Romney

[RickD]

Rick, even though I'm a Southern boy, I spend a lot of time in MA, RI and CT. My wife it from CT and my SIL lives in Springfield, MA. Interestingly, I see conservative values erupting up there, guessing as a long-overdue backlash to many years of liberal social views and heavy taxation. The older Catholics up there are really awakening politically - they now realize what liberalism is taking from them and their country. But I get upset and concerned when I see mere pragmatic and only fiscal conservatism - without a heart for people truly in need. Being socially conservative also should have a heart for helping people, albeit in the right ways to truly help, and to not build even more dependencies. I lot of fiscal conservatives despise minorities and think the ills of most poor people are all self-induced. Many are self-induced, but certainly not all. And true conservative leadership is finding a way to help people help themselves, where they can, and more so where they cannot.

Philip, Massachusetts is kinda weird. On one hand, there is a huge Catholic population, which, by nature, is conservative. On the other hand, the unions run the state. Many lifelong union democrats seem to be switching sides. The Scott Brown election is one instance that comes to mind.

[Philip]

Ron Paul is the candidate that best represents Christia views. Why is he so scary?

In my opinion, he is a pragmatic Libertarian who doesn't see the reality of danger behind the motives of people or nations. His naivete about the threat of Iran to the Middle East and world, as well as its danger to our ally Israel, could turn out to be catastrophic for all concerned. His reducing defense issues down to pure economics, to want to decimate our armed services down to a tiny fraction of what it is - just to save money and as a way to cut off (and sometimes necessary) foreign involvements - so very naive and dangerous.

He has a Libertarian view that laws to encourage/discourage certain behaviors are a waste of time and enforcement costs. Drug war: just eliminate the criminal laws concerning drug users and it would just stop the crime and save billions. Yep, and then we'd have to legalize distribution - which would mean easy access to drugs and the quickening of millions of more addicts to untold substances. Crazy and stupid.

He obviously is - or at least was - a racist. He disingenuously claims racist articles long written in his own fund-raising newsletters were not written by him. To believe that, one would have to be very naive. He's either lying about not writing them himself and/or that he didn't know about these articles. So he's likely lying AND he's incompetent, not in control and scrutinizing his own newsletter - that brought in lots of money, by the way.

He's both unelectable and dangerous. If he runs as an independent: 1) He knows he can't win and 2) His ego is so huge that he'd rather shake up the Republican Party than to assure Obama not getting a second term. Scary.

All of these, collectively, make Paul unelectable - he's perhaps the least of all of those running that might have a chance to unseat Obama. And young people, especially, are gonna see him as a cranky old man.

Other than that, I like him.

[wrain62]

In my opinion, he is a pragmatic Libertarian who doesn't see the reality of danger behind the motives of people or nations. His naivete about the threat of Iran to the Middle East and world, as well as its danger to our ally Israel, could turn out to be catastrophic for all concerned. His reducing defense issues down to pure economics, to want to decimate our armed services down to a tiny fraction of what it is - just to save money and as a way to cut off (and sometimes necessary) foreign involvements - so very naive and dangerous.

Foriegn involvement... most of the conflicts it caused were not fitting with the Christian philosophy of the just war, most motivated by government special intrest instead of true morality, most not worth the lives lost on both sides. The money cost is a peripherial issue. The more we make countries into monsters the more we alienate them and cause foriegn resentment. Isreal has 300 nukes they are capable. We got to respect the sovereignty of other nations and not police them. Other countries can view us as a danger requiring foreign invovlement it does not give them the right to invade. Acting on these preemptive strategies is abusive and gives a bad name to our foriegn involvement, and it creates more dangers. Unless a war is UN sponsored like Korea(the world wars would have been too) it is not naive it to be repulsed by these US conflicts that serve greed more than defense. The military votes for him overwhemingly. Many times our foreign aid comes with strings attached which makes countries more suzerain than sovereign.

