Ron Paul's approach to politics if given the chance at the presidency would ensure a diverse representation of people would be given a voice in the process. The Ron Paul campaign has its finger on the pulse of the youth of this nation and knows that the environment is a big issue. But lets be honest here, the environment is going to stay in peril if we continue to elect people compromised by lobbyists in the District of Criminals. Now, I dont know why his campaign hasnt tried to formulate a more visible platform on his environmental strategies. But I canalmost assure you that if he gets into office, people whose priority is the environment will find an open door and open mind when it comes to Ron Paul. I think that there may be a little more than meets the eye on some of his votes for or against "environmental" legislation. Lets face it people, it will be easier to win over some of the other "less informed" voters in this country with a candidate like Ron Paul, than someone like Kucinich....its just a reality. The message of freedom and states rights resonates with more people than peace love and saving the whales, while all of these are dear to my heart, I am very sorry to say are not first and foremost in the hearts of our average voters.
i used some of those candidate-voter matching things online and i kept coming up with Kucinich. i'll have to learn more about him.
Small government and environmental protection seem to me to be mutually exclusive. If the free market prevails, the planet is screwed-just look to China.
Yeah, because what better way to protect the environment than with massive bureaucracy. After all, the government really cares and wants us all to breathe clean air.
Well, the biggest threat to the environment, at least coming from the U.S., is for everybody in the country to keep driving at least one gas-guzzling vehicle, and then to invade other countries to gain control of their oil so that we can keep filling those gas tanks. Ron Paul is certainly against that (invading other countries, that is). If we weren't so secure of having an unlimited supply of oil that we get at the point of a gun, then we might actually have to do what most of the rest of the civilized world has done: to develop more clean, efficient public transportation systems so that people can actually get around without having to spew pollution into the air most of their waking hours like folks down here in Texas do. I don't think that Bush, Cheney, and their buddies in the oil industry will ever allow someone like Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination, much less get elected. I hope I'm wrong. But I will vote for Ron Paul anyway-he deserves all the support he can get.
Well, China certainly doesn't have small government, at least the last time I checked. China has both a booming free market and a huge government, and still has a big pollution problem.
...there is not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Party. You're no less of a koolaid drinker than those who vote only Republican... Well, both advocate a political system based on meritocracy, so yeah, in an overly-broad (IMO) sense, they're much the same. Both claim to believe in a House and Senate and Supreme Court, for instance (though Republicans generally believe that the president has absolute authority over those three institutions). Results, however, differ greatly. To an extreme. Under the rule of today's Republicans, we seen major cities obliterated with chemical weapons (e.g. Fallujah), thousands of our own citizens deliberately left undefended (9/11), millions of people's lives completely destroyed (millions of homes destroyed in Iraq, millions homeless, millions that have fled their own country), hundreds of thousands of them killed in a needless war based on outright fraud and forgery, we've seen literally trillions of our tax dollars committed to a permanent war, and we've seen our Constitution turned into nothing more than a historic relic that has no legal force whatsoever. Republicans are now the world's most stubborn advocates of torture and summary execution, and of Hitler's approach to foreign policy: go forth and attack nations that might someday generations from now become capable of building ships and planes to scare us. If Ron Paul didn't call himself a Republican, I might consider his ideas. But I won't. Nor will I consider supporting a "nice Nazi" or a "good Klansman." The party declaration says it all, and it says "lie, invade, privatize, steal, and threaten to get your way." We'll be lucky if we don't get Giuliani for the next 8 or (given his refusal to step down as mayor when his term ended) 12 or 20 or 40 years. As a practical matter, I'll happily vote democrat, and though they're not perfect, they certainly are perfect when compared with Republicans.
