jordanz

Romney Advisers Helped the White House Draft Health Care Reform

12 posts in this topic

It's indeed unbelievably that people like Romney can run for the GOP. In my opinion, the only person closest to Objectivist values and fighting for true freedom and with integrity is Ron Paul. If I could, if would definitely vote for him! All of the other GOP runners are all puppets of the same status quo, making America less and less free.

What is/are your opinion(s) on Ron Paul? Would you vote for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is/are your opinion(s) on Ron Paul? Would you vote for him?

I would not vote for Ron Paul. His views on foreign policy are an immediate non-starter for me. He is typical of Big L Libertarians (I used to be one) that have only one principal - whatever the government does is bad. Paul is also wiggly regarding abortion rights (and other religious issues) hiding behind States-Rights.

-JZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not vote for Ron Paul. It's a wasted vote for a Republican to save us from yet another Obamaniac term. Or from Hillary, which would be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not vote for Ron Paul. It's a wasted vote for a Republican to save us from yet another Obamaniac term. Or from Hillary, which would be worse.

It's interesting you say that. Why do you think Hillary would be worse? I think her "replacing" Obama as President would be disastrous for America, but why would her tenure be worse than his?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jordanz,

I think we have to agree that we disagree on that one, his foreign policy is one of the things I most like about him. America's foreign policy (which has been policing the world and 'preparing it for democracy') has been very destructive for the cause of freedom among nations, on the contrary, it caused many problems and wars alike. And is the fundamental cause of the American hatred around the world.

About abortion, he wants to leave matter to the states, so pro-lifers can go live in a pro-life state and supporters of abortion rights can live in a state where abortion is legal. I don't see the problem here? This is how the Constitution said it should be done. I agree that abortion should be a woman's right in every state, but this disagreement doesn't convince me to drop my would-be vote for him, considering the major, major flaws the other candidates have.

He is certainly not an anarchist, as you say, he is a supporter of individual freedom protected by the state.

I mean, compare his capitalist economics and pro-personal freedom (e.g. drugs) to the other GOP candidates, sure, Ron Paul isn't perfect, but it is a man with great integrity spreading a message of truth and freedom, a major difference between him and the other GOP candidates and certainly to almost every president since Hoover.

@rgt24,

Do you mean that Ron Paul has zero chance of becoming president? I wouldn't be that pessimistic, he's gaining nation-wide attention and a fast growing fanbase, also, he gets great results in straw polls. I wouldn't minimize his chances that much. And tell me, what other GOP candidate will have a different policy than the non-personal freedom and non-economic freedom policies that Obama and Bush have been using?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Cain just claimed that Greenspan was the best Fed Chairman ever... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not vote for Ron Paul. It's a wasted vote for a Republican to save us from yet another Obamaniac term. Or from Hillary, which would be worse.

It's interesting you say that. Why do you think Hillary would be worse? I think her "replacing" Obama as President would be disastrous for America, but why would her tenure be worse than his?

Obama was a failed academic with not much brains but a nasty streak who through luck, timing and a media storm ended up controlling the country. But his lack of political experience and his stupidity have gotten in the way of his doing as much destruction as he wanted to do, despite having the means to do pretty much whatever his camp wanted with (for at least two years) complete control over everything that votes laws except the Supreme Court (which he has damaged with every addition).

Hillary is a ferociously smart, shrewd, driven communist who has seen the function from very close, is married (whatever that means, in the Clinton couple) to a man who is extremely well connected and was also a very skilled politician, and has an agenda for the country's destruction which she would be able to implement even having lost the House.

I find Hillary scarier than any of the other candidates, just on the basis of her ability. They're all destructive philosophically, but she's the most able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick example:

She has a definite charisma, you can hear the self confidence and drive in her voice, she is saying the right things to get the centre/undecided voters on board. The Hillary supporters I know are much more intensely with her than any Obama supporters (who tend to be undecided student types, the kind of people currently "occupying" a square near Wall Street). And she will take an enormous number of the female vote. I've met some otherwise Republican/right wing women in the US who lose all kind of rationality when Hillary is mentioned and blindly support her "regardless" for "her amazing career" and "all she's done as a woman".

I am almost glad that Obama won in 2008 when the Democrats had far more support, as she would have been much, much more dangerous. We'll see in the Dem primaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites