Consistency in politics?? Can it be true?

[CMP_5.56]

First off, that was 20 years ago. I didn't have the same political priorities 20 years ago as I do today nor was I anywhere near as politically aware then as I am today. Would I vote for him again today. No, I wouldn't. That's the same as the lame-ass talking points people use against Rick Perry's past in support of democrat candidates.

Did you vote for Reagan? I did...twice. He was the first president for which I was old enough to vote. He signed the Mulford Act in 1967. Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of the Brady Bill. Reagan was not a strong gun-rights supporter at all.

Neither was Bush 1. He was responsible for the 1989 import ban.

I voted for both of them and my guess is, you did, too, if you were old enough to vote.

Bush 2 was not a real strong gun-rights president, either. But I voted for him twice. Did you?

So gimme a break with the voting "for a gun grabber" bullshit.

I gave you an instance of Americans, in rather large numbers, voting for a 3rd party candidate because you made the assertion that "nobody" would vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Furthermore, voting records rarely tell the whole story. I'd be cautious about judging a candidate solely on their past voting records. The reason I say that should be obvious if you know how the house/senate works.



I have no problem with that because: 1) I don't need your understanding, and 2) I don't care.

Your so blinded by the whole Ron Paul is the perfect candidate ideology that it doesn't surprise me.

Here are some reasons I don't like Ron Paul:

• He's against the death penalty.
• Mixed feelings on some of his "drugs" and "war on drugs" ideas
• He wants to stop all foreign aid to Israel
• He's against any pre-emptive war
• Wants the US out of Korea and let Koreas "unify".
• He says product safety should not be a condition for continued trade with China. WTF?
• Pretty poor record on pork spending...$4B alone in 2006. How do you reconcile this with his smaller gov and less spending platitudes?
• Voted against the Lawful Protection of Commerce Act. Does that make him anti-gun?
• He's against having "any" troops abroad. That's zero. This is what he said in a "Meet the Press" interview in 2007:

Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now? A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.
Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?
A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense.

• He thinks that illegal immigration results from a poor economy. I think that contributes, but I don't think that's the reason or even the main reason we have an illegal immigrant problem.
• He thinks radical Muslims want to kill Americans because we occupy their lands.
• Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11.
• He believes we went into Iraq under false pretenses of WMD and 9/11. That's bullshit.

To be fair, and I've said it before, there are a lot of things he stands for that I do like. I wouldn't have any problem supporting him should he win the republican nomination because I have sense enough to know there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But I won't support him in the primary. His foreign policy and national security ideas are a deal killer for me as a primary candidate.

First off, I never ensure he was the perfect candidate. I said hewas the only honest one. There is ahuge difference.

I did not vote for Regan, too young. Did not vote for Bush 1, again too young. In 1996 I voted,quite reluctantly for Dole. Voting for the lesser of two evils, which I hated having to do.

I voted for Bush 2 twice, again lesser of two evils. I didnt want hime, but none of the people running against him were worth a shit.

And I voted for McCain, again not because I wanted to, bt out of fear of the other parties man.

I have voted city, county, state since I was 20 and do so at every chance I get. I believe yiu have to fight for the right man at the bottom if you want him the right man on top. I personally made a decision I will no longer vote for someone I can't stand behind. My conscience is more important to me than most I guess. I have never agreed with my final choice of vote. I'm tired of feeling I went against my own morals in my vote.

If Ron Paul doesn't get the nod, and your choice Bachmann gets it, i might be able to live with that. But I will not vote for social healthcare, gun grabbers Romney, nor will I vote for Perry who's track record is spotty at best, refuses to answer where he stands on the 2nd amendment.

The great thing about this country is we can disagree all we want. I know how I feel, and I will vote by my morals of wanting honesty in office.

The point I was trying to make, that most ignored is that most people will vote for either whoever their party tells them, or to put a liar in office instead of a bigger liar. You have helped me prove that, as well as my past voting record has proved that. I for one am willing to change, even though it is not the easy way out.

[Irving]

I think a lot of the things that people think that Ron Paul is against, are actually things that he thinks the Federal government has no business having a hand in. Internet Neutrality and the War on Drugs for example.

[TDYRanger]

government illusion

[CMP_5.56]

government illusion

+1

[CMP_5.56]

I think a lot of the things that people think that Ron Paul is against, are actually things that he thinks the Federal government has no business having a hand in. Internet Neutrality and the War on Drugs for example.

That is exactly how hecsees it. He looks at things from a constitutional stand point, and tginks our governments hands are in far too many things. That is a lot of what I agree with him on, is the fact that the federal government was never supposed to take care of our nations people, the rule of law was meant to do that.

[Bailey Guns]

I personally made a decision I will no longer vote for someone I can't stand behind.

I think eventually you're going to find there are few absolutes. Even choosing not to vote rather than voting for someone with whom you don't entirely agree is a compromise. It's a poor compromise at that.

In my opinion you're far better served by voting for someone who's at least fairly close to sharing your ideals.

I don't care for McCain's politics at all. But casting a vote for McCain was a far better option than not voting at all.

You're going to have to realize at some point that there is no perfect candidate and we don't have a perfect system. I don't like it either. But right now, it's part of the system we have and it's the best in the world.

For argument's sake, let's say the republicans share a very narrow margin in the house and senate over democrats. Obama is re-elected in a replay of what happened in 92 due to a minor 3rd party candidate taking away votes from the R candidate. We get stuck with 4 more years of bullshit.

Alternatively, people who think like you and I (for the most part) are realistic rather than idealistic and vote for the R candidate and Obama is defeated. Now we have a R house, senate and president.

Out of those scenarios, which do you think is going to benefit your political preferences most?

For me, it's the 2nd scenario.

I would love to see our system evolve to the point we have more than 2 viable parties. It isn't there yet so you play with what we have.

Being idealistic is one thing. Being realistic is another.

At this point in the game, the place to start voting for 3rd party candidates is locally.

[roberth]

I think eventually you're going to find there are few absolutes. Even choosing not to vote rather than voting for someone with whom you don't entirely agree is a compromise. It's a poor compromise at that.

In my opinion you're far better served by voting for someone who's at least fairly close to sharing your ideals.

I don't care for McCain's politics at all. But casting a vote for McCain was a far better option than not voting at all.

You're going to have to realize at some point that there is no perfect candidate and we don't have a perfect system. I don't like it either. But right now, it's part of the system we have and it's the best in the world.

For argument's sake, let's say the republicans share a very narrow margin in the house and senate over democrats. Obama is re-elected in a replay of what happened in 92 due to a minor 3rd party candidate taking away votes from the R candidate. We get stuck with 4 more years of bullshit.

Alternatively, people who think like you and I (for the most part) are realistic rather than idealistic and vote for the R candidate and Obama is defeated. Now we have a R house, senate and president.

Out of those scenarios, which do you think is going to benefit your political preferences most?

For me, it's the 2nd scenario.

I would love to see our system evolve to the point we have more than 2 viable parties. It isn't there yet so you play with what we have.

Being idealistic is one thing. Being realistic is another.

At this point in the game, the place to start voting for 3rd party candidates is locally.

Excellent post Bailey Guns. Idealism vs realism.

Ron Paul can afford to be consistent and ideological, he'll never get the GOP nomination so he has nothing to lose.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan but he has the top-rated cable news show in the country, by a fairly substantial margin. Hannity is almost 3/4 of a million viewers behind and he's second.

Ron Paul, who's constantly whining about getting snubbed by the media, just turned down an appearance on O'Reilly's show because, he said, "O'Reilly isn't much of a journalist."

I think it's pretty ridiculous to complain about not getting exposure when the number 1 show, with almost 3 million viewers nightly, asks you on and you decline.

Time for Paul to find another scapegoat.

[Pancho Villa]

The reason Paul doesn't have a chance is because the American people don't agree with his policies.

Paul is a free-marketer. If you think conservatives are pro-free market, I have a bridge i Brooklyn to sell you. Conservatives are for marginally less government involvement in the economy as compared to liberals, but they are nowhere near free market. Look at Perry's long list of "public-private partnerships" - thats fascism, not capitalism.

[Bailey Guns]

The reason Paul doesn't have a chance is because the American people don't agree with his policies.

Yes.

Paul is a free-marketer. If you think conservatives are pro-free market, I have a bridge i Brooklyn to sell you. Conservatives are for marginally less government involvement in the economy as compared to liberals, but they are nowhere near free market. Look at Perry's long list of "public-private partnerships" - thats fascism, not capitalism.

Disagree with your assessment of conservatives. Conservatives are definitely pro-free market and for much smaller government.

I think your description accurately describes neo-conservatives.

True conservatives and classical liberals have a lot in common.