Your comments about not considering his ideas because he calls himself a Republican just prove that you are as close minded as the media and mainstream political candidates hope you are. To say he might just be a "nice" Republican but maintaining that he is guilty by association is a fallacy. It is documented in his voting record that he does not follow party lines. Ever heard of enacting change from the inside? You should study the origins of Republicanism, it is based in anti federalism and the Jeffersonian school of democracy, not as you say lies, invasion, etc...which is most certainly where the Bush administration and others before it (democratic too) have taken it. The biggest threat we are facing besides a nation divided is the people on both sides regardless of party affiliation who meet in secret and, to quote Johnny Cash, "work in the dark against their fellow man." If you told me a couple of years ago that I would be supporting a Republican, I would not have known what to say. The Republican party was hijacked long ago and twisted. Anyway, just arguing such details lends creedence to the validity of a narrow two party system. It is time to get past that and construct our own new reality, if we dont, our freedom and liberty will soon become a thing of the past. Ron Paul is not our Republic's savior, but the ideas and attitudes he is inspiring are a great place to start. Lets give the man some respect and moral support. (sheepish-if he's not a neocon plant-sheepish)
you know, you don't influence people by being an asshole. Just more evidence that all Republicans are assholes. It's no wonder they get off on killing Iraqi civilians.
Your comments about not considering his ideas because he calls himself a Republican just prove that you are as close minded as the media and mainstream political candidates hope you are. No, "Republican" as a designation has a very specific meaning. It means that you have set aside honest debate, will lie to start wars, will lie to profit from those wars, and will casually throw away millions of lives for your busines associates, and will say whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals with no lie being too outrageous. From the Swift Boaters to Dick Cheney, there's simply no limit to what they will do to keep this war going, and Ron Paul is a member of the organization that's pulling it off, and you can bet your life that he'll be just another George W. Bush. I guarantee you Ron Paul would escalate all these Republican wars if elected- it's what Republicans do. As a rule. Without exception. Forget their history, they were once a legit political party, but they are not anymore.
The thing is, I am not a Republican. I don't even vote. I was just responding to your idiotic statements. And don't worry, Hillary won't end the war. She voted for it. Ron Paul didn't.
You are extremely uninformed. Ron Paul is against everything 99% of modern-day Republicans stand for. You are a typical brainwashed, bleeding heart idiot, and you really have no clue whatsoever. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both warmongers. If you were the least bit informed -- which you're not because you're brainwashed -- you would know that Ron Paul is the only truly anti-war candidate running (with the exception of maybe Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel). So go ahead and vote Hillary. The Clintons and Bushes are like peas in a pod.
Oh, and just remember, Bush wouldn't be able to do half the unconstitutional stuff he's done if it wasn't for Democrats rolling over for him. How brainwashed are you? You honestly believe that people like Hillary and Pelosi are against Bush? They were elected to end the war, you dolt! What has changed? Pelosi vowed from the start to not seek impeachment for her buddy George. You need to wake up! You are every bit as brainwashed and uninformed as the Bush worshippers. It's because of people like you this country is going to hell in a handbasket.
Ron Paul is against everything 99% of modern-day Republicans stand for. Simple solutions exist, then. He could join another party, form his own, or run as an independent. Let his positions speak for themselves. But he doesn't- his allegiance is to his party first, and he's just saying whatever shit he has to in order to (he thinks) to get elected. Ron Paul is the only truly anti-war candidate running He says he is. But we know Republicans better than that by now. At least most of us do. My vote will be for Kucinich, unless he drops out before Ohio. The thing is, I am not a Republican. Then would you please stop defending those pieces of shit? Hillary won't end the war. She voted for it. Actually she voted to give Bush the authority to take act, in case Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors into the country- which I agreed with at the time. Recall that Saddam had (years before) stores of chemical and biological weapons, volumes so extreme that the numbers are higher than human brains can even conceive of (the Federation of American Scientists documented it quite well, and have thousands of supporting documents on their web site). I did support efforts to get peacemakers in there to find out for sure if we were looking at a crisis. Thanks to those efforts, we found out for SURE that there was no reason to go to war. Ahead of time. Bush didn't permit a vote then, of course, he just wanted to play general. But thanks to Clinton and others were now at least know for SURE that there was no just reason for this war, and had there not been a vote to push for the inspections, they might have gotten away with falsely claiming to have found WMDs. Because if they could have