Posted on 12/13/2011 2:24:45 PM PST by Slyscribe
Ron Paul is surging in Iowa according to the latest polls, but if the libertarian Texas Republican does become the flavor of the week, his foreign policy views will likely leave Republican voters with a sour taste.
The latest IBD/TIPP survey asked respondents which GOP presidential candidate they preferred on four issues: the economy, budget/taxes, health care and foreign policy. Paul is third behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, being the preferred choice by Republicans on the first three issues by margins of 9%, 10%, and 6%, respectively.
As today’s IBD story touched on, Paul is weakest on foreign policy, where he is the choice of just 4%, tying him with Jon Huntsman.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.investors.com ...
What I want to know is why he's the only candidate the Republican Party seems to be able come up with that you can dissect and find that particular "something good".
They can only come up with one hard-core constitutionalist, and it had to be him. Why is that?
He has said that we angered AQ into attacking us. That’s not debatable. What has he said he would do about AQ?
Are you on Earth or on Pluto?
“You are pretty much misrepresenting his positions.”
Welcome to an FR Ron Paul thread!!!
Truth, decency, and maturity are the first things to go out the window.
Before we can help you, you must first admit to yourself that you have a problem.
“*Ron Paul is a freaking nut, what would get us all killed*”
Really? While I happen to disagree with his foreign policy position, how is his isolationist point of view going to get us killed any time soon? Please be specific.
“How is Ron Paul soaring; given that albatross; and more to point; why is he gathering momentum?”
Because most Americans are not neo-cons. They view the Federal reserve as more of an immediate threat to their way of life than a bunch of yahoos half way across the world.
And they happen to be right.
” how is his isolationist point of view going to get us killed any time soon?”
Is later better for you?
“Personally - I am definitely voting for RP in the primary, despite his foreign policy views. Bachmann is a close second.”
Full disclosure: I’m not a Ron Paul supporter yet, but am rapidly becoming one. For the issues that matter to me, primarily domestic, Ron Paul seems to be putting forth the most consistently conservative agenda. Unfortunately, this site tends to get bogged down in the too-loud squealing of neo-cons who can’t stand Ron Paul’s foreign policy views.
In his case, I think it's Uranus.
“Trust me, you WILL get Zotted.”
Funny. I used to think that I would get zotted. But I’m still here 7 plus years later. Maybe today will be the day, but for all the lightning we see, Jim seems to be pretty circumspect with the zot.
“RP is a joke of a candidate and he’ll be an footnote after Iowa.”
We’ll see.
"The US is to blame for the Iranian Terror State"
"People in Texas should not care about Israel getting nuked off the map"
"Ron Paul is a fiscal genius that everyone should follow".
"I am not crazy for saying these things."
“Have you noticed that this is a classic Alinskyite Communist polarization tactic? Something to contemplate.”
Interesting observation, but an apt one.
“Is later better for you?”
Yeah. In say another 50 years. In the mean time, I’d prefer not to see us reduced to eating off of trash heaps.
Send an email to Jim Robinson explaining how the US is to blame for the actions of the Iranian Terror State and let me know how that works.
“I can’t believe the crap I read from these people...”
I say the same thing about neo-cons. They’re a lot like neo-liberals: impossible to logic with.
“Yeah. In say another 50 years. In the mean time, I’d prefer not to see us reduced to eating off of trash heaps.”
Is this an example of when I am not supposed to respond that you are crazy?
Because that is crazy.
Or am I now expected to spend my little amount time left seriously debating you about being dead versus where we eat from?
“Send an email to Jim Robinson explaining how the US is to blame for the actions of the Iranian Terror State and let me know how that works.”
Why would I? I don’t happen to take that position. Iran **IS** dangerous.
And so is Pakistan.
And so is China.
And so is North Korea.
And so is Russia.
And so is Indonesia.
And so Nigeria.
And so is Algeria.
And so is Cuba.
And so is Libya.
And so is Egypt.
And so is Palestine.
And so is Mynmar.
And so are at least 30 other countries for often different reasons.
Using military action to bring them over to our point of view just isn’t going to work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.