He has a Libertarian view that laws to encourage/discourage certain behaviors are a waste of time and enforcement costs. Drug war: just eliminate the criminal laws concerning drug users and it would just stop the crime and save billions. Yep, and then we'd have to legalize distribution - which would mean easy access to drugs and the quickening of millions of more addicts to untold substances. Crazy and stupid.

On his stance on the drug war, he calls for the federal government to step down and make these the decision of the state. We have to view addicts as people who need help more than criminals. Ending the war on drugs just means stop puting people in prison for weed not legalize distribution. Of course the law should stop minors from aquiring drugs and that is the sensitive spot of addiction creation.

He obviously is - or at least was - a racist. He disingenuously claims racist articles long written in his own fund-raising newsletters were not written by him. To believe that, one would have to be very naive. He's either lying about not writing them himself and/or that he didn't know about these articles. So he's likely lying AND he's incompetent, not in control and scrutinizing his own newsletter - that brought in lots of money, by the way.

If he is a liar and incompetent then it would follow that more examples of such attitudes would be more apparent. His strong promise(repeal War on Drugs and pardon non violent weed related convicts in prison) stands in stark contrast of the goal of a racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fl0vy44 ... re=related

Even if you are right about his past here is a man who assumes his alledged past and still vouches for Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrM6R5fyzqA

An old guy that call for this pardon of non criminal weed smokers does not make look like a cranky old man.

He is prolife. Consistent on his views. Anti-torture. Obama has been dishonest on his promises and Romney is just another status quo president. Ron Paul is a Christian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9v ... re=related

[Philip]

wrain62, I agree that foreign entanglements must be weighed with great care, that we've stumbled foolishly into wars. But Paul isn't just talking about those, he's talking about a tremendously down-sized military, which would be very foolish. Usually after his pronouncement of such radical changes, he eagerly ties them to economic savings. No, we don't need to be the world's policeman, and neither can we afford it. But in today's very dangerous world, to DRASTICALLY reduce the size of our military is a very bad idea. Paul believes that only a THIRD of the present military budget is necessary. A THIRD?!!! Really? Wow. That's crazy and extremely foolish. He would end ALL foreign aid to Israel. He casually dismisses and diminishes the threats of countries like Iran, China and Russia. These are more dangerous views than even Obama holds.

Drug war: Yes, a much greater emphasis on treatment would be smart. But drugs have to be either legal or illegal. If they become legal, they can then be sold, imported and used. Take the legal teeth out of the drug war, and you will provide MUCH more easy access to drugs. Legal drugs become much cheaper ones. Millions who wouldn't risk the legal ramifications of doing drugs would do so if 1) they wouldn't risk jail and 2) they were abundantly available without the hassle and sleaze social stigma they have now. You make something legal and increase it's availability (and thus making it much cheaper) and you will see addiction rates explode! But I would agree we need to look at our drug sentencing laws for use and possession and how that is balanced appropriately with treatment programs.

That Paul is STILL lying about those newsletters is very disconcerting, regardless as to what his racial views might be today. Whether HE wrote them or not, he definitely knew about their content and approved their release. He vetted every word, I'm sure. Obama and co would kill Paul on that issue - on some level it'll be his Jeremiah Wright.

Paul has some great ideas and he is very right about our current rush towards economic suicide. But, especially, factoring in his dangerous views on defense and threats like Iran and Russia, means that there are better choices in leaders.

Lastly, Paul is absolutely unelectable. He's the candidate, you have Obama II. If conservatives have such fears of him on issues like defense, just watch Obama track conservative and embrace a strong military during the campaign, and we'll easily end up with Obama II. Economically, Paul's preaching to the choir. To younger people, especially those liberal, he's gonna come off like a cranky old man. He runs third party, we have Obama II. Simple as that.

I don't have a favorite candidate in the race. Disappointing choices.

