20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.

Via Waylon Lewis
on Dec 14, 2011
get elephant's newsletter

Update: we just published not one, but two lists of reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. Let’s hear it for learning together, and respectful debate! ~ Waylon, ed.

I like Ron Paul.

A lot. He has integrity, consistency (not always a good thing—views can and should evolve, open-mindedness is a virtue, too), his values are clear. He’s pro-Wikileaks, pro-OWS, pro-legalization, anti-war, anti-SOPA, and anti-fascist state BS.

Here’s everything we’ve blogged up about him, lately (we give him a lot of love on elephant).

But I won’t vote for him. Why? Easy:

1. He’s anti-gay marriage (supports DOMA)

2. He’s a young earth creationist

3. He’s a climate change denier

4. He believes that America, founded on principles of freedom of worship by many less-than-Christian framers, is a Christian country.

5. Worse, he believes that separation of church and state is a myth

6. He is against net neutrality (you know, liberty online)

7. He believes the civil rights act had a negative impact on the country

8. His stance on safety-nets (none, please)

9. His stance on student aid (do away with it)

10. His stance on health care (including Medicare, Medicaid)

11. His stance on abortion (goodbye, Roe v. Wade)

12. He would shutter the EPA (goodbye environmental health regulations, hello toxic daily life for our children)

13. His stance on Social Security (a hindrance to freedom)

14. His stance on taxes on the super-rich (no, thank you)

15. His stance on financial regulations (none, please)

16. His lack of support for renewable energy

17. He would close the Department of Education

18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home: “Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”

19. He signed the Pro-Life Presidential pledge, which includes a vow to only nominate pro-life judges to the Court. Generally, serious presidential candidates should refuse to sign all pledges, since they remove the rights of citizens in a democracy to see their wishes represented, and make their reps beholden to outside interests.

20. Given his ground game, he’d be tough for President Obama to beat. A lot of liberals, including myself, would be tempted to vote Paul. I’d rather Obama get to bat around damaged-goods Newt or wooden-1%er Mitt.

Still, with the exception of Jon Huntsman, he’s the best—by far—of the rest of the GOP field.

~

PS: did I forget a reason not to vote for Ron Paul? Add in comments? Did I forget a reason we like Ron Paul? Add it in comments. Did I get any facts wrong? Let me know. I know this is politics, but we can do all this respectfully. If you can’t, read this. Disrespect will be deleted.

~

Bonus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYllfk4

24,040 views

About Waylon Lewis

Waylon Lewis, founder of elephant magazine, now elephantjournal.com & host of Walk the Talk Show with Waylon Lewis, is a 1st generation American Buddhist “Dharma Brat." Voted #1 in U.S. on twitter for #green two years running, Changemaker & Eco Ambassador by Treehugger, Green Hero by Discovery’s Planet Green, Best (!) Shameless Self-Promoter at Westword's Web Awards, Prominent Buddhist by Shambhala Sun, & 100 Most Influential People in Health & Fitness 2011 by "Greatist", Waylon is a mediocre climber, lazy yogi, 365-day bicycle commuter & best friend to Redford (his rescue hound). His aim: to bring the good news re: "the mindful life" beyond the choir & to all those who didn't know they gave a care. elephantjournal.com | His first book, Things I would like to do with You, is now available.

Comments

140 Responses to “20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.”

  1. Mark Ledbetter says:

    A number of items on this list look fishy.

    In any case, with Ron Paul you don’t get a lukewarm kinda sorta anti-war advocate. War is the number one issue that trumps all others. If, for example, Dennis Kucinich were the Dem nominee, you’d find libertarians backing him even though he is the most anti-libertarian mainstream politician on domestic issues. Why? Because war trumps all else and Kucinich is the only principled anti-war Democrat.

    Murray Rothbard, mentor to all modern Libertarians, back in the Vietnam War days, joined the ultra-left Peace and Freedom Party. (Of course he also joined the Smokers Rights organization despite being a non-smoker) because the issue of war trumps all else.

    Ron Paul is against bombs and bailouts and incarceration of millions of Americans for victimless crimes. Don’t those three things trump everything on this list by a country mile?

  2. Donovan says:

    Ron Paul is against bombs and bailouts and incarceration of millions of Americans for victimless crimes. Don’t those three things trump everything on this list by a country mile? DITTO.

  3. He's definitely the best of a bad bunch this time around. But when you look at this list all together, there is just too much to overlook. I seem to remember that some of his stances (marriage equality comes to mind?) were not completely against the issue, but wanting individual states to have the decision. I respect that idea on principle, but I don't feel like civil rights issues can be left to popular opinion.

  4. elephantjournal says:

    Leaving this here, this comes via the trash-talking "Tentcityhall" below, who despite anonymous trashtalk has a great list of clarifications of positions that I didn't want to delete along with the needless invective. So here's the first few, rest of the list remains below: ~ Waylon.

    ~
    via "tentcityhall", whoever that is:

    . Ron Paul isn't anti-gay marriage. He believes the federal government has no place is defining marriage whatsoever, saying that such arrangements ought to be defined by religious institutions (as they have historically been). The government, if it has a role, would simply be an enforcer of legal contracts and their dissolution, should such an occasion be necessary. He also voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. In his own words:

    "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."

    2. . "I think the creator that I know, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe and the precise time and manner and all. I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side." <–Hardly "new earth creationism"

    3. He's not a climate change denier. Again, in his own words:

    "It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

    "The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well."

    4 & 5. "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government."

  5. elephantjournal says:

    I wouldn't be. But Ron Paul is, as I said above, a tantalizing candidate with a lot of great qualities. In the general election, I would be voting for/against him if he were the GOP nominee, of course. Would be great to see him form a third party? Seems like we need one, these days. ~ Waylon

  6. elephantjournal says:

    Most of my list above comes from various other blogs…because while it may be strictly accurate, it may not be thoroughly so…so I relied on the Web 2.0 nature of great comments. This is a discussion, not a monologue. Thanks for helping us all to learn, we all have open minds here.

    One of my friends, in fact, has as a result of the above blog just sent me 20 Reasons to vote for Ron Paul, which we'll be publishing posthaste. ~ Waylon

  7. elephantjournal says:

    Many of your/his clarifications are unsatisfactory. Taking away a woman's right to control her own body? States rights is a convenient justification that GOPers use when convenient…or go the other direction (Defense of Marriage Act, anyone? etc…) when convenient. ~ Waylon

  8. yogalouisville says:

    i don't agree with all of these statements. He is prepared to bring our troops home. it's more expensive to keep bases open than close them. and, the cost of lives is obviously higher. when an article is written, it would do you best to cite sources, otherwise- this article is just an editorial, not fact based- which is dangerous and misinforming. the best thing about ron paul is his consistency. look at his record. the proof is there.

  9. Those three things are huge, but Paul could continue to be influential on those issues within Congress. While I never choose a candidate based on one issue, his ability to appoint Supreme Court justices, and his commitment to only appointing pro-life justices concerns me quite a bit.

  10. elephantjournal says:

    #
    David Patterson I will give you a THOUSAND reasons why I would NOT vote for any of them !!!! Pick your poison, I suppose.

    #
    Mat Hill ‎21) Proposes intelligent design as an alternative theory to evolution to be taught in school science classes.

    #
    Fredric Ward why would you delete my comment? not favorable enough for ya?

    #
    Bill Tatro Wow! Newsflash. You won't be voting for a Republiican. Who'd a thunk?

    #
    Tom Frascone: I think people misunderstand Paul. People from both sides tend to label him as being "for ___" or "against ___" because they don't understand his stance that the federal government does not have the constitutional right to make certain decisions – decision that are supposed to be left to the state. Mainstreams like to see issues as black or white, with no area in between. That's one of Paul's problems – he's not always black or white on an issue.

    Many conservatives view Paul as being "Pro-Choice" while liberals believe him to be "Pro-Life."

    Many conservatives view Paul as being "Pro-Gay Marriage" while liberals believe him to be "Anti-Gay Marriage."

    So Paul supports neither: federal legislation to ALLOW or BAN certain things, based on his perception of whether or not the issue is governed by the US Constitution. This opens the door for criticisms as I describe above.

    E.G.
    "Prominent religious conservatives in Iowa, however, object that Paul does not apply his beliefs at the national level. Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, and he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He thinks both issues should be left up to the states."

    I think people also misunderstand Paul's "personal beliefs" versus what he thinks is allowable by the constitution. This is to say, he can have his own opinion, but still understand that he doesn't have the constitutional right to govern others based on his own personal belief.

    #
    Larry Downey Right on Tom! The way I understand it, the Constitution is a tool to be used to govern these United States based on law… NOT personal ideology. In my opinion, folks (right and left) are compelled to push their own personal beliefs or agendas on others and prefer to use government/laws to do so. I see this as being the reason our country is so divided. A personal spiritual practice for me is to make decisions outside of the emotional attachment to outcome. Why would we want our country's laws to be decided by the emotional bias of one group or another? What I like about this man, Ron Paul, is his ability to make decisions that may go against his personal belief system based on the law our country was founded upon, the Constitution.

  11. elephantjournal says:

    Fredric, as I mentioned above in the blog, I'll repeat. We have a comment policy: rude comments will be deleted. Critical but constructive comments are more than welcome: http://www.bit.ly/aVGiui Thanks, keep commenting if you like! ~ Waylon

  12. elephantjournal says:

    Tom, buddy, just emailed you. Would love an article "Why I'll vote for Ron Paul" from you…I know you're a(n insanely) well-informed passionate gent. ~ Waylon

  13. elephantjournal says:

    Steve Frazier:
    Ron is an interesting guy, but as this related, he has issues. Please read and comment.

    Gary Denton He's a Bircher. I don't need any further.
    #
    Anna Moorman Hi, I tried to post this several times on the EJ website, but each time I got a message that my comment was "deleted by the administrator" within a few seconds of posting. This is my comment:

    "I agree that the upcoming Republican primary is important for liberal voters. I agree that Paul is probably the strongest candidate in the Republican field. I disagree that because Paul is strong, he should be ignored. It is precisely because he is strong, and because of his issues-focused campaign, that we should give him our Republican primary votes. What we want in 2012 is vigorous public debate focused on the issues, not a farce with mediocre moderates like Gingrich or Romney. We have an opportunity to make the 2012 presidential debates about issues, not the usual and customary choreographed piece that is public politics. Vote for debate next spring and then vote for Obama in November 2012!

    Please have the professional courtesy to site sources where Paul espoused the opinions you ascribe to him. Thank you!"

    #
    Anna Moorman Sorry for getting in the middle of that, Fredric. : )

    #
    Kevin Hotaling ‎@Waylon – I sent a response to you and Lindsey. Thanks for keeping the Ron Paul debate lively. 🙂

    #
    Michael Boxer You have little understanding of the Libertarian movement and it's basis in Protestantism. The "Merit" based society flies in the face of your so-called Buddhist beliefs. I think you have become sensational and ill-informed. I will not follow your page any more.

    #
    Bruce Becker DO NOT TRUST HIS MULTIPLE HIDDEN AGENDAS

    #
    Justin Pape Veterans know the TRUTH, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo&li
    You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy http://www.youtube.com
    So, you'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his wacky foreign policy? U.S. mil…itary veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for P
    #
    Justin Pape anyone who can't handle ron paul can't handle freedom and therefore doesn't deserve to be free!

    #
    Mike Zobbe If you loved America in 1910, you'll love Ron Paul.

    #
    Courtney Parker But without all the fresh water and clean air….or any hope of ever regaining it if Ron Paul has his way.

    #
    Michael Witten The FED rules over the US government.

    #
    Anna Moorman ‎@Courtney, Ron Paul won't be elected president. Moderates will vote for Obama before they'll vote for Paul. Even if Paul were elected, he would be checked by the legislature, so his most extreme initiates would never get off the ground. Those same checks and balances are the reason we aren't closer to single-payer healthcare system after the first Obama term. Paul's voice is important. His voice is leaven. Putting him in the presidential debates can help us remember our constitutional roots, like our 6th Amendment due process rights that are being challenged by the NDAA. Romney signed it. If we lose our constitutional rights, if we lose our right to petition the government for redress of grievances, then how will we continue to fight in a free adn efficacious way for a cleaner, greener world, or for anything else we hold dear? I won't vote for Paul because, among other things, I want federal oversight in education, but I do think that his is a voice that needs to be heard. Moderates and many liberals such yourself and I will not vote for him in the election. He will not be successful there. But liberals have the opportunity to make the next series of debates and the mainstream news cycle more about the issues rather than just another pageant of political posturing.

  14. elephantjournal says:

    Michael Boxer, sorry to lose you ol'brother. We welcome debate, different points of view, as I said in the blog. I respect Paul a great deal, and if GOP would vote for him with few regrets. If you only want to "follow" sources that agree with you 108% of the time, good luck.

    As for merit-based society, that's a nice way of saying "good luck po'folk who don't get a good education and live in crime-filled neighborhoods." I'm doing well in a merit-based society because, though my mom was poor, I had a good education and lived in a safe town. Many Americans don't get those same advantages.

  15. carterjay61 says:

    Ron Paul is a man who's highly subsidized medical education makes him now think he has the right to eliminate Federally supported education efforts. It's a Hippocratic oath you take as a Doctor, not a hippo-critical oath to turn you back on everything that assisted you in becoming a well paid success. Make Ron Paul pay for the entirety of his multi-million dollar education!

  16. tentcityhall says:

    Highly subsidized medical education? Tell us what you know. He paid for his own undergraduate education. I was under the impression that the same was true for his medical degree.

  17. matthewscottwallace says:

    I'd love to see some sources. These are pretty big claims to not have any.

  18. elephantjournal says:

    You said some meanie things. We don't go in for that. That said, resepctful criticism and debate is our bread n'butte.r

    Seems we're on the same page. I respect Dr. Paul, and appreciate learning more from you re: him than what's out there. Hopefully this blog and your comments and others' can help us all dip beneath the surface and learn something. ~ Waylon

  19. elephantjournal says:

    Much of this has come from my actually watching the debates—Dr. Paul is very straightforward, to his credit, about his values and what he'd cut.

    Let me know what points you feel are untrue—I'm happy to fix anything—most of the above is Libertarian 101, and offered with respect. ~ Waylon

  20. elephantjournal says:

    #
    Jacob S: The only republican I would even consider would be Huntsman.

    #
    Subra Manian No mention of Paul's views on the Civil War? http://www.frumforum.com/the-anti-lincoln-brigade
    Nor, as in the words of (again) David Frum – "his crank monetary theories": http://www.frumforum.com/dont-endorse-ron-paul ?

    Michael Grey I have always heard and believed that Ron Paul DID in fact support gay marriage. I am with Mark. A number of items on this list look fishy. Please explain or retract these starting with the first one.. here is a video of him saying the exact opposite. Thanks EJ, I usually do look to you as a source of inspiration but this is making me wonder the truth of the stories you post. "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." -RP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

    #
    elephantjournal.com ‎@michael – if you read through the discussion in the comments, the article was really meant to be a starting point. Paul does oppose a federal decision regarding marriage equality. His reasons are not "anti-gay" but constitutional. None the less, his lack of support for federal legislation on this is one (of many) reasons I will not be voting for him. ~ Kate

    #
    Michael Grey Then how is this a true statement or are you posting to drum up debate loosely posting "facts" such as this? "1. He’s anti-gay marriage"

    #
    elephantjournal.com Michael, he is anti-gay marriage. Do you have a source to say otherwise? If so, happy to correct my admittedly rough-but-so-far-accurate-it-seems list. No need for accusations of "fishy," friend. ~ Waylon

  21. guido says:

    Ron has recently upped the ante by pointing out that many heinous crimes have actually been government false flag operations. For this alone he is just about the only one talking seriously about the problems that face this country. He would never be able to get rid of the department of education or the EPA and I doubt the republicans will do so well in other areas like congress and the senate this election so some of his wishes would not be obtainable in one term…. Wish he would run with Kucinich as his VP… Tah dah…

  22. Nicholas Guenther says:

    Kucinich is only "anti-libertarian" by ultra-right wing economic standards and is arguably even more libertarian on domestic social issues. The Rothbard Libertarian wing is purely an American phenomenom; no self respecting Anarchist subscribes to that definition of Libertarianism. So the term libertarianism is truly misrepresented and perverted in America in my opinion.

  23. nicholas Guenther says:

    Ron Paul isn't opposed to Social security. He actually voted against privatizing it. I am not voting for Paul either I'll prolly vote Nader again or just do a fun write in like Sacco and Vanzetti hahaha….

  24. Billy says:

    I really hope this isn't another partisan PAID smear campaign. Kinda smells like it. Non sourced, and treating back burner social issues as if they are just as important as our collapsing economy , and our atrocious foreign policy.

  25. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Excellent list of point-by-points TentCity!

    A couple o’ responses to other comments…

    “But when you look at this list all together, there is just too much to overlook.”

    RESPONSE: To support anyone else running, Rep or Dem, you have to support war, govt-business collusion, and the American gulag. THIS is what’s difficult to overlook.

    Billy says, “treating back burner social issues as if they are just as important as our collapsing economy, and our atrocious foreign policy.”

    RESPONSE Exactly! I mean, how can back burners take precedence? And they’re all back burners in comparison to the collapsing economy and America-as-globocop.

    “I respect that idea on principle, but I don't feel like civil rights issues can be left to popular opinion.”

    RESPONSE: Civil rights are NOT to be left to popular opinion… This is absolute, unalterable, bedrock libertarian thinking. Therefore, it’s Ron Paul thinking. That’s why he’s against foreign wars and a domestic gulag incarcerating millions for victimless crimes.

  26. Mark Ledbetter says:

    And one more comment…

    Darn it, Kate, if I didn’t read an excellent explanation from you of why we need a centralized-national policy on gay marriage. But I can’t find it???

    In the belief that I’m not delusional about having read that, a brief response…

    I actually agree that what you say makes a lot of sense. But here’s another way to look at centralized decision making as compared to de-centralized (ie, states’ rights) decision making.

    When the central govt decides things like gay marriage, it virtually insures a divisive culture war that is unwinnable by either side and therefore a dangerous cancer on the body politic. State and (even better) local decisions mean that all points of view can find political expression and successful ones can spread organically.

    Of course, for libertarians, what govt should do about gay marriage is a mute question as govt has absolutely no right to define, promote, authorize, restrict, or be involved in any way at all with any kind of marriage.

  27. Mark Ledbetter says:

    Also, if the central govt is given the power to universally impose what you think is right, it is also given the power to universally criminalize what you think is right. Kind of scary, isn't it? Leaves you no way out, which is what many conservatives are feeling under the liberal intellectual assualt. Thus their clumsy emotional but powerful attempts to roll back national power.

    That brings to mind the beautifully simple and practical-sounding (even to this libertarian) Oregon State Health Insurance plan of a few years ago. It was essentailly cancelled by a national govt not happy with states veering off on their own. If states rights were still respected, it would likely be Oregon law now. And if it were working, it likely would have already spread to other states. And if it didn't work? It likely already would have been repealed.

    Local decision making is the wise constitutional way.supported by Ron Paul.

  28. Leigh says:

    "…PAID smear campaign…" Isn't just the free market in operation? 😉

  29. Bob K says:

    Someone said the most important issue is war vs peace. This really means the "most lives saved" is the issue.

    If we lose the planet to global warming, that would be the greatest possible loss of life. On this issue, Paul chooses to believe the internet (trying to think of the kindest word here I can) "purveyors of distortion" rather than the 97% of professional climatologists (according to an independent poll) who consider it real and human caused.

    As an aside, can you imagine, in general, his decisions on scientific matters? Someone who believes in short time creationism? Would Billy Graham Jr be the presidential science adviser?

    Paul has a lot of good things to say. I wrestled with whether I could support him or not. The bottom line for president for me was: "how many people will suffer and die vs how many will live and prosper?" Obama has turned me off on a number of fronts. But I still give him the edge over Paul on this bottom line issue.

  30. Shamgar says:

    Most of these points are reasons TO vote for Paul.

  31. […] Considering that the last few months have been a dream come true for Liberty activists, you can probably imagine our dismay when we come across articles entitled “20 Reasons I won’t Vote for Ron Paul.” […]

  32. C.J. says:

    No. Anyone who believes women’s reproductive rights should be restricted believes that they are second class citizens. Until Paul is out of my uterus, then he won’t get my vote. Period.

