Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Well then, please be sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on your way out the door!




He wants to legalize pot. That alone is reason to vote for him.


Really???

That is your biggest political issue you are concerned about.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You didn't even address any of his points as to why he isn't going to vote for him. ...and you can't defend Ron Paul on him because he has said each of them from his own mouth.


I addressed those points in two posts, and yet I am continually ignored... I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

Can anyone out there read this?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I have stated my reasons for not voting for him. You can go on the internet and check MULTIPLE sources to verify that they are based on truth. I am not going to argue with people. I am simply trying to put information on the table so people can make a more objective appraisal of his platform. I am not trying to attack anyone, I am sorry if bringing these points up makes people uncomfortable.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   

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


You hound the posters you want to respond even when I have answered you, ignore all of my posts, and then state that your claims make people uncomfortable?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


i have read all your posts and pointed out twice that you have answered each of their points... guess deny ignorance isnt in their vocabulary.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
Not surprised, Ron Paul supporters always ignore facts.


And you seem to ignore civilised debate, I have to provided point by point arguments for everything covered here...but we are ignoring things.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


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



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


I know, and thank you. I figure maybe I can get a response eventually... what can i say I am a glutton for punishment, ask my ex-wife.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 



corruption is easier to fight at state and local levels


Ummmm....no....corruption is easier to carry out at the state and local levels.

If I'm looking to bribe someone and I either have the choice of trying to bribe one organization that controls everything...or I have a choice of 50 organizations...I would pick having the system where I could bribe one of 50. The odds are much better that I will find someone.

I think you forget that the States are just as broke as teh Federal Government...they will be more broke when they stop getting funding from the Federal Government to help run their state regulations from EPA and OSHA.

Please try to remember that the EPA and OSHA came into effect because in the past it was up to the States to regulate this stuff...and they failed...so the Federal Government had to step in. In everything that Ron Paul wants to hand over to the States...it is currently in the hands of the Federal Government because the States had failed to do their job.


I love how people say, "Oh, if you end up living in a State that you don't like...then you get to move"
Yes, life is always that simple. Sorry...I'd rather have consistency in my country...not a mash up of 50 different law sets I have to keep track of.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
So typical of any anti-Paul rant, nothing constructive to offer nor other candidate to put forward. I could do the same for any candidate running in this election, Paul included, but fail to see the point in doing so. Perhaps it is Paul's grassroots popularity that puts-off some folks.

However popular he may be Paul is still an underdog with a slim chance of victory. Should he miraculously win this election, will he be a perfect President? Not likely, highly unlikely anyone would. Is there a better candidate running? If so please state his virtues as I would like to consider suitable alternatives. I offer stars and flags to anyone who puts forward another mainstream candidate in this race and offers even mediocre reasons to vote for them.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
Am I allowed to disagree with you?


Of course, this is (mostly) a free country. Can I ask you why you disagree?

Why do you feel a single agency, headed by a single man is enough for thoundsands of miles of territory and hundreds of millions of people?

I would also like to hear your thoughts on the minimum wage.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
[more


I personally believe that the purpose of government is as outlined by the constitution to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common good. If we declaw the governments ability to go after polluters and eliminate a blanket law on workers rights, we are wide open for the kind of abuse we have seen since Reagan to increase a thousand fold. I am for a federal Environmental protection agency. I am for workers protections on the FEDERAL level TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON GOOD as not to be circumvented by just moving to the state most friendly to the labor or environmental abuse a corporation wants to perpetrate. TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, THE POOR AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THE RICH. Thats my position and I am sorry to say its at odds with yours. So I respectfully disagree with you.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
I love how Ron Paul supporters call people "trolls" because they disagree with Ron Paul.

You people need to get it in your head that not everyone has the same beliefs...Ron Paul is not a god and you shouldn't worship his word like he is your cult leader. Ron Paul is not "right" about everything...he has an opinion on how things should work...agreeing with him or disagreeing with him does not make you "right" or "wrong".


For a group of people who say they hate the left/right paradigm...you sure are playing that same game very well. Except instead of left/right...it is Ron Paul/All Others.

