Your thoughts, let's hear them.

Seems like everyone either loves him or hates him, even on the right.  Within an hour or two of his announcement, several of my facebook friends had posted links warning people about the evils of Perry.  I don't know much about him, although I do recall reading an article a few months back that said that Texas (along with Montana, woot!) was one of like five states that had a budget surplus.  In addition to that little tidbit, I know that he's real religious, which I like.  One  of the things I liked about Bush was that you could count on him to do what he thought was right for the country, based on the facts presented to him.  I didn't always agree with his conclusions, but I could at least respect him for making them.  I think his faith was a big part of the reason he was like that, which is why I'm a tentative  Perry supporter. 

You know who would be better than any of the current candidates?  Emm-Effin Allen West of Florida.  Too bad he's not running, that dude is a face-meltingly awesome guy, and a terrible politician. (Just for the record, the 'terrible politician' part is a feather in his cap for me.  I have a little index I use to rate politicians, which is inversely proportional to how good they are at playing politics.)

I frankly don't trust any candidates that either side of the political spectrum trusts and wants to have to represent them. I'd rather have someone that the major parties don't want. Someone who will go against the grain. Against the status quo.

I like that Perry gave the Feds, the Mexican government, and the UN a big FU and executed the Mexican national murderer a few months back.

At this point though, for my criteria listed above, I'd choose Ron Paul over Perry.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

I agree with everything but 6 and 7. 6 and 7 is why I'm wary on Perry and prefer Paul. He doesn't quite get the principle that the federal government shouldn't be dippin their hands in that koolaid. Paul agrees with Perry's take on abortion, but also understands that it's not the federal government's job to impose his opinion. Perry's agenda lines up with most of what I want for this country, but it's still *his* agenda. Not about *the people's* agenda.

Did someone mention Paul?

Did someone mention Paul?

I would be concerned about who Ron Paul picks for a VP. Guy is 75 years old (76+) if he gets elected.

He could choose Gary Johnson, but probably not too likely as the VP is usually not at all like the Presidential candidate.

Two reasons I don't support Ron Paul is that he thinks that letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is A-Ok, and he has no stance on any social issue. 

To the first point, I get nervous thinking about a world were President Paul thinks every tin pot dictator in the world has a right to nuclear weapons.  Iran, in particular.  Paul has gone on the record stating that there's no reason not to let Iran have nukes.  This is a country which openly sponsors terrorism, and this guy wants to give them nukes?  His whole foreign policy agenda is to isolate the US, which sounds wonderful, but the oceans weren't big enough to keep us out of World War II, and they've gotten a lot smaller since then.  I'm as irritated as the next guy with the way some of our allies (who would colonies of someone else, if not for our past and continuing good will) treat us, but that still doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to pull out, and watch the Korean peninsula united under the flag of Communism. 

The second point, his lack of a stance on social issues, isn't a national security concern.  Still it seems like he uses libertarianism as a convenient hiding place any time someone puts him on the spot about a hot-button issue like abortion or gay marriage.  Simply stating that it's none of the government's business and leaving it at that doesn't do much to make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. 

On the other hand, I do think that maybe he'd make a good President, simply because he's so far to the libertarian side.  No President ever gets everything he wants; we're all in the same boat.  But since the boat's listing pretty hard to the left, maybe it would be good to have Ron Paul dangling way out over the side.  I don't know.   

Still it seems like he uses libertarianism as a convenient hiding place any time someone puts him on the spot about a hot-button issue like abortion or gay marriage.

Gay marriage: It's a religious matter, and the government shouldn't be involved.


Abortion: It's murder, but murder isn't a Federal concern. It should be left to the states.



I like that Ron Paul can keep his religious views, on which he is absolutely clear and frank that he is a Christian, separate from his role as a public servant. I find any theocracy, Islamic or Christian, oppressive.

I watched him make the first two comments live.  I don't take in much of The View, so I didn't see that one.  I'm aware of what he says his position is, my complaint is that his position is that, as President, he will have no position.  That's great to say that marriage should be a religious matter, but the government is intrusively involved at this point, so what is he actually going to do?  Is he going to legalize gay marriage?  Is he going to provide all the government benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?  Is he going to revoke the fairly long-standing government incentives for traditional marriage?  Who knows? 

