You may disagree with Paul's positions, but you can't knock the man's consistency. He has stuck to his beliefs for years and years and has no problem stating then in exact terms.
He is also the only candidate serious about reigning in the federal government. None of the others make it a talking point and some of their ideas (a national sales tax) show that there will be even more bloat if they make it to the office.
No other national politician even come close to Paul in either of those two areas. For that I will always give the man my respect and attention, even if I disagree with some of this positions. Since he would be dealing with Congress as well I believe a compromise could be met on some of his more radical positions. The point is that we would be moving in the right direction.
accepting earmarks while slamming earmarks is not consistent.....twisting facts ie the military in 135 countries is disingenuous.....and floating the idea of green cards for illegals while portraying ones self as strongly in favor of defending our sovereignty is both inconsistent and disingenuous.....regardless, everytime paul opens his mouth and speaks of foreign policy he loses votes and convinces anyone not born yesterday that he is flat out nuts....would vote for rand paul by contrast in a heartbeat.....what i do respect of paul is that he is the only one who has concretely linked the size/scope/growth of govt to the problems of the day and his suggestions towards reducing our budget deficits/debt are spot on.....cannot have a discussion of tax reform, that does not include fundamentally redressing our wandering off the constitutional reservation......
How do we even know what Rand Paul's foreign policy would be?
Given that he is a senator from Kentucky, has he had any first hand experience? Is he on any committees relevant to FP?
I like the idea of a more moderate Ron Paul but I haven't seen or heard enough from Rand to know how I would feel about him as a presidential candidate.
on a second look i am not sure that he is more moderate, by reputation he is a conservative that believes in a strong national defense, but he has also made statements that appear to oppose a military strike on iran.....of course he has stopped short of blaming this nation for 9-11 and has stated the following...."when i prioritize spending, i think national defense is a constitutional function of government, so i think it would have a priority for me over all other spending.".....but still you have a point i am going on reputation provided by the former sdml who is quite the follower of ron and seems to know more than a little re rand....don't care if he ever served on a committee regarding foreign policy, that really really is irrelevant.....
Topic: Reasons to vote for Cain (Read 1121 times)