[wrain62]

Say our military is reduced. If it be neccessary to start the arsenal of democracy when it is needed then so be it. Having a small military does not mean we cannot fight, especially when we start producing for an absolutely neccessary war. Look at WW2 as an example, our military was not that big before the war and we were great at starting the arsenal. If I am drafted, then I will be glad to fight for a just war. It is stupid to maintain a huge army during a time of diplomacy, unless you think that war with Iran is absolutly inevitable and even so. When you say that Ron Paul is still lying what you are really critisizing is his morality, but then you call him naive for strongly attempting to settle real moral issues like fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan and failure of diplomacy because of special interest(and torture, abortion, racial tendency in conviction) it does not make sense. His position on the drug war helps minorities. His position on the wars helps minorities. You may say that reducing welfare helps but then again by focusing on the long economic crisis he will increase the size of the middle class without having to increase dept. I guess the other candidates are a whole lot better even if they wont execute that way. The libertarian ideal of the state started with Christianity and it gives the Church a special role as well. He is only unelectable if everyone thinks so, it is not set in stone.

In terms of the drug war, should we not do drugs because they will land us in jail, or should we not do them because they are actually unhealthy? When the government treats so many as criminals it does not make the landscape anymore moral. In fact it increases resentment and worsens conditions in prisons.

[Philip]

Wrain, you can't ratchet up and down military size QUICKLY ENOUGH, nor its related spending and technology initiatives that appropriate defense is dependent upon. A military has to be ready at all times for POTENTIAL troubles, you can't just wait until a war or threat is upon you. We must stay at the ready, but also not blunder into things. But again, its not that we might shouldn't shrink our military , but to cut our spending and thus readiness BY A THIRD? I don't think so.

Paul is naive about military issues because of what he has said and pooh-poohed about contemporary threats. He doesn't seem to recognize that fanatics only understand brute force. They laugh at diplomacy (it's only a tool for them) and don't just think rationally and respond to rational initiatives. I don't trust anyone who wants to so radically cut defense spending. Plus, let's say we cut such spending and a few years of no real threats. You can guarantee that the savings on military would have by then long been claimed for other causes. By that point, if a major threat APPEARED to be on the horizon, you can bet getting the necessary spending appropriated to prepare for that potential will not be quick in coming. Again, you can't just flip a switch and be prepared militarily. It doesn't work like that.

Paul's libertarian views have mostly to do with freedom for the individual to do whatever, whenever, as long as it doesn't negatively impact others - so, morally speaking, it expects sinful behaviors, but leaves those to each individual to decide upon - it's not concerned with "sins," and thinks we should not worry about what our brother or neighbor does. But our brother and neighbor don't have to hurt us directly, but collectively they can hurt far more. And Paul strongly ties and justifies his Libertarianism through economic savings (of letting people do as they want and downsizing our military). But you can't just reduce the potential damage to society and a nation ONLY to a savings of the (once) mighty dollar. And Libertarianism has nothing to do with Christianity, and in fact, as a political movement, it's roots are basically in the early 20th century, although threads of it go back earlier.

Paul's spending and enforcement position on the drug war will definitely lead to much more addiction - minorities and ALL! Not saying every drug user needs jail - perhaps most mere users don't. And I might could even go for a decriminalization for just users (certainly first time ones) but certainly not for dealers and traffickers. But Paul wants to quit worrying about dealers and traffickers (the drug war) - crazy and dumb. Your words, "... should we not do drugs because they will land us in jail, or should we not do them because they are actually unhealthy" - that is very naive. A person addicted or even before doesn't sit around and have a rational discussion with himself over the MORALITY of drugs. Those who want to use drugs typically have no moral compunctions anyway. And addicted persons have a body screaming for more. Libertarianism supposes that people will make pragmatic, rational choices based upon what hurts them and what does not. But people often aren't that smart and the addicted only want more drugs.

Anyway, we've hijacked this thread enough talking about Paul.

But if I get another Robocall from my buddy Mitt - my potentially not voting for him might be the least of his worries -gotten three so far (last two days).