Madison B. wrote:
But then you would have to ask yourself... Why does he label himself a Republican? Republicans are pro most of the stuff hes against...
Because the Republicans aren't really true conservatives or for small government anymore.
Conservatism in America more closely resembled Libertarianism before the Religious Right got ahold of it and fucked it all up. After that, the warmongering of the Left spilled into it and produced the dysfunctional neoconservativism we have today.
Meanwhile, the Left learned some hard lessons about interventionism and became less interventionist for a short while before going right back to it....
We need isolationist liberalism in America at this point, but neither party really represents this. Both parties can't resist the lure of military adventurism.
Madison B. wrote:
Is it a cheap shot for vote? If in fact it is than he would have been better off calling himself a Democrate since republicans (most at least) won't vote for him due to his stand on certain economical issues.
The support Ron gets is mostly composed of conservatives that truly stand for smaller government and liberals who desperately want an isolationist candidate. I fall into the latter category, but I'd be just as happy with Nader (if not more so).
Madison B. wrote:
But It looks like he is trying to get votes by all of which he's doing (tv time w/colbert.. repub) I guess by calling himself a Republican he's gaining more attention.. Everyone wants to hear why a texan republican is on the ballot lol... I was suprised believe it or not.. Now its clear that he's doing it to get the attention of voters. I can't blame him. I actually give him props for it. Slick and Smart.
Just keep this in mind. Paul is not new to this. He first ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. He's played this game before, and like other second tier candidates, he's not really playing to win. Neither is Nader.
Longshot candidates are there to galvanize support for issues and positions that the major candidates aren't supporting. They force the big guys to address said issues, and every once in a while, it manages to change one of the big players in a direction that resembles the position that the longshot guy mentions.
This is why I like people like Ron Paul. If he gets enough attention, he'll force the big players among the Republicans to move more towards smaller government. People will start to ask the right questions, and they'll have little choice but to change (or at least pretend to).
Madison B. wrote:
But right now i'm more worried about our economical stability & i'd rather be safe with the likes of Clinton (because her husband took us out of debt.. then again how can you trust a women with no self respect? stayed with her husband AFTER he had a relationship with another women? makes me think.. did she do it for the sake of the Clinton name?... (gosh whats up with my paranoia today?) But guilianie was good with clearing crime from NYC & took us out of a budget deficit... so.... maybe he's the one?
Oh I don't care anymore! lol It's all making me paranoid. If I don't vote I can't complain...lol
*shrugs* I like Bill Clinton for the most part, but his wife is kind of crazy. I'd rather Obama or Edwards gets in there. Edwards is really the best electable candidate the Democrats have, but I think he'll play second fiddle to either Clinton or Obama by the end of all this....