With abortion, at least he's willing to call a spade a spade and say it's a violent act of murder.  But then he punts to the states again.  Does that mean he'd be okey-dokey if Hawaii or some other state legalized homicide?  Probably so, since he's ok with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and that's just about as chilling a thought as abortion.  The bottom line is, I'm all about states' rights.  I agree with him on quite a few points, but he takes states' rights entirely too far.  If states refuse to recognize basic human rights, it becomes the job of the federal government to make sure it happens.  States can't decide to legalize slavery, why would he think it's fine for states to legalize an act that he considers murder? 

I watched him make the first two comments live.  I don't take in much of The View, so I didn't see that one.  I'm aware of what he says his position is, my complaint is that his position is that, as President, he will have no position.  That's great to say that marriage should be a religious matter, but the government is intrusively involved at this point, so what is he actually going to do?  Is he going to legalize gay marriage?  Is he going to provide all the government benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?  Is he going to revoke the fairly long-standing government incentives for traditional marriage?  Who knows? 

With abortion, at least he's willing to call a spade a spade and say it's a violent act of murder.  But then he punts to the states again.  Does that mean he'd be okey-dokey if Hawaii or some other state legalized homicide?  Probably so, since he's ok with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and that's just about as chilling a thought as abortion.  The bottom line is, I'm all about states' rights.  I agree with him on quite a few points, but he takes states' rights entirely too far.  If states refuse to recognize basic human rights, it becomes the job of the federal government to make sure it happens.  States can't decide to legalize slavery, why would he think it's fine for states to legalize an act that he considers murder?

This is how he keeps from having a position.  Which makes me wonder WHAT his position will be when the time comes.

I do not approve of his "position" with regards to Iran and several others....

This is how he keeps from having a position.  Which makes me wonder WHAT his position will be when the time comes.

I do not approve of his "position" with regards to Iran and several others....

Exactly. Honestly, his statements about Iran are the deal-breaker for me.  The other stuff is important to me, but his foreign policy, especially Iran, tears it.  If my dear old Dad was running for President, I wouldn't vote for him if he thought it was ok to lett Iran's nuke program go.

I think Dr. Paul's principled stance is that he's not being elected King of the United States, he's being elected President, and by people who want a limited, small government.

If the federal government gets into the abortion debate based on nothing more than Dr. Paul's belief that it is murder, then by his act, he is taking away states' rights to govern themselves on all murders. Whether that is in itself a good or bad thing is debatable, but I think if you're willing to push for a bigger federal government based on your desire to override other people's disagreement on the nature of abortion, or gay people, you are ceding ground and losing credibility if you should then claim that you support a smaller government.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of Ron Paul's stances on various issues. Unlike almost all other candidates, he is mostly consistent in speech and actions in his beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

In particular, check out his position on freedom of religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Civil_liberties

If you had any doubts whether he's Christian, there shouldn't be any more.

For futher reading, here's a list of legislation sponsored by Dr. Paul:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

If the federal government gets into the abortion debate based on nothing more than Dr. Paul's belief that it is murder, then by his act, he is taking away states' rights to govern themselves on all murders.

I get what you're saying, but my point is, abortion is legal because the federal government, in the form of the Supreme Court, found a right to it.  Therefore, my question to Dr. Paul is, if I elect you to be this nation's Chief Executive, what will you do about that fact?  It took an act of the federal government to legalize abortion, so it's going to take another act of the federal government to outlaw it again.  Again, his position isn't a strong, principled one, it's a dodge.  If the Supreme Court found a right to slave ownership, and all fifty states subsequently not only lifted their prohibitions, but started to actively endorse it; it wouldn't be a principled stance for the President to say, "Well, I'd like to give the issue back to the states."  Of course, there's the fact that he voted for the federal ban on partial-birth abortion.  (To his everlasting credit.  Anyone who voted against that law should be in prison.)  That's not even him living up to his own principles-he's willing to use the federal government to ban one method of abortion, but he's too principled to use it to ban others? 

I feel the same way about gay marriage.  Sure, the government shouldn't be involved, great, I concur.  Oops, looks like it already is involved, and heavily so.  So what are you going to do about it?  Are you going to work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?  Are you going to stop giving me extra money in my military paycheck that I get because I'm married?  Are you going to start giving homosexual couples the same treatment?  I guess he is, since he voted for the repeal of DADT, which set up the immediate challenge of DOMA, which will be repealed, and after that, we'll all have gay marriage thrust upon us by the federal governmment.  Thanks, Dr. Paul.

Again, these social issues are not the top priority for me.  Given enough time, I might even be persuaded to his point of view on them.  However, there's no room for debate, his foreign policy sucks.  He doesn't support Israel, but he does support Iran's right to develop nuclear weapons.  Imagine if Paul were President for the last hundred years.  We may or may not have defeated Japan, since he thinks that the US should only go to war in territorial defense of the United States, and Japan was not trying to invade  us when they bombed Pearl Harbor.  Either  way, Europe would have been left to it's own devices.  Korea would be entirely Communist.  We wouldn't have gone to Vietnam.  (In hindsight, that's probably not a bad thing, although defending South Vietnam from a Communist invader was a noble cause, which we could have easily won if we had wanted to.)  Saddam would still be in power, with actual WMD's, since Paul doesn't oppose that, and he would still be occupying Kuwait.  Israel would likely not exist.  Bin Laden would still be alive.  Iran would have nukes, along with most every other crackpot in the Middle East. 

Sorry, I cannot and will not vote for that.

I have a few minor quibbles with some of the details of what you said, but you provided a good defense of why you won't support Paul. I respect that.

Let's get back on track about Perry.

Thanks.  I second the motion to get back on topic, since I'm way behind the eight ball on him.   

I don't know much about Perry, but the list of the changes he would like to make to the Constitution concern me. Whether he'll actually do those things, and what he has done previously in the office(s) he has held, I do not know, but I can't vote for someone who seems hell-bent (sorry) on forcing Christianity upon everyone in the U.S.

Sure, he says a lot of things about smaller government, which appeals to me, but does he have the proven track record that someone like Ron Paul does? Is he committed to reducing the size of our government, or does he make exceptions for pet issues like gay marriage?

Why does marriage require a Constitutional amendment? If he's willing to make such radical changes to the foundations of our government over something like gay marriage, I'm convinced that he does not treat the limitations of government and the rights of individual citizens with the respect they deserve.

I'd sooner vote the Ayatollah into office.

I don't know much about Perry, but the list of the changes he would like to make to the Constitution concern me. Whether he'll actually do those things, and what he has done previously in the office(s) he has held, I do not know, but I can't vote for someone who seems hell-bent (sorry) on forcing Christianity upon everyone in the U.S.

Sure, he says a lot of things about smaller government, which appeals to me, but does he have the proven track record that someone like Ron Paul does? Is he committed to reducing the size of our government, or does he make exceptions for pet issues like gay marriage?

Why does marriage require a Constitutional amendment? If he's willing to make such radical changes to the foundations of our government over something like gay marriage, I'm convinced that he does not treat the limitations of government and the rights of individual citizens with the respect they deserve.

I'd sooner vote the Ayatollah into office.

I think you should do more research on Perry before formulating such a quick comparison, but that is just my opinion.  Having read your few posts that you have made, you seem like a smart cat and can figure it out, so I am not going to pimp Perry for you (well, not much anyway)

Take a look at Texas' current economic status, where he has been the Governor for the last 11 years. Look at the states statistics, not the left wing libel that is out there on the intard-net.

His stance on border control and the 2nd are strong and in the favor of the US.

Refuses to apologize for America to anyone

Comes from the farm, not from the Plantation.

Has no problem with bucking the system as it stands

The list goes on..

I am still torn on candidates. 15 months is long time and we will have to wait and see.

Nobody I really like has stepped forward yet, but I do like the fact that Perry's folksy demeanor will drive the pseudo-intellectual media elitists and their leftist and establishment brethren absolutely apeshit.