Search found 2 matches
Return to “Ron Paul vs Rick Perry”
- Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:31 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Ron Paul vs Rick Perry
- Replies: 155
- Views: 23214
Re: Ron Paul vs Rick Perry
Perry is simply not a good debater---that does not mean he would not make a good president (I think he would be an amazing president), but sadly it means that all the public sees of him on TV is him falling all over himself. Ron Paul has a similar problem in that he ends up looking like "crazy uncle Ron." Both of them would make good presidents, I just am afraid neither will make it to the top. Right now I could vomit over my alternatives on, but we will see. For the primary it will likely be for me anyone but Romney, and in the General Election I will vote Anyone But Obama.
- Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:39 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Ron Paul vs Rick Perry
- Replies: 155
- