Why Should I Pick Ron Paul Over Obama?

With less than 2 months to go until the election I'm pretty close to making a decision. I've ruled out Bob Barr & John McCain for reasons well explained on other threads. I'm leaning towards Obama for many reasons but I have a few nagging "Experience" questions that still bother me. There seem to be quite a few Ron Paul supporters here, so please tell me why I should pick him over Obama?

well if you don't care about gun rights vote for the Big O. Hopefully you don't own anything you plan on being able to use or keep however. (although you are in Massachusetts so the gun laws probably can't get much more restrictive there.) Ru paul claims pro gun, pro isolationalist and pro life among other things.

Ron Paul & BO disagree on practically everything but the Iraq war. And you do know Ron Paul has an (R) after his name.

There are two parts to the answer to your question:

First, Ron Paul understands the economic issues confronting the US and how to address them. I believe Obama has publicly admitted he is not schooled in economics or the financial issues facing this country. Ron Paul advocates the elimination of the Federal Reserve and its manipulation of our money supply. Ron Paul understands the dangers of fiat currency and calls for the return to a gold, silver or some other asset of value tied to and backing the dollar.

Second, although Ron Paul will not win, it is almost more important for others to take note of the fact that there are a growing population of Americans that support Ron Paul's message. As this population continues to grow and build credibility, the other parties will have to take note of this "movement" and adopt some of the proposed changes that Ron Paul advocates to appeal to the evergrowing Ron Paul supporters. Quite frankly, I don't care which candidate gets elected or from what party as long as they work toward those ends. But to answer your question, that is why I believe a Ron Paul vote is not a "wasted" vote. Vote for the candidate, the only candidate, that has an economic plan to fix the quagmire that we are in, and not for a candidate that has plans to deepen it.

JMO,

Manny

chabbo wrote:Second, although Ron Paul will not win, it is almost more important for others to take note of the fact that there are a growing population of Americans that support Ron Paul's message. As this population continues to grow and build credibility, the other parties will have to take note of this "movement" and adopt some of the proposed changes that Ron Paul advocates to appeal to the evergrowing Ron Paul supporters. Quite frankly, I don't care which candidate gets elected or from what party as long as they work toward those ends. But to answer your question, that is why I believe a Ron Paul vote is not a "wasted" vote. Vote for the candidate, the only candidate, that has an economic plan to fix the quagmire that we are in, and not for a candidate that has plans to deepen it.

JMO,

I totally agree with everything you say & refuse to let the "talking heads"on either side scare me into voting for a person I don't feel comfortable supporting! I have to look at myself in the morning when I'm shaving, every day!
As of this moment, unless something new an earth shattering emerges, I plan on writing Ron Paul's name in & voting for him on 11/4. I don't agree with all his positions, but Obama is just a little to new & untested for me.(maybe next election when he's got a bit more of a record, but not now) McCain is just more Bush........& we all know it! Just look around you at the economy alone! I want GW Bush's policies, thinking, advisors, cabinet, speech writers......the whole stinking lot thrown out on their butts!

traderfjp wrote:If Ron Paul was so terrific he would be in the news and in the minds of voters. I still think a vote for him is wasted.

I disagree. If Ron Paul had the money to "Grease The Palms" of the media........ then he would be "in the news and in the minds of voters."

You don't heat your home the way everyone else does, so why make your most important "statement" as a citizen based on just "following the crowd?

Traderfjp:

First of all let me say that I respond to your comments with genuine sincerity in what I truly believe is the case, and that I am not trying to prove anything:

If I thought McCain or Obama would make a REAL difference, I'd vote for that man. In my humble opinion, however, neither of them will.

Presidents don't create jobs, fix the economy, or set monetary policy.

The American people need to wake up and open their eyes and start thinking for themselves!!!

THE PERSON OR PERSONS THAT CONTROL THE MONEY SUPPLY HAS ALWAYS, AND WILL ALWAYS, HAVE ALL OF THE REAL POWER -- and most definitely that is not the President! But that is what is at stake and that is why Obama and McCain are still the only remaining "viable" candidates since their policies are not a threat to the real power.

Neither Obama nor McCain will change any of the REAL issues because they are "told" by economic advisers "smarter" than them that there is a "plan" and it is all under control.

This is why Ron Paul will always be struck down as too extreme and never be given media time to get his message out -- he is a threat to the establishment -- the REAL money establishment. The Federal Reserve will do whatever it can to preserve itself because they are in control of the masses through their manipulation of $$. Ron Paul knows this all too well and the last thing the establishment wants is for his message and plan for corrective action to be adopted by the American people. All I ask is that you look at Ron Paul's plan and decide for yourself. Use your own God given intelligence and formulate your own opinion as to which candidate can direct the country closer to where it really needs to be in the next 4 years. Please, read his book and start thinking about what is really dragging our country down the wrong path.

Manny

Amen on the Federal Reserve comments............. I voted for Ru Paul in the Primaries to make a point.

I do not understand the claim that Ron Paul doesn't get enough coverage. Maybe he don't get it from the major networks in their nightly news (they only have 30 minutes, have to make editorial decisions when you are that constrained), but on cable news he has been and continues to be a pretty regular presence. I've seen more one on one with Ron Paul than McCain or Obama on these sources, particularly in the last 4 weeks. The others get more aggregate exposure due to free air time ads and the general presidential discussion on the various shows, but Ron Paul has no one to blame for that but himself since he's not running any more. Hillary Clinton doesn't get too much exposure anymore either. I've also seen more of Ron Paul on CSPAN during this whole mess than Obama or McCain (watching the hearings).

During the primaries I think Ron Paul got a pretty fair shake during the debates. His supporters are the most fervent of any other candidate and managed to get his name recognition way up and gave him a number of surprisingly good finishes during the primaries. His name recognition had to be up there with Perot and Nader during the primaries, and continues to be pretty high. He made some records and history with Presidential campaign, stealing some of the Internet laden campaign glory from Dean and Obama. His ideas got a lot of exposure and continue to get exposure through his many appearances on cable news and talk radio. In the post-primary period he himself didn't pursue the libertarian party nomination and is not running for President anymore. He chose to use his popularity to do more of an "awareness" campaign, much as Newt has done this election cycle.

Ron Paul got a fair shake.

Forget Ron Paul, vote for Cynthia McKinney the Green Party’s endorsed presidential candidate. You remember her the former United States Representative (D) & she is actually on the ballot.

The powers that be in Washington should alllow the "third" party to debate also. For them not to shows "Big Money" have this & EVERY election all locked-up. Damn straight they're scared & they should be!! Maybe IF enough people FINALLY see the electrorol college screw over another fine independent canidate, the revolution can FINALLY begin.............

There are probably a dozen or more people running for president once all parties and non-affiliated contenders are accounted. Libertarian, Constitutional, Green, Socialist, and others. All with a mix of state ballots they'll be on. At what point should the Presidential Debates Commission draw the line? We all saw how overcrowded and effectively useless the primary debates on the dem and rep side were, do you honestly want that for all the presidential and VP debates too?

Where should the line be drawn? All comers? .5% national support? 1%? 5%? 10%? By what metric should those national support numbers be determined, RCP national average?

I'm not saying the current line is well placed, I just don't know if there is a reasonable place to put the line and I think the line is absolutely needed.