pulled that off, they would have, but the weapons inspectors were extremely thorough, and there's just no debate about it. That might not be the case had weapons inspectors not examined EVERY site. And had congress voted the other way, do you really think that would have stopped the Republicans from starting this war? Of course not. I can see how people could misunderstand it as a "vote for war," but that's over-simplifying it to the point that it's simply not true. Bush wouldn't be able to do half the unconstitutional stuff he's done if it wasn't for Democrats rolling over for him. Well, the Republicans had total control of both houses and all related committees and subcommittees, and of the entire spying infrastructure, and the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the courts, not to mention the Justice Department itself, once considered independent, but which is now just another wing of The Party. And Republicans control Fox News, CNN, and most other mainstream media sources. It's only very recently that they've gotten back some House seats, but the Republicans still have the Senate (via Lieberman who stays dem only to fuck our party over, and recall that Dick Cheney can vote in the Senate to break a tie). We are nowhere close to removing The Party from the courts, the justice system, the intelligence-gathering parts of government- we're still a minority party with very little power to do jack shit, and the Republicans still run Justice and the Ministry of Propaganda. I wish it was otherwise, and will vote accordingly. It will take at least two full Clinton terms just to root out the problems that the Republicans have planted in every corner of our society. You honestly believe that people like Hillary and Pelosi are against Bush? I'm sure of it. Neither has much ability to do anything that matters, at least not until we elect a shitload more dems. The DOJ has been shown to have knowingly filed false charges against people to shut them up. They could be held as enemy combatants, legally, should they irritate Bush too much. The Republican Party has declared it so. The behavior of mainstream Republicans should have killed that party forever, and I mean right into the trashcan of history. I won't even vote for a Republican if they run unopposed. Until that party is wiped off the dirty face of this land, we really don't have much in the way of a future to hope for. There are plenty of dems that I don't like, but the difference in honesty between Dems and Repubs is extreme. There's simply no chance- not one goddamned chance in HELL- that a Democratic President, with both houses packed full of dems- could ever attack this country like the Republicans do literally every day. Bottom line: the only good Republican is a fucking dead one. After a "fair trial" obviously. All the above is my honest and true opinion, and I've been paying close attention. I could be wrong. But I certainly will never cast a vote for a Republican no matter what bullshit he tries to lay on us.
Look, you dont get a media platform to discuss peace and doctrines on non aggression by running as a third party candidate. Sure you dont agree with Republicans and believe they should all be shot but you apparently want positive change. Whats so bad about Ron Paul standing up for this, regardless of which forum he chooses to do it in? Ron Paul just another GW Bush? What fucking planet do you live on? I've met the guy and asked him questions he certainly is more sincere, principled, and articulate than that sub human some like to call our commander in chief. You know, maybe he is just saying what he says to pander to certain types of undecided voters, but until a better, mor viable choice emerges, my choice is Ron Paul. And if you think Kucinich is a viable choice then the "left" is even more delusional than I thought. I HATE current republican party doctrines and every bit of cronyist corruption they stand for, but Ron Paul does not appear to have a stake in that whole game so what do you honestly stand to lose by supporting the guy? As far as his environmental record goes I cant answer for his votes on certain items, but Im sure if he is elected he will allow a very wide variety of vioces to be heard and to influence his policy making, if not his very same supporters will run him out of office. Unlike the vast majority of other candidates, Ron Paul agknowledges that we are in this situation together and he believes every person's voice counts.Unlike all of the turd sandwiches and douchebags playing partisan politics with our country, our futures, and our very lives being at stake. Peace and freedom!!
Right on, evsride, I'm with you man, and you might be right about Kucinich, but I won't lose hope till after the primaries. At this point I think partisan politics is counter productive, and while I agree the Republican platform tends to represent all of what I oppose, I know a few Republicans, and even they can't stand Bush/Cheney. Those fools are a disgrace to the Republican party, as is Giuliani, etc., but a lot of the Democrats suck as well, so if it comes down to a vote between Ron Paul and, say, Hillary, the best choice seems obvious.
"I know a few Republicans, and even they can't stand Bush/Cheney." Yeah... But no matter which Republican candidate appears on the final Presidential Ballot- no matter how reprehensible an individual it might be, or how strongly they supported what Bush/Cheney did- they will vote for that Republican candidate. I think the next election will be a close one, and that nearly all of the Bush voters of 2004 will put new stuffing in their eyes and ears, and will yet again vote Republican. I hope I'm wrong.
