Please give your reasoning on why you voted the way you did.

There are a number of things I agree with Ron Paul on, but there is no chance he will win the nomination. While I don't like the idea of being as involved internationally as we are, I find his opinion on the matter too isolationist for my liking.

There are a number of things I agree with Ron Paul on, but there is no chance he will win the nomination. While I don't like the idea of being as involved internationally as we are, I find his opinion on the matter too isolationist for my liking.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

There are a number of things I agree with Ron Paul on, but there is no chance he will win the nomination. While I don't like the idea of being as involved internationally as we are, I find his opinion on the matter too isolationist for my liking.

 

Exactly my thoughts.

 

Just a few questions if you don't mind answering them:

 

Are his foreign policies really so extreme that it makes you unable to vote for him? Do you agree with another candidate on more issues than you do with Ron Paul? Do you trust another candidate enough to follow through with what they're saying? Do you trust Ron Paul to?

 

I really think a lot of people are exaggerating how isolationist his policies are. That's JMO on the matter though.

I think that if enough people are exposed to his message and truly take the time to listen to him, then he can win the GOP nomination.

 

If he wins the GOP, I'd really like to see his debates with Obama. It's possible he could win over enough support to win the whole thing.

Related: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/ron-paul-could-win-105810338.html

If you believe, unbelievable things can sometimes be possible.

 

I forget who said that. :idunno:

 

I wouldn't rule anything out these days.

I like Ron Paul. He strikes me as a guy that like to say, "Back in the good old days." A lot of what he wants to do was good stuff 40 or 50 years ago.

I like Ron Paul. He strikes me as a guy that like to say, "Back in the good old days." A lot of what he wants to do was good stuff 40 or 50 years ago.

 

Such as?

There are a number of things I agree with Ron Paul on, but there is no chance he will win the nomination. While I don't like the idea of being as involved internationally as we are, I find his opinion on the matter too isolationist for my liking.

 

Non-interventionism. Some say it's splitting hairs, I disagree. He doesn't believe in intervening with the military without a cause for war (Declaration of War). You still maintain diplomacy and trade with countries. Many of you will disagree, but I agree with Paul when he discusses how our foreign policies advocates the trouble we have with the Middle-East.

These are directly from his website, I will comment as we go.

 

 

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority. I think this is a good idea, but lack of details are problematic.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks. This sounds good, but again it is too general for my liking. "Constitutional means" could use some clarification as well.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act. I have no issue with this at all, I am against the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight. I, in general, have no love for nation building however if we are the reason that the nation needs to be rebuilt, we probably ought to stay involved to ensure stability and potential allies in the region.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged. I actually agree with this. Giving the President authorization to use troops give Congress the ability to wash their hands of things in order to further their own goals while absolving themselves of potential ramifications in the ballot box.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home. Again no issues here.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return. See above.

* Revitalize the military for the 21^st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget. Eliminating WASTE is good, potentially gutting useful programs is not.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency. Torn on this one simply on account of potential terrorist action.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid. I don't 100% agree with this either, simply because sometimes to need allies in a region and for better or for worse dictators are sometimes necessary allies.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected. This part is just fluff.

 

 

I also seem to recall at one time, I could be misremembering here, that Paul called for us to close our overseas bases. This is something I wholly disagree with. The need to project power across the globe could spring up at anytime and while the USN does an excellent job in projecting power, it is nice to have forward bases and staging areas as needed for such things.

 

I agree with him on most things, I always have. I also think that he does not do a good job (much like his son) of preventing people as portraying him as a fringe looney.

He looks to be in great shape in Iowa. He's in a stalking second there. If he or the other candidates can chip away at Newt enough he could win it. He might even win it due to his having a superior organization there, which is very important for the caucus style voting. This is something Newt apparently lacks and might cause him to come up short even if leading polls. Winning Iowa would be a huge boost and make him a "front runner" automatically, which would give him the legitimacy that comes along with it. There are many who still think of him as a token candidate. On the other hand, he's not polling nearly as well nationally or in the other states. That might suggest he will falloff after Iowa, either because his campaign isn't as good in other states, or Iowa is some sort of bizarre outlier. So, I don't know, but I suppose that he certainly can win if he wins in Iowa, but even then he would have a tough path to the nomination. I'd wager on him if I got longshot odds, otherwise I would stay away.

The GOP is an absolute mess right now and I think they are desperately looking for someone not-Romney to nominate. Even though it's dying down some, the Tea Party is still a legitimate sect of the GOP and nobody is loved more than Mr. Paul. I think if there were ever a year for Paul to come away with it, then it's this year. So yes, I do think it's possible albeit, still a longshot.

 

 

P.S. Many people, including some on this board thought I was crazy when I said Rand Paul had a good chance at the US Senate seat. We know what happened there. Just to be clear I'm putting his chances WAY less than Rand's.

 

P.S.S. Obama would KILL him in the General Election, but the debates would be awesome.

I agree with him on most things, I always have. I also think that he does not do a good job (much like his son) of preventing people as portraying him as a fringe looney.

 

He is awful at this. Same thing plagues Gatewood in Kentucky.

The GOP is an absolute mess right now and I think they are desperately looking for someone not-Romney to nominate. Even though it's dying down some, the Tea Party is still a legitimate sect of the GOP and nobody is loved more than Mr. Paul. I think if there were ever a year for Paul to come away with it, then it's this year. So yes, I do think it's possible.

 

 

P.S. Many people, including some on this board thought I was crazy when I said Rand Paul had a good chance at the US Senate seat. We know what happened there.

 

P.S.S. Obama would KILL him in the General Election, but the debates would be awesome.

 

I go back and forth on that one. I think he says a lot of commonsense things most people have been clamoring for. He's always consistent and rarely comes across as a politician. He could very easily bridge the ideological divide as well - some will be intrigued by his libertarianism on civil liberties, while others will be by his economic libertarianism. If Obama is weak enough, that could make him very viable. On the other hand, it would be much easier to portray him as an extremist in the general where far less people pay attention, and even those who do pay attention may be leery of pulling the lever for a complete and drastic departure from the status quo. However, suffice it to say that he would perform better against Obama that about 3/4 of the rest of the field.