>> I’ve criticised him for his stance and explanation on earnmarks, his use of the word ‘neocon’, and aspects of his ‘gold standard’, immigration, and foreign policy to name a few.
Then why are you supporting him? I can certainly understand sticking with someone when you disagree with his earmarks, terminology, the gold standard, and even POSSIBLY immigration ... but foreign policy is a dealbreaker for me.
Ultimately, foreign policy is the primary reason I think Ron Paul would be an entirely inept President, and a poor flagbearer for the conservative movement. His foreign policy stances are entirely naive, and would probably be granted a warmer welcome on DU than it will here.
H
And, given the 2006 loses, why do you believe that a pro-war candidate can beat Hillary? Are you willing to live with four more years of Hillary in exchange for supporting a quixotic pro-war candidate?
I said I disagreed with ‘aspects’, meaning mostly small things here and there.
I think domestic policy is more important than foreign policy, im not one that believes we are going to be under ‘sharia’ law anytime soon regardless of who is president, i don’t give the terrorist and islamists that much respect...