these umbrella laws, which effect the whole country are really detrimental. We should let the states figure what works best with their environment. The whole point being, the more we dillute our government into state and local powers, instead of a federal power, each of our individual voices will hold more weight, and it will be easier to control our government at the state and local level, rather than the federal level.

People seem to forget that we survived and made it the last thousands of years without this much government. People need to get back to relying on themselves rather than relying on other people.

Dillute the power of our federal governmnent into state and local governments, and our voices will have more power, and we will be able to control our government better so it serves the people, not just the rich.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

How are his attacks baseless? He has stated his reasons and proof for not voting for Paul.

And ignored the answers of others members, while hounding an individual poster.

reply to post by Cynicaleye


No I am afraid not. The OP states himself that he will not be voting. Then why make this about any one single candidate? The threads intention is obvious, and you took the bait hook line and sinker coming to his aid.

reply to post by openminded2011


I understand and share your concerns, plus many others. For questions about Paul's positions, I suggest you PM member Praetorius. He's knowledgeable and kind, not hateful and mean. And he won't call you a troll for voicing your opinions.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
He wants to legalize pot. That alone is reason to vote for him.

Perhaps for some... But that's not what I'm looking for in the next president of the US. While I agree with Paul on the drug war issue, there's a lot more to life and our survival as a country than the legalization of a plant...

Originally posted by CaDreamer
all those questions are answered on Mr Pauls site. please stop asking silly questions and do a little research on your own.

Oh! I wanna be a Paul supporter, too! So I can pretend everyone else is stupid and beneath me!

I have been researching for a couple weeks now and I still have questions... Thanks for showing why I am so hesitant to ask them here. Going to Paul's campaign website for answers is like going to Obama's for answers to his positions. Though I have scoured Paul's website and many others, I still have questions, but the hateful responses I've seen from some here to others voicing their concerns gives me pause... I don't need it and would probably get better answers from the MSM than I get from some of Paul's supporters.

Some of you guys make it really hard for people to want to join your club.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
ok just your first sentence is wrong wrong wrong...

He is not an "isolationist" he is a nonintervenionist.

he is not "pro weed" he is anti drug war...
you should not rant about candidates when you have no idea what they stand for or their platform..here is a place you can get accurate information

www.ronpaul2012.com please stop getting your information from the MSM eg CNN/FNC

edit on 1-1-2012 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)

You didn't even address any of his points as to why he isn't going to vote for him. You just said he is wrong on why people really like him.

Nice try on that spin...but the fact is the 3 points the OP made are spot on...and you can't defend Ron Paul on him because he has said each of them from his own mouth.