Being a liberal Republican, it is meet* for me to state my stance on Ron Paul.
I believe that Ron Paul would be a terrible President for the reasons cited here. Most prominently among these are:
Citations for Ron Paul's support of each of these are in the link.
* "Meet" meaning suitable, proper, appropriate. It's standard.
I believe that Ron Paul would be a terrible President for the reasons cited here. Most prominently among these are:
- The gold standard would lead to economic turmoil (not to mention devastate industries which use gold),
- The abolition of the income tax would cripple the federal government,
- A law to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue is un-American, even when it is not explicitly intended to bolster prejudice,
Racism - be it against black men in DC or immigrants throughout America - is wrong,(edit: I cannot defend this claim; I withdraw it.) and- Undermining modern medicine would destroy millions of lives in the most brutal fashion.
Citations for Ron Paul's support of each of these are in the link.
* "Meet" meaning suitable, proper, appropriate. It's standard.
Tags:
no subject
As I said, I haven't done my research. For what it's worth, I agree that McCain is a bad candidate - and the "intelligent design" idiocy is something I hadn't heard and never want to support - but none of the Republican Party candidates are people I would support wholeheartedly. If nothing else, Ron Paul's willingness as a legislator to support flag-burning bans (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:), repeal governmental health protections for workers (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:), and eliminate minimum wage (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.2962:) are offputting.
Would Ron Paul upset the establishment? I have no idea. But upsetting the establishment isn't a priority for me - I just want a government I can approve of.