[POLL] Is Ron Paul fit for Presidency?

[guyver01]

Just because they weren't unitary executives doesn't mean they were incompetent.

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."


When a President takes the oath of office, he promises he "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


If he cannot uphold Article 2.... he is incompetent.

 

[Craig234]

your obama greatly lowered the bar for president. He can't run on his record. It's so bad even his inner circle won't mention it. It's going to be a scorched earth negative campaign for your obama. He has no choice.

Amazing the crazy people.

 

[IonusX]

The Vesting Clause of Article II provides, "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."


When a President takes the oath of office, he promises he "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


If he cannot uphold Article 2.... he is incompetent.

hes got twice the brains and double the compassion of sarah palin or bachman and hes twice as honest as sontorum, gingrich or romney. he also doesnt sleep around like gingrich or cain. i say hes got the best shot out there of whacking obama off his high horse and the best shot at winning period.

 

[CallMeJoe]

hes got twice the brains and double the compassion of sarah palin or bachman and hes twice as honest as sontorum, gingrich or romney. he also doesnt sleep around like gingrich or cain...

You certainly hold your candidate to low standards.

 

[guyver01]

i say hes got the best shot out there of whacking obama off his high horse and the best shot at winning period.

even his own support site doesnt believe that

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-ron-paul/ron-paul-polls/

 

[pcgeek11]

He seems to be 1 scoop short in his Raisin Bran.

 

[drebo]

When a President takes the oath of office, he promises he "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

How well'd Obama do with that one?

 

[jackstar7]

 

[Freshgeardude]

he's the oldest guy running for presidency.


he's even older than mccain and there was concern about his age 4 years ago when he was running.

 

[IonusX]

You certainly hold your candidate to low standards.

yes well thats who hes competing with atm so its not like theres much choice.. thats like argueing you should hold obama to the same standards as george washington or truman.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No, we don't need radicals who would be very damaging and undermine all kinds of rights for people - even while he did some other things better than other politicians.

If he weren't so bad on so much, it'd be tempting to have him for one term just for some house cleaning on some policies.

Any so called "progressive liberal" that says Dr. Paul is unfit but then turns around and votes for Obama is fucking hypocrite of the most highest order.

Especially since YOUR guy Mr. "Hope and Change" (Aka Obama) has done more to enact laws that trample over indivdual rights (NDDA and soon to be potentially with the SOPA) in the name of the "Greater Good" fallacy laden school of thought. But anyone with a clue understands in the end this trampling of individual rights is always the conclusion of the collectivist ideological school of thought that plays itself out as government grows to monstrous proportions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0DC2b1QSOU&feature=related

 

[Craig234]

Any so called "progressive liberal" that says Dr. Paul is unfit but then turns around and votes for Obama is fucking hypocrite of the most highest order.

Especially since YOUR guy Mr. "Hope and Change" (Aka Obama) has done more to enact laws that trample over indivdual rights (NDDA and soon to be potentially SOPA) in the name of the "Greater Good" fallacy laden school of thought. But anyone with clue understands in the end this trampling of individual rights is always the conclusion of the collectivist ideologue school of thought that plays itself out as government grows to monstrous proportions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0DC2b1QSOU&feature=related

You're quite wrong, as usual.

Obama is not 'a progressive', and progressives are against the rights violations.

However, it's an issue where almost everyone of both parties voted for NDAA; the handful who didn't are a mix of the parties. That's not the whole set of rights issues.

Blacks not being banned from restaurants? That's a right, too. There are many more.

Rights for consumers and workers and citizens for safety and environemnt etc., also.

Obama is the best choice who has a chance for progressives; and he's clearly 'qualified to be President' even if we disagree on some important issues.

 

[bfdd]

Any so called "progressive liberal" that says Dr. Paul is unfit but then turns around and votes for Obama is fucking hypocrite of the most highest order.

Especially since YOUR guy Mr. "Hope and Change" (Aka Obama) has done more to enact laws that trample over indivdual rights (NDDA and soon to be potentially SOPA) in the name of the "Greater Good" fallacy laden school of thought. But anyone with clue understands in the end this trampling of individual rights is always the conclusion of the collectivist ideologue school of thought that plays itself out as government grows to monstrous proportions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0DC2b1QSOU&feature=related

Good post, such big hypocrites. He is totally fit for Presidency, no less than any before him.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes, as schneiderguy said, he'd be the best President ever. Even better than John Tyler.

It looks like he's going to be our next President because he has more delegates than the others from Iowa. The MSM doesn't want you to know that though, but his campaign has been on the phone with more pledged delegates from Iowa than was reported by the MSM.