    The lack of separation of church and state is also very disturbing. Imagine some warped form of Christianity taking over the country and every time you masturbate and expunge sperm, you are committing murder. Oh wait, we are pretty close to that already with the fetus personhood bill. If I become pregnant and have a miscarriage, no matter the cause, I could be convicted of murder. These people are loony tunes and Paul is willing to hand them, the keys to the capital by integrating church and state. Most anti-choice justices are also pro-fetus above ALL else. Our soldiers are second class to the fetus. Women are merely fetus-incubating devices. But once that fetus is born – fuck it! You’re on your own, baby! No safety net for you! Get a job you lazy shiftless one-month old! Or make your mom (because Lord knows your dad isn’t around) get 3 jobs just to afford the rent plus day care! You don’t need no stinking bonding!

    As an aside, I don’t understand how libertarians can be anti-choice. How is my right to my OWN BODY not at the CORE of libertarianism??

  33. Althaler says:

    Pretty sure he looks at abortion as a state to state issue and something he disagrees with but will not abolish as the Commandar and Cheif. He does not believe in global warming because FACTS that are actually backed up with years of reasearch show that the Earth has only risen 1F and the sun is at it's solar maxium which accounts for the change in weather and large number of global changes. He AGREEs with gay marriage BUT again he says it is a state to state issue not something he can determine himself. He says, "We need to protect libitry across the board and it is a first amendment type issue. We don't have habe the first amentment so we can talk about the weather. We have the frist amentment so we can solve very contriversial things." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4gcnPm0SxQ
    DO your research!!
    He does not support starting a war with Iran and was actually not allowed at the last republican debate becasue of it.

  34. patriciamikkelson says:

    Amen!

  35. patriciamikkelson says:

    could you validate that with a link? thanks

  36. Steve Jones says:

    Ron Paul is also a virulent racist

  37. Brooke says:

    I would say that Climate Change is of a "small importance." Anti-science (which he is) is anti-innovation. No innovation equals a leaden economy.

  38. elephantjournal says:

    They're up! We actually just posted two articles with lists of reasons to vote for Dr. Paul. ~ Waylon

  39. Jeffersonian says:

    exactly!!

  40. swatijr says:

    Ron Paul has taken money from the KKK. End of story.

  41. William Rice says:

    Yes.Exactly why I support Ron Paul over all the others. He may have issues you disagree with But..He is the only one telling the truth. That is why we need him now.

  42. Nicole says:

    Awesome!! Very objective and well done!! Also his stance on anti-government is absolutely insane!! Ratify our government yes, but completely get rid of it? Insanity!! His positives can be good but are then contrary to his other stances. Did you know his number one supporter is the John Birch Society? If you don't know who they are they are BFF's with the KKK. Bad news

  43. […] 20 Reasons I won't Vote for Ron Paul. | elephant journal ruh-roh! something to chew […]

  44. elephantjournal says:

    Please keep comments respectful. If you can't do that, please back comments up with a decent source. Thanks! ~ Waylon

  45. elephantjournal says:

    Source?

  46. elephantjournal says:

    Nice, but let's keep it respectful. I think he's pretty awesome, but don't agree with all this views. ~ Waylon

  47. elephantjournal says:

    Thanks for your respectful rebuttal. Thumbs up!

  48. Dustin says:

    While it would seem that he should be influential as a congressman, he is not. His peers ignore him. Pro-life or not it won't matter when most of the country is locked up. He has also stated that the fed shouldn't have a say on the abortion issue.

  49. Dustin says:

    "18. He wouldn’t be able to bring the troops home: “Closing bases and withdrawing troops is an expensive process, and the DoD isn’t going to get very far if Congress forbids them from spending any money on it. It’s the exact same problem that prevented Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.”"

    This is the one thing he absolutely would be able to do. Your compliant is the expense of bringing the troops home? How about what it costs to keep troops stationed around the world? I spent over 6yrs in the military. Troops are moved around all the time, and so is equipment so the money to "move" troops and equipment is already being spent. Kind of a pointless argument, and should be taken off the list.