1. Goddammit. People I respect, and am friends with, love him- have their cars blazing with stickers. I’ve just never felt right about him. I’m done searching for justification on my discomfort for him. This does it for me.

  2. Okay,

    – Touts libertarian stuff like Reagan did.

    – Anti choice, stand to kill lots of women

    – Believes evolution is a theological issue.

    I try not to vote for idiots.

  3. So, it’s idiotic to have personal views that don’t interfere with policy decisions? You would rather have a president who is dishonest about his personal views for the sake of votes? You’d rather have a president who USED their personal views to implement and enforce policy decisions?

    Your post confuses me, DaveS

  4. If his personal views were that Vishnu appears to him daily as a dripping bar of soap, talks to him, and encourages him in his political ambitions, but he promises that it won’t affect his policy decisions, would you vote for him?

    Darren, don’t be confused. I figure that his anti-choice views of abortion would certainly govern his political decisions, and I think that believing in the Bible when it conflicts with science is stupid, and stupidity would certainly govern his policy decisions.

  5. 1. The President and the federal government has a lot of power to lead state decisions on such things. Remember, historically, power
    corrupts, even those who claim incorruptibility.

    2. He knows full well that many states would enact anti-abortion laws, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, which is what’s meant by “leaving
    it to the states.”

    BTW, how does he propose to make the federal government give up power, when he would lead only one branch? By exerting new executive branch power? Think about that a minute.

  6. I think he handled that question well. I agree that he doesn’t have to believe in evolution to be smart, but then again…
    The real question here is how religious is he? Will religion affect his policy? I haven’t followed debates and policies too much since I’m not of voting age. I wouldn’t know. But I believe that is the more important issue.
    I have a bunch of friends who support Ron Paul too, and I personally can not see him as president. He looks too weak to discuss international policy with Putin, or to address the nation after a tragedy. He seems incompetent. Wouldn’t vote for him if I could.

  7. I have never understood specifically why it is considered an unalloyed good to give specific rights to the state that are universal applicables. Pauloids and other rightwingnuts seem to unplug their brains and merely mouth “states rights” as if this were objectively a good. Make the case, don’t mouth the slogan.

    The right to abortion affects all women, therefor it has universal applicability; it’s not some obscure commerce clause regulating oceanic harbors that Kansas has no need for legislating. Nor is it specific to any other local aspect such as education where the students should be educated in their local history and trained to be productive members of where they currently live.

  8. Isn’t it great to be able to vote for the person we think is the best choice.I just hope the new machines are able to count the votes accurately and not have to let the courts decide,,again.Or that Ohio doesn’t have problems again.

  9. I don’t care if he doesn’t believe in the theory of evolution- it doesn’t really matter! I personally do believe in the theory of evolution but I also believe that we need this man for president!

  10. In layman’s terms, evolution is not a theory, it is hard, stone-cold, FACT.

    Think of it this way: you believe in airplanes, right? That they fly, right? And if someone didn’t believe in them, they are stupid, right? Well, in school I studied the theory of flight, and aerodynamic theory. Just because those are theories doesn’t mean they aren’t correct, and are a lot of help to understand flight, but flight unquestionably exists. Understand?

    So to believe that someone created all life with a noodly appendage, or any other ID theory, against all physical evidence, is just plain stupid.

  11. to follow up on DaveS, a scientific theory is different than a dictionary definition of “theory”. Scientific theories have been tested and continually supported through hundreds of experiments to validate a hypothesis, they are not mere propositions. Ron Paul’s claim that the theory of evolution is only a “theory” and therefore should be regarded as one is wrong in that it is NOT just a theory, it is a scientific theory, one that has plenty of evidence to support it.

    BTW in case someone is wondering, the distinction between theory and scientific theory that i am discussing was taught to me in my first class of geology 101

  12. Sadly, matt, some people out there didn’t listen to the teacher in geology 101…
    That’s why so many of them don’t get your very valid point.

Comments are closed.