Wonder how all of these “life long Republicans” supporting Paul feel about the issues of legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and the immediate pull out of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan . All of these Ron Paul supports, and none of these are or have ever been part of the GOP Party platform or even showing up on the radar screen. I find it hard to believe that more than a handful of Republicans can look past those big issues because they agree with Paul on others.
well, there is a pretty large (10-15%) libertarian leading contingent of the Republican party.
Also, people may not agree with all his stances, but are avidly against the IRS, gun protection, or border security, or some combination thereof and have such high priority on those issues they let the other stuff slide.
It’s been my experience that people that disagree with his domestic platforms, but like him for his foreign policy above all else, generally are not republicans.
Interestingly, there are some people who like him just on the character issue.
Wonder how all of these “life long Republicans” supporting Paul feel about the issues of legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and the immediate pull out of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan .
Well, I'm an occasional Republican, but I'll answer anyway. (I changed my registration from Libertarian to Republican in order to vote for Steve Forbes a few years back, then changed back to LP at the next election when I saw no one in the primary I wanted to support). On the first question, I think cannabis prohibition is a costly failure, and it causes more problems than it could possibly solve. Examples include the rampant use of "civil" asset forfeiture to punish crimes without meeting a criminal standard of proof, and the setting of legal precedents harmful to our other rights. Specifically, Justices O'Connor, Rhenquist, and Thomas agree that the precedent set a couple of years ago in the
Raich case might be used to justify the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (922(q)) if that law is ever challenged again.
On gay marriage, I don't care a bit, and wonder why this is a federal concern at all. I cite Federalist 45.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Is cannabis legalization or gay marriage really something connected to "external objects" or are those things among "the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"? Obviously, I believe the latter is the case, but many conservatives and the entire left wing of the Supreme Court would disagree, so maybe you all are right.
On Iraq, I believe Ron Paul is wrong. I opposed the invasion before it began, because I figured that building a nation out of three hostile tribes was work more suited to a dictator like Hussein than to a Republic like ours. Also, I figured we would establish democratic rule, which would mean a Shiite-ruled Iraq, which is the very thing Iran wanted most. Now we are there, and I think leaving would turn control over to Iran even faster than staying, so I think it's a bad idea. You may ask why I would vote for Ron Paul anyway, given that important disagreement. The answer can be found in
this thread. I find the explosive growth in government power and spending even more threatening than Iran.