I agree with Ron Paul on the drugs - the states should decide.
If that link is from the debate, it was funny, and people liked it, but he shouldn’t be talking about heroin being legal. Because no state would legalize heroin. It was an error. And I’m not saying Ron Paul’s messaging is perfect.
The Constitution says nothing about a War on Drugs. States should be able to do whatever they want. 10th Amendment.
Talking about how there won’t be as many junkies as you might think if heroin was legal is not going to appeal to standard, normal, Republican voters. But 10th Amendment will.
I believe in ignoring potential problems in the middle east.
my philosophy might or might not cause problems down the road. But it definitely is cheaper, and we’re broke now.
The main threat of muslims, at least to me, isn’t terrorism, but that sharia law business. And whatever policy that keeps them out of the US is something that might sound good to me. The more we bomb these muslim countries, the more we make it unpleasant to live there, the more likely they’re going to want to move. We’d be smart to try to encourage them to stay put.
Ron Paul’s true position, which came out here in the debate, is not a Constitution one: That the states should decide the question with Federal involvement only at the ports of entry. No, Paul argued that state involvement at all was an offense to liberty. Paul showed his true colors their. He is not a conservative, but a radical libertarian.