Question:
Cons, out of the two, who do you prefer, Ron Paul or Obama?
anonymous
2011-07-02 16:31:25 UTC
If you HAD to pick one, which one would you pick?

'Cause those are the only two of the candidates so far I would even think of supporting... followed by Herman Cain in a far away third... all of your other prominent candidates suck so far...
Seventeen answers:
anonymous
2011-07-03 14:37:01 UTC
Wow, this is the only ron paul question where nobody is bashing him.
?
2011-07-03 00:24:41 UTC
Mr. Paul has a strong ground game, early successful fund raisers, high profile legislative endorsements, GOP fellow candidates who literally are echoing Mr. Ron Paul's stead fast platform, supporters not only from 1 "party" but supporters who are democratic, libertarian, republican, and all others. Most importantly, all those people who feel kind of "snowed over" by all the failed campaign promises of Mr. Obama, realize now that ideology and rhetoric never supersedes substance and track record. Walk the walk and talk the talk. Mr. Ron Paul does just that.



The Answer is Mr. Ron Paul.



thank You



Ron Paul 2012. God Bless America. God Bless our Troops.
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:35:18 UTC
Paul
Kchess07
2011-07-02 23:42:18 UTC
I'd definitely select Ron Paul. This country cannot survive four more years of Obama.
?
2011-07-03 03:27:07 UTC
Will be voting for Ron Paul over anybody, unless Dennis Kucinich runs, then I'd have to think about it.
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:38:26 UTC
Ron Paul over anyone.
DAR
2011-07-03 02:06:42 UTC
Ron Paul



pretty easy choice...
Tagg R
2011-07-02 23:47:02 UTC
You should look up Gary Johnson. He's similar to Ron Paul, except more liberal / libertarian. He's my first choice, and Ron Paul is second.
Abraham Lincoln
2011-07-02 23:35:46 UTC
That would be Ron Paul. He is not one I could support in the primaries, but if he did obtain the nomination, then he would have my vote.





.
El Tecolote
2011-07-02 23:34:39 UTC
If I HAD to pick one, I'd begrudgingly pick Ron Paul because there is no way under the sun I'd ever vote for someone who HATES MY GUTS without ever having met me, and make no mistake, Obama hates my guts with such a loathesome hatred that it probably keeps him up at night. Everything, EVERYTHING he says every single time he opens his mouth feels to me like he says it in service to hatred of me personally. This guy couldn't lead a string of sugar ants to a potato chip on a hot sidewalk, and liberals call him a leader. He's got us at each other's throats. This is not healthy for the country at all, no matter what side of the ideological spectrum you fall on.



In reality, I'd write in Herman Cain if he doesn't get the nomination.
clippy
2011-07-02 23:35:03 UTC
Ron Paul, for sure.
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:34:23 UTC
Ron Paul, obviously

How is this even a question?
Borax
2011-07-02 23:35:02 UTC
Since I would vote for anyone besides Obama, even Daffy Duck is preferable.
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:37:16 UTC
Paul - conservative on fiscal issue, not social.
?
2011-07-02 23:35:55 UTC
Obama's Job-Killing Agenda



"You ain't seen nothin' yet" was Ronald Reagan's standard rally-ending line during his 1984 reelection campaign. He won 49 states, losing only his opponent's home state, Minnesota, 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent.



Obama could truthfully use the same "ain't seen nothin' yet" line, except Reagan was referring to more jobs, smaller government and more individual freedom, while Obama is pushing a job-killing agenda that promises to expand an already bloated government while simultaneously shrinking individual freedom.



In its latest official tally of jobs being lost per month, more than seven months after Obama's $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, the Labor Department reported that 263,000 more jobs were lost in September, increasing the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent and bringing the total number of unemployed to 15.1 million.



That doesn't count the so-called "discouraged" workers who've quit looking for work and are no longer considered part of the labor force. By the Labor Department's count, the U.S. workforce is currently 615,000 workers smaller than it was a year ago, even though the working age population is expanding.



Also uncounted in the 9.8 percent unemployment rate are part-timers seeking full-time work. Add these underemployed part-timers and the "discouraged" to the official jobless rate and the real unemployment rate in September was 17 percent.



In January, urging quick passage of the stimulus bill, President Obama called the legislation "the most sweeping economic recovery act in history" and said it would "save or create 2.5 million jobs" -- and quickly, via "shovel-ready" projects.



Instead, most of the shovels are still hanging in the garage and the economy has lost 2.7 million jobs since the "most sweeping" stimulus bill was signed into law in February.



"In my wildest dreams," declared Vice President Joe Biden, painting the stimulus as an unqualified success in a speech to the nation's governors on September 24, "I never thought it would work this well."



What will also work well in creating jobs, according to Obama and the Congressional Democrats, is their real clunker of an economic recovery agenda that includes a carbon tax, higher energy prices for consumers and employers, the cancellation of secret ballots for workers in union organizing drives, mandated hikes in the minimum wage, higher payroll taxes on businesses to fund the administration's health care schemes, and higher tax rates on the incomes of the nation's key job creators.



Under tax hikes now being considered, the top federal tax rate on income would climb to 45 percent. In states with top tax rates, the combined federal, state and local tax on income would exceed 50 percent.



"Three fourths of those affected by these rate changes are small-business owners," says Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, meaning that funds will be drained directly from "the sector of the U.S. economy that's producing 63 percent of all the new jobs created."



Adding to this capital drain from the private sector and the subsequent job destruction is the Obama administration's cap and trade proposal to address the supposed dangers of global warming, even with kids in Idaho this year enjoying the earliest no-school snow day in history.



As Obama explained in January 2008 during an interview with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."



An analysis by the U.S. Department of Treasury estimates that the cost of cap and trade law per American household could run as high as $1,761 per year. On top of seeing no problem with skyrocketing prices for electricity, Obama explained during the same interview how bankruptcy is the answer for the disobedient: "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."



When he took office on January 20, 1981, Reagan inherited a zero-growth economy with unemployment and inflation rates, respectively, of 7.4 percent and 10.4 percent in the final quarter of 1980.



By the end of the Reagan's presidency in 1988, the unemployment and inflation rates had dropped, respectively, to 5.4 percent and 4.2 percent, an economic success that particularly benefited those at the bottom who could least afford double-digit price increases, an economic success that especially helped the jobless, the millions who moved from unemployment to a paycheck.



Reagan's economic achievements were produced by tax cuts and a program of smaller government. Obama, advocating an agenda that's exactly the opposite, is likely to get a result that's the exact opposite of Reagan's successes.
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:34:03 UTC
Obama is no conservatives choice...
anonymous
2011-07-02 23:34:36 UTC
Hee, hee, hee.



Well, I guess YOU are in charge.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...