You are delusional.....
Ron Who??? will split the Republican party....those who don`t vote for Ron Who??? will either vote for Obama or vote independent thus screwing any chance the Republicans have of taking the White house...

 

[DCal430]

No candidate scares me more than Ron Paul. Remember Paul wants to strip people of any protection from state government tyranny. He would also for executions with no jury trial, for abortions to be banned, and for woman and minorities to made second class citizens.

 

[jmarti445]

If Ron Paul were 20 years younger then what he is then I'd vote for him, at his age I think not though.

 

[BoberFett]

No candidate scares me more than Ron Paul. Remember Paul wants to strip people of any protection from state government tyranny. He would also for executions with no jury trial, for abortions to be banned, and for woman and minorities to made second class citizens.

/facepalm

The intelligence of an Obama voter on display for all.

 

[IonusX]

No candidate scares me more than Ron Paul. Remember Paul wants to strip people of any protection from state government tyranny. He would also for executions with no jury trial, for abortions to be banned, and for woman and minorities to made second class citizens.

now thats just untrue. hes slaying the gov't ability to control you.. to quote thomas jefferson: a gov't that's big enough to give you anything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
smaller gov't makes you more self reliant.. it doesnt all of a sudden makes you a 3rd world nation... obama's doing that if you wish to go that way though. what with the police brutality going unchecked and the whitewashing and numbing of all the major damage causing events. the USA has become a horrible mess.. a big pile of garbage and ron paul is the only one saying that you need to get your house in order, and has the only garbage truck in sight. and im afraid thats just the simple truth of it.

 

[Craig234]

now thats just untrue. hes slaying the gov't ability to control you.. to quote thomas jefferson: a gov't that's big enough to give you anything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.
smaller gov't makes you more self reliant.. it doesnt all of a sudden makes you a 3rd world nation... obama's doing that if you wish to go that way though. what with the police brutality going unchecked and the whitewashing and numbing of all the major damage causing events. the USA has become a horrible mess.. a big pile of garbage and ron paul is the only one saying that you need to get your house in order, and has the only garbage truck in sight. and im afraid thats just the simple truth of it.

Ron Paul would strip the people of power by denying the people the right to a powerful government that can stand up for them against powerful interests. It would be a 'non-government tyranny', as the private powers rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the absence of democratic government. Show me the nation in human history achieving this 'small government high freedom' model you claim.

Thomas Jefferson did not say what you misquote. Gerald Ford did.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No, we don't need radicals who would be very damaging and undermine all kinds of rights for people - even while he did some other things better than other politicians.

If he weren't so bad on so much, it'd be tempting to have him for one term just for some house cleaning on some policies.

Err, undermining how? He would allow the states to do things. That means respecting the 10th amendment.

Personally voted yes. He might be radical, but he's also very limited and would probably not affect too much change, he'd be blocked by congress...but I think he'd be a move in the right direction.

 

[Craig234]

Err, undermining how? He would allow the states to do things. That means respecting the 10th amendment.

Personally voted yes. He might be radical, but he's also very limited and would probably not affect too much change, he'd be blocked by congress...but I think he'd be a move in the right direction.

The 10th amendment means powers not granted to the federal government - which is a list a lot longer with Paul than with mainstream people.

He'd undermine rights by preventing the government from protecting them, in the name of giving the powerful 'freedom' and 'rights' not to be contrained by the government.

Suddenly citizens would not have a lot of rights, because their rights infringe on someone else's rights - say, the 'right to pollute' as a 'property right'.

He'd be a big move in the wrong direction even though he would be better in a few areas that have become terribly corrupted. We need to fix that better than he can.

 

[sportage]

Ron Paul isn't fit to lick... on never mind.

 

[fskimospy]

Ron Paul is an incompetent legislator, why anyone thinks that he would be more competent as a president with a hundred times the responsibility is beyond me. Hell, according to his supporters he was so incompetent at running a newsletter that racist screeds were printed for a decade or more without him even noticing.

 

[sm625]

There is no reason for people to support Ron Paul because they havent lived through a period like the 1930's. And most people voting have not studied history, so they are doomed to repeat. Dont worry though, this time we will have iCrap so it wont be as bad. People are so dumb they will be happy playing with their iPods while living in their 18"x18"x84" boxes plugged into a matrix because they cannot afford to live outside it. But even then, they will still vote for the guys who serially erase jobs and wealth. And they will still wonder why they keep getting what they voted for.

 

[dank69]

hes got twice the brains and double the compassion of sarah palin or bachman and hes twice as honest as sontorum, gingrich or romney. he also doesnt sleep around like gingrich or cain. i say hes got the best shot out there of whacking obama off his high horse and the best shot at winning period.

:hmm: