Ron Paul
BAD
Choice
Civil Rights
Environment
Federal Agencies
Health Care
Immigration
Israel
Revenue
Stimulus
United Nations
GOOD
Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Federal Reserve
NAFTA
Patriot Act
Privacy
Torture
War on Drugs
WTO
posted by Tom Cleland @ 8/15/2011 08:23:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
While the progressive movement definitely needs its own candidate, it's an interesting intellectual question: Who is better, Obama or Paul?
Paul would save money by ending the wars, including the war on drugs.
Paul is bad on revenue, infrastructure, and stimulus, but maybe by ending the Fed he would remove the need for an income tax.
Paul is bad on health care, but maybe people would have more money to buy private health insurance.
Paul is bad on the environment, but at least he opposes perverse incentives to pollute.
Paul is bad on choice, but it sounds like he would leave that to the states anyway.
Paul is bad on civil rights, but at least he gives lip service to racial harmony.
Paul is bad on immigration, but maybe he can be persuaded to take a more libertarian approach to human workers.
I know this is all wishful thinking, but isn't that what got Obama elected?
Just curious, what do you see as Ron Paul's position on Israel?
Paul said that "Israel is our close friend" and the U.S. should not demand that Israel make hard concessions:
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110519007204/en
I would make aid contingent on concessions. If Paul wants to cut off all aid to Israel no matter what, then I might need to take a closer look on that issue.
Libertarianism has worked out great in Haiti and Somalia.
Paul does want to cut off all aid to Israel and all other countries as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home