The OP made some good points on why he doesn't support Ron Paul. Everything he said is true...Ron Paul does want to do all those things. The OP doesn't agree with them...that is his opinion. If you DO agree with Ron Paul on these issues...that does not make the OP a troll.

Grow up...and lose the ego.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 



he stated that Paul is an isolationist that is utterly false

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


You are trying so hard to derail this thread.

He never claimed those are his reasons for not voting for him. Why don't you try to stay on topic and address those points???



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I love how Ron Paul supporters call people "trolls" because they disagree with Ron Paul.

You people need to get it in your head that not everyone has the same beliefs...Ron Paul is not a god and you shouldn't worship his word like he is your cult leader. Ron Paul is not "right" about everything...he has an opinion on how things should work...agreeing with him or disagreeing with him does not make you "right" or "wrong".


For a group of people who say they hate the left/right paradigm...you sure are playing that same game very well. Except instead of left/right...it is Ron Paul/All Others.

The OP made some good points on why he doesn't support Ron Paul. Everything he said is true...Ron Paul does want to do all those things. The OP doesn't agree with them...that is his opinion. If you DO agree with Ron Paul on these issues...that does not make the OP a troll.

Grow up...and lose the ego.





posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Ummmm....no....corruption is easier to carry out at the state and local levels.


And easier to fight, a massive federal structure is much harder to penetrate, and/or dismantle than a few corrupt individuals. In western TN a fews years back they brought a state judge and the local sheriff up on RICO charges. Many decades to serve for them. Try the same thing with congress or the prez...




If I'm looking to bribe someone and I either have the choice of trying to bribe one organization that controls everything...or I have a choice of 50 organizations...I would pick having the system where I could bribe one of 50. The odds are much better that I will find someone.


The odds are also much better that such corruption would be caught. When the corruption is discovered it would also be much harder for the culprits to exert influence to avoid consequences.


I think you forget that the States are just as broke as teh Federal Government...


Most of the states are broke because of the Federal Government.


In everything that Ron Paul wants to hand over to the States...it is currently in the hands of the Federal Government because the States had failed to do their job.

I think it's safe to say in the last 30 years the Federal Government has failed miserably.


Sorry...I'd rather have consistency in my country


The way I read this it seems you would place ALL power in the FED and abolish state lines... I mean one set of rules right? There is NOT one right way to do things in this world.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The issues that concern me are:

His position on Abortion

He also wants to extend the Bush Tax Cuts and lower the corporate tax rate to 15%. Source

I know abortion is a 'hot button' topic in any election, but it's not abortion per se that I am concerned about. It's privacy and freedom. I will never be in a position to decide on an abortion, so it's not relevant to me, but I am concerned for other women and young girls... Ron Paul has tried to get his "Sanctity of Life Act" passed every recent session, which would give the unborn the legal status of "person", which means it has rights and protections.

" We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval." ~Ron Paul



Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases...


...effectively overturning Roe V Wade, which his website proudly states...



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 



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.


You failed to mention the tax credits he wants to remove that benefit the poor more than the rich. The child tax credit alone is a huge benefit to the middle and lower class...the rich don't care about this...they aren't going to go hungry if they loose this. The OP also clearly stated the elimination of the estate tax and gift tax...which really only benefits the rich.

And sure...a 10% across the board lowers most people's taxes...but then with the elimination of all these tax credits and making it across the board...for a lot of low income people...this increases their taxes.

I agree with the OP on this...Ron Paul's policies appear to benefit the rich. I don't think the rich need any more help.


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?


Yes I do...if the corporations pay them enough I think some state out there will be fine with it. This is just a difference in ideology...you and others place their faith in the State governments....I don't. I think the Federal Government is necessary to oversee and set a minimum set of regulations. States are still able to implement stricter regulations.

So in my opinion, it comes down to either supporting a minimum set of regulations...or supporting a system where it would be allowed for a State to completely drop regulations altogether. In a Country where the all mighty dollar rules...I think it is a dangerous game to have States start to compete for businesses moving to their State by lowering regulations and putting the people of that State in danger.


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.


These are different times. At no time in the past has one organization had the power to pollute and kill an entire ecosystem. That is very possible today.


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.


How much does your State do for you today???






top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join