| If Clinton and Ron Paul were nominated, for whom would you favor? |
|
If Clinton and Ron Paul were nominated, for whom would you favor?
Click to vote
Ask500
|
Login
| If Clinton and Ron Paul were nominated, for whom would you favor? |
|
United States
If you prefer neither, add a comment to that effect but I'm not looking for other alternatives with this question.
If I vote Dem it will be Kucinich but for me it's Ron Paul all the way .... Kucinich being the closest next guy.
At this point...Ron Paul.
I'd say I lean more left than right on most things but I'd say at this time I would be more for Ron Paul.
I appreciate Paul's stance on Iraq, but couldn't bring myself to vote for anyone who believes that personhood begins at conception. Not to mention that he's one of those tedious twits who complains about the supposed "war on our Christian heritage" by wicked "secularists". And then there's his crackpot declaration that "95 percent of black males in [Washington D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and that "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." He's apparently the favorite candidate of David Duke, which would be enough to give me pause right there.
I'm not a Clinton fan, but I'd vote for her over Paul. On reflection, I'd vote for a ham sandwich over Ron Paul.
>> And then there's his crackpot
>> declaration that "95 percent of
>> black males in [Washington D.C.]
>> are semi-criminal or entirely
>> criminal" and that "only about 5
>> percent of blacks have sensible
>> political opinions."
You are a filthy LIAR!!
Ron Paul NEVER said that. This was written in a newsletter but it was not Ron Paul saying this. Still he has profusely apologized for it even thought he didn't write it.
If you want to tell someone that they've been misinformed, in a way that makes you sound in any way trustworthy or civilized, "You are a filthy LIAR!!" is probably not the way. Sheesh, man. Simmer down. Knock off the all-caps and the multiple exclamation marks. They're not attractive, and they make you sound like a LaRouchie.
Well I am sorry if you didn't know about the info i presented. My apologies, I do tend to be high strung when it comes to politics. Simply put, Ron Paul is getting a great deal of success but not on the media where they all ignore him. He gets a lot of attention on the net.
You see, Ron Paul is like JFK, he is fighting the good fight. But the good fight is not the popular fight amongst the elite in Washington and in the special interest groups. This is why they had JFK and his brother and his son killed, because they fear the Kennedy's as they fear Ron Paul.
It's a difficult story to explain to the average person but they will do anything to kill Ron Paul's chances to win the presidency, they won't mention him on the media, they paint him as a racist, they say that his supporters are all computer hackers and so on.....
But I am sorry again for the insults.
Apology accepted. Thanks.
I wonder if a Paul Presidency and a Democratically controlled Congress would balance each other in many ways yet, overall, might reduce the size of government (Paul wants to eliminate bloated departments) and reestablish a rule of law based on a strict interpretation of the constitution. All other social issues might be a draw. Paul's desire to return authority to the States on issues such as religion and abortion would be countered by the a Democratic preference for centralized power. At least American might be pulled back from the brink of the financial, social, and constitutional crises we face today. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but I'm looking for a way to pull back from the edge of the abyss and this governing pair would offer interesting possibilities.
I'm glad that choice is very unlikely. I would hate to vote for Paul, but at least we know what he's thinking, like it or not. Clinton is too too devious.