Picking a Candidate Based on Your View of the ISSUES

My views

Taxes. Hate em. Don't want to pay em. The IRS sux.

Mexicans. Like em. Never met an ******* mexican, or a lazy mexican. I deal with ******* americans and lazy americans all day long every day. Still think the mexican should pay taxes though so I can pay less.

Abortion. Why is this an issue for a presidential candidate? This is the most idiotic thing to base a vote on in my opinion.

The War. Pull em out, let the towel heads figure their own mess out. If they flare up, nuke em. This should save me taxes as well.

Health care. I think this should be free for everyone.

Social Security. Get rid of it. It won't be there for me anyway because we have retards managing the program. Must come up with a new plan though.

Education. Need more of it.

Gay Rights. To hell with the homos. lets make them go to mexico and keep the good working friendly mexicans.

National security. Blah Blah Blah. Stop pissing people off by trying to police the world and we wont need it.


Which candidate fits my views most? I'm starting to think Ron Paul but he doesn't have much of a chance I'm afraid. None of them agrees with me fully, so I may just have to run myself.

 

Ron Paul, for the most part. It's funny how many people I've heard that really like him, and then say, "but he doesn't have a chance." Seems strange to me that so many people like him, but he still is perceived as not having a chance.

Free health care? Who would pay for it? Other countries or something? There's no free lunch.

 

Well, I do not associate myself with either party, But I don't think he will get the republican nomination. Then he would have to run as a libertarian. I don't think he can win it as either one though. I think Hillary all but has this one wrapped up.

And on the Health care thing, yeah it won't happen, but i bet we could have fixed a bunch of runny noses with the 467 billion we have spent on the war so far. :grin: That is one thing that I wouldn't mind paying a little tax for. I guess then it wouldn't really be free though would it.:grin:

 

Ron Paul has a chance, but he has a lot of ground to make up. The system has chosen front-runners who don't rock the boat much, but the strides Paul has made with little help from the media are impressive and point to a realistic chance to win. I don't believe there is a candidate, republican or democrat, that could beat him in a face to face debate (though most debates have audiences full of support for the front runners which slant crowd reaction in their favor).

I've donated money to Paul's campaign, something I've never done before. I'm switching from independent to republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries. I believe in what he says so much more than what the rest of the field says that I want to do as much as I can to support the guy. I truly believe it is what is best for the country and that if you don't do all you can to get Ron Paul elected you are selling your country short.

Clinton has huge name recognition, but were the media to give Ron Paul more airtime I think the truth he speaks would start to cure the indifference of many Americans.

 

Ron Paul as NO chance. Right or wrong the guy wont even be a blip on the radar come election time. He's a UFO.

 

The more I read about Ron Paul the less I like him. He does not practice his libertarian ideals in Congress.

 

Same views, new election! Fact is when there is nothing but a handfull of air to vote for you CAN make a differance. Write in whomever you want. During both Bush campaigns I wrote in Ted Nugent. George won BUT at least I tried!
Geaux Ted. :thumb:

 

Of all the candidates who have "no chance", I really believe Paul has the best chance. I wouldn't be backing him if he was as minor as the rest of the guys. Raising the amount of money he did in one day with no help from the media is impressive. Don't rock the boat guys like Ghouliani get lots of steam by not rocking the boat in their party and then get the lion's share of the media spotlight.

Such as voting for pork projects? He totally opposes taxation but has taken the stance that if they are going to take it from his constituents, he'll ask for it back.

I saw a website criticize him for not supporting compromise legislation, but I'd have to read what he didn't compromise on to agree. What's your problems with him specifically? I'd like to find more unflattering stuff about him so I can form a more realistic opinion. Almost everything I read is complimentary, besides how his supporters are crazy and how he has no chance.

On a side note, I'd like to say that how a candidate presents his case is important. In every debate I've seen, Ron Paul's argument has made more sense and seemed more principled than anything the major candidates have said.

 

[/QUOTE]

I think that is a cop out. His standard practice is to earmark pork on a bill that is going to pass then vote against it so he can say he never voted for an increase in spending. His argument that not earmarking increases the power of the executive branch is really weak as well.

I read something about in order to prevent tarriffs he voted for subsidies for Texas shrimpers. That goes completely against the small government pro trade ideals he proclaims.

I was intrigued by Ron Paul, and would have considered voting for him. After looking at his voting record and his political maneuvers I saw what he was. The man is a politician who talks an appealing game, but does not practice what he preaches.