If I Hade To Vote Today...

If I had to vote today, I would vote for Ron Paul! Here's why:

* He says that he'll lower taxes for working Americans
* He's against the Iraq war
* He's 100% pro-life
* He has a good health care reform plan
* He has a commitment to homeschooling
* He has a commitment to public education
* He's an advocate of environmentalism
* He has a great position on prejudices
* He's bold
* He has a good energy plan
* He's not an annoying Christian, though he is a Christian

What I'm not sure about or where I tend to disagree:

* His stance on border security (He seems more stringent than I am)
* His stance on persons rights to bear arms
* His stance against free trade

Of all of the candidates, his views align with mine more than anyone elses. So, if I had to vote today and he were on the ballot, I think I'd vote for him.


  1. If Ron Paul had the Republican nod I'd vote for him (although the whole racism issue really bothered me). But otherwise I'm pretty much sticking with the Democratic nominee.

    I'm a bit more lax on border "security" but that's probably because I'm Mexican and I live in Texas and seeing it up close it really doesn't bother me at all (not to mention my grandfather was from Mexico).

    All in all I just like how different and fresh he is compared to the other candidates. Unfortunately there is no real shot that he'll get the nod. oh well.


  2. Bryan,
    I think you're right. It doesn't look like he'll get on the ballot.

    I don't like anyone else, to be honest with you. Personally, I just want a %100 pro-life person (anti-war and anti-abortion).

    As for the border issue, I don't think we should put up fences and crap--waste of time, money, etc. Personally, I've always liked the idea of open borders and I think theologically, there is a lot of merit to that concept.

    You're right, Ron Paul is fresh. He doesn't take crap, he speaks his mind and he's not playing the race or religion cards at all. Good for him!

  3. He would be a good choice, especially because of his stance on the right to bear arms.

  4. Anonymous,

    As you probably know, I fully disagree with you here. But you're opinion is welcome anyways.

  5. What about the newsletter and his at least passive acceptance of racism in his name?

  6. Matthew,

    On his website, he is clear about this issue: he is against it. His thoughts about "ugly collectivism" do not seem unwarranted, though they may be. Evidently, we've read two different things or interpreted one thing the same way. I'm just going by what I read on his site, here's the addy: