One of the major selling points Ron Paul had to get me to support him is his stance on the soundness of the American dollar. It has made me think about what will be made of the dollar if Ron Paul cannot win the election and work to return to a sound dollar.
None of the other candidates in this election have even said anything about the dollar which means chances are they arent thinking about it. This means that these candidates will probably continue the unsafe spending of presidents in recent history. We have been spending more than we have and the country is in a $3 trillion debt. Yet we are still printing more and more paper money everyday, but not getting any real money to back it up as we are actually losing money each day. The value of the dollar goes down with each bill printed, with each day, with each loan we take out from another country.
If we leave this to be fixed by a president who isn't even talking about it how can we move increasing the value of the dollar? The value of a dollar is as low as it has ever been and decreasing each day. I am scared to think about what my life will be like in 10 years with a low valued dollar. What will I be getting each day for work? Nothing? Close to it. Think of how hard traveling overseas will become. Trading currency will be nearly impossible. You will need twice as many dollars to get a certain amount of foreign currency as you do today.
That is one of my major hooks that have me connected to Ron Paul. Ron Paul had me when he talked about returning to sound money. I am still young and this is a big part of my future. He has me with how he plans to cut government spending so we do not need to loan as much and can begin to pay off our debts. As we pay of these debts we will be returning value to our dollar because our money will not just be paper, it will not belong to another country, it will belong to us and the paper dollars will be back by our country's gold and that is what we truly need. We cannot stay a power or have any economic standing in the world in the future if we cannot return to a sound dollar and that is what has me following Ron Paul.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Candidates Rely too Much on Advisers
In recent news Mitt Romney's advisers have told him not to give a speech on his Mormon faith. This brings me to wonder whether or not the actual candidates can do much of anything on their own without advisers. Romney had said he wanted to give a speech to explain his Mormon faith, but his political advisers are telling him not to.
So this brings me to this thought. Politicians rely too much on their advisers. As voters, are we voting for a candidate or his advisers? It seems as though we vote for their advisers. The candidates are just their because of their history, but what they do on campaigns to get people to vote for them looks as if their advisers are the ones telling them what to do.
Think about this, most candidates have some one who writes their speeches, so how do you know if what the candidate is saying is what he wants to be saying. An advisers usually tells candidates where to campaign, so how do you know if the candidate truly feels like getting the type of people his advisers tell him to go after?
The campaigns of each man have so many different employees and advisers, it makes me wonder. How can a person run our country if they can't run their own campaign? How can we expect the candidate to make the right decisions in the White House if he can't even make his own decisions to get to the White House?
I do not think that I can trust a candidate to run the country that I love and live for if he cannot do much of anything on his own. I can understand if you have some employees because you can't campaign everywhere at once, but having other people tell you what to give speeches on or not should not be part of these campaigns.
My StumbleUpon Page
So this brings me to this thought. Politicians rely too much on their advisers. As voters, are we voting for a candidate or his advisers? It seems as though we vote for their advisers. The candidates are just their because of their history, but what they do on campaigns to get people to vote for them looks as if their advisers are the ones telling them what to do.
Think about this, most candidates have some one who writes their speeches, so how do you know if what the candidate is saying is what he wants to be saying. An advisers usually tells candidates where to campaign, so how do you know if the candidate truly feels like getting the type of people his advisers tell him to go after?
The campaigns of each man have so many different employees and advisers, it makes me wonder. How can a person run our country if they can't run their own campaign? How can we expect the candidate to make the right decisions in the White House if he can't even make his own decisions to get to the White House?
I do not think that I can trust a candidate to run the country that I love and live for if he cannot do much of anything on his own. I can understand if you have some employees because you can't campaign everywhere at once, but having other people tell you what to give speeches on or not should not be part of these campaigns.
My StumbleUpon Page
Saturday, November 10, 2007
What Impact does the New Hampshire Primary have on Ron Paul?
Here I pose a question to you and I ask for your feedback on this one. What effect will the New Hampshire primary, the first primary, have on Ron Paul and his chances at the Republican presidential bid?
The New Hampshire primary, being the first primary in the nation, sets the tone for the rest of the nation's primaries and caucuses. The primary is known as a key one to win and has a big impact on the campaigns for the rest of the primary season.
I believe that this state can make or break the chances of Ron Paul.
If Ron Paul happens to win this state it will give the media nothing to talk bad about him with. It will finally silence the media and they won't be able to use the "spam" excuse and say his voters cheated in the primary. It will also give him an extra boost in publicity as the media surely can't ignore Ron winning this state and if it does it will give all of us supporters more to feed to others on how he has been shut down by the media. This boost will give Ron Paul nearly all the moment going into the other states and will allow people to feel possible more comfortable voting him knowing he has a chance (I do know of many people who vote for their second favorite candidates because their first they believe has no chance of winning).
On the other side of the wall, if Ron Paul doesn't win the state, even if its by the slimmest of margins, the media will keep feeding the "Ron Paul has no chance and is made up of only supporters who make him look popular". The media will continue to make him out as a failure even this early in the primary season. Media is Ron's biggest enemy and if he doesn't do well early they will make him seem like an unpopular choice overall making him less popular to those who have yet to vote.
That is my input, but this something I want to hear from what other supporters or naysayers have to say. So leave some comments and I will respond. I would like to see what is seen out there about Ron Paul and what he needs early.
My StumbleUpon Page
The New Hampshire primary, being the first primary in the nation, sets the tone for the rest of the nation's primaries and caucuses. The primary is known as a key one to win and has a big impact on the campaigns for the rest of the primary season.
I believe that this state can make or break the chances of Ron Paul.
If Ron Paul happens to win this state it will give the media nothing to talk bad about him with. It will finally silence the media and they won't be able to use the "spam" excuse and say his voters cheated in the primary. It will also give him an extra boost in publicity as the media surely can't ignore Ron winning this state and if it does it will give all of us supporters more to feed to others on how he has been shut down by the media. This boost will give Ron Paul nearly all the moment going into the other states and will allow people to feel possible more comfortable voting him knowing he has a chance (I do know of many people who vote for their second favorite candidates because their first they believe has no chance of winning).
On the other side of the wall, if Ron Paul doesn't win the state, even if its by the slimmest of margins, the media will keep feeding the "Ron Paul has no chance and is made up of only supporters who make him look popular". The media will continue to make him out as a failure even this early in the primary season. Media is Ron's biggest enemy and if he doesn't do well early they will make him seem like an unpopular choice overall making him less popular to those who have yet to vote.
That is my input, but this something I want to hear from what other supporters or naysayers have to say. So leave some comments and I will respond. I would like to see what is seen out there about Ron Paul and what he needs early.
My StumbleUpon Page
Why Is Ron Paul So Popular? I Like Him
I have been supporting Ron Paul for awhile now, but with his support growing quickly, I wanted to ask: Why is Ron Paul so popular? I support him and below are the reasons that I think most people are supporting him for.
Ron Paul seems to be the only real conservative in the race. Even some Democrats seem more conservative than some Republican candidates. So why are all the Republican candidates claiming they are the most conservative? Why does every Republican compare himself to Reagan? If you look at their views on issues, you see they are not conservative. So if they lie about how conservative they are to get a few extra votes, how are they honest enough to lead our country? The answer is they are not. I would have no problem with candidates that weren't as conservative as Ron Paul, but only if they didn't lie about it.
Ron Paul to me seems to be the only candidate close to being conservative. He is the only one who openly speaks of abolishing some government agencies that are basically not needed. He is also one of the only candidate who does not talk about how much they are going to change the country on their own, which means with the federal government. Paul speaks about not changing the country on his own, but allowing more freedom to each state to make it's choice, which will ultimately all the people to choose by region or area and will also cut spending by not having to pay for everything needed for the federal government to get something done.
Ron Paul is also against war, another usually Republican and conservative view. Why do so many "Republicans" support the war, which has been against the party mostly since before Bush? The party needs somebody to get them back on the values they have held for years. I believe that man is Ron Paul and that is why I support him as the presidential candidate for the Republican bid. I want to get back to the ideas of our former leaders. I want to get back to the Constitution.
The Constitution was not written for no reason. It was written to keep this country under control. So why do we have so many politicians and government officials going against the document written to keep us as free country? Government has way too much power and is easily ignoring the Constitution. Ron Paul believes in the Constitution and I believe is one of the only candidates who will actually attepmt to do what he says.
That is all I have to say about conservatism and Ron Paul. My last point is Ron Paul is one of the only candidates against interventionism which will lessen our debt, give us more money to spend to better the country, and is the only candidate that I think will be able to unite this country.
My StumbleUpon Page
Ron Paul seems to be the only real conservative in the race. Even some Democrats seem more conservative than some Republican candidates. So why are all the Republican candidates claiming they are the most conservative? Why does every Republican compare himself to Reagan? If you look at their views on issues, you see they are not conservative. So if they lie about how conservative they are to get a few extra votes, how are they honest enough to lead our country? The answer is they are not. I would have no problem with candidates that weren't as conservative as Ron Paul, but only if they didn't lie about it.
Ron Paul to me seems to be the only candidate close to being conservative. He is the only one who openly speaks of abolishing some government agencies that are basically not needed. He is also one of the only candidate who does not talk about how much they are going to change the country on their own, which means with the federal government. Paul speaks about not changing the country on his own, but allowing more freedom to each state to make it's choice, which will ultimately all the people to choose by region or area and will also cut spending by not having to pay for everything needed for the federal government to get something done.
Ron Paul is also against war, another usually Republican and conservative view. Why do so many "Republicans" support the war, which has been against the party mostly since before Bush? The party needs somebody to get them back on the values they have held for years. I believe that man is Ron Paul and that is why I support him as the presidential candidate for the Republican bid. I want to get back to the ideas of our former leaders. I want to get back to the Constitution.
The Constitution was not written for no reason. It was written to keep this country under control. So why do we have so many politicians and government officials going against the document written to keep us as free country? Government has way too much power and is easily ignoring the Constitution. Ron Paul believes in the Constitution and I believe is one of the only candidates who will actually attepmt to do what he says.
That is all I have to say about conservatism and Ron Paul. My last point is Ron Paul is one of the only candidates against interventionism which will lessen our debt, give us more money to spend to better the country, and is the only candidate that I think will be able to unite this country.
My StumbleUpon Page
Friday, November 9, 2007
Are closer primaries going to hurt Ron Paul?
With the primaries being punished by the GOP for moving their date up, yet still refusing to move them back, I have one question. Will the closer primary/caucus dates hurt Ron Paul?
My thought would be yes. It gives Ron less time to advertise and gain more on the GOP poll leaders. It also gives him the disadvantage of not having extra time to campaign. I believe that with him being less known due to less time to publicize himself, his chances of winning are slimmer. I am not saying he can't win, and I sure hope he does, but is it possible without the extra time.
Ron Paul needs to get into more debates also, and with FOX trying to keep from their debates, it also again keeps his publicity down and his message spreading unspread. Not only does he need to be in debates but he needs to participate in them more actively and if he does not have the extra months to join debates, he will not get the extra participation he needs. Debates aren't just going to let him go from almost no time to significant time in one debate and that is why he needs more debates.
Personally, I think the closer dates for these primaries and caucuses will hinder his chances. Let me know what you think.
My StumbleUpon Page
My thought would be yes. It gives Ron less time to advertise and gain more on the GOP poll leaders. It also gives him the disadvantage of not having extra time to campaign. I believe that with him being less known due to less time to publicize himself, his chances of winning are slimmer. I am not saying he can't win, and I sure hope he does, but is it possible without the extra time.
Ron Paul needs to get into more debates also, and with FOX trying to keep from their debates, it also again keeps his publicity down and his message spreading unspread. Not only does he need to be in debates but he needs to participate in them more actively and if he does not have the extra months to join debates, he will not get the extra participation he needs. Debates aren't just going to let him go from almost no time to significant time in one debate and that is why he needs more debates.
Personally, I think the closer dates for these primaries and caucuses will hinder his chances. Let me know what you think.
My StumbleUpon Page
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Review: Ron Paul Interviewed on The Situation Room
Today Ron Paul was interviewed on The Situation Room. The Interview will be replayed during today's 6PM ET show if you missed it. Now how did it go for Congressman Paul?
The interview went fairly well for Ron Paul. He was asked some tough questions in the short time and put in a tough situations having to do with some of the things that he was the only voter in Congress voting no, but he backed his reasons well and defended himself flawlessly without going away from his values one bit.
When asked why he voted no to giving Rosa Parks a gold member, he covered it perfectly by first saying that he had no problem giving her the medal. He stated that he would give her the medal if the American people did not have to pay for it. He even said he would pitch in to pay for it and all congressmen should too instead of making the people pay for it. Typical of Ron Paul and I think it was perfect for the time that got his message across.
He also was persuasive on how big the Ron Paul bandwagon is by acknowledging how little he had to do with This November Fifth.
Overall I would say this short interview went well. He said nothing that would jeopardize his campaign, even when the questions asked seemed to be trying to jeopardize his campaign by making him look heartless. He turned around those questions to hurt him into answers that should help him. The viewers watching that didn't previously know much about Ron Paul will have more reason to look him up and possible support him than they have to ignore him because of what Ron Paul said. Good interview Ron.
My StumbleUpon Page
The interview went fairly well for Ron Paul. He was asked some tough questions in the short time and put in a tough situations having to do with some of the things that he was the only voter in Congress voting no, but he backed his reasons well and defended himself flawlessly without going away from his values one bit.
When asked why he voted no to giving Rosa Parks a gold member, he covered it perfectly by first saying that he had no problem giving her the medal. He stated that he would give her the medal if the American people did not have to pay for it. He even said he would pitch in to pay for it and all congressmen should too instead of making the people pay for it. Typical of Ron Paul and I think it was perfect for the time that got his message across.
He also was persuasive on how big the Ron Paul bandwagon is by acknowledging how little he had to do with This November Fifth.
Overall I would say this short interview went well. He said nothing that would jeopardize his campaign, even when the questions asked seemed to be trying to jeopardize his campaign by making him look heartless. He turned around those questions to hurt him into answers that should help him. The viewers watching that didn't previously know much about Ron Paul will have more reason to look him up and possible support him than they have to ignore him because of what Ron Paul said. Good interview Ron.
My StumbleUpon Page
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Ron Paul on Rise
I have decided that I will be posting a daily article about Ron Paul everyday. I am a Ron Paul supporter and feel that I need to write about him. Check back each night and there will be a new Ron Paul article for you to read.
Today I will focus on Ron Paul and This November Fifth's impact on the media and publicity of Ron Paul.
Many know of Ron Paul's record breaking fundraising money on November 5th. But what effect does it have on Ron Paul in the media and Ron Paul publicity?
Ron Paul has been left out of many debates, he is despised by FOX, and has even had his discussions banned by Sean Hannity. But this event has brought his name in national media all over. Ron Paul is finally getting his name and all supporters of him are liking the publicity. So with supporters constantly begging for more coverage of Ron Paul, why is FOX and Hannity refusing to cover him? This is one thing I don't understand. CNN has no problem covering Ron Paul. MSNBC has no problem covering Ron Paul. Why does FOX have that problem with covering Ron Paul?
The publicity on CNN (he will be on The Situation Room tomorrow) is certainly going to give him a better shot at winning with more people knowing about him, but FOX is deliberately leaving him out of debates or keeping his participation in debates to a minimal. In a few upcoming debates in key primary states, FOX has refused to allow Ron Paul join the debates.
I would like to see some sort of revolt or something that will get Ron Paul back on FOX or another action, possibly by another TV station, to get Paul in the mainstream media without FOX. I mean, look what it would be like if Paul wins the nomination. Will FOX still keep him off of their station? How would that work?
Today I will focus on Ron Paul and This November Fifth's impact on the media and publicity of Ron Paul.
Many know of Ron Paul's record breaking fundraising money on November 5th. But what effect does it have on Ron Paul in the media and Ron Paul publicity?
Ron Paul has been left out of many debates, he is despised by FOX, and has even had his discussions banned by Sean Hannity. But this event has brought his name in national media all over. Ron Paul is finally getting his name and all supporters of him are liking the publicity. So with supporters constantly begging for more coverage of Ron Paul, why is FOX and Hannity refusing to cover him? This is one thing I don't understand. CNN has no problem covering Ron Paul. MSNBC has no problem covering Ron Paul. Why does FOX have that problem with covering Ron Paul?
The publicity on CNN (he will be on The Situation Room tomorrow) is certainly going to give him a better shot at winning with more people knowing about him, but FOX is deliberately leaving him out of debates or keeping his participation in debates to a minimal. In a few upcoming debates in key primary states, FOX has refused to allow Ron Paul join the debates.
I would like to see some sort of revolt or something that will get Ron Paul back on FOX or another action, possibly by another TV station, to get Paul in the mainstream media without FOX. I mean, look what it would be like if Paul wins the nomination. Will FOX still keep him off of their station? How would that work?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)