Quote:
Originally Posted by al Asaad
Yeah, but the point of my comment had to do with the inevitablilty of him, as "President", further empowering "Republicans" (the genre), to include all the slimeballs and nut cases tagging along as bad baggage.
Don't forget, a Republican is a Republican.
Let's try it this way: you know damn well he would kowtow to the Right, religious "conservatives", The NRA-etc.
|
Well by that logic you should call all Democrats tree-hugging, hippy, big-government, big taxers, communists, socialist, and anti-american...
That is of course, a load of crap. Your characterization of Republicans is also inaccurate. Not every republican supports the NRA, or is a "religious nut."
You have to keep in mind that politics, especially party politics is like a giant social mirror. People want gun-toting, religious zealots (well 28% of republican voters), the rest probably don't.
I spend many years studying this, and I can say with some certainty understanding the nature of people's political affiliations is like trying to catch sand in the twisting winds.
Ron Paul, is for his faults, probably the closest candidate to the traditional republican platform (pre-1968). I don't support all this initiatives, but the majority of his convictions about how government should serve the people of this country, are right on point. He is also correct in stating we have strayed far off the path of being the greatest nation, not just because of military power, because we as Americans no longer have the moral fiber to step up and hold our leaders accountable for their crimes. That I also agree with.
He would be a far better leader than Clinton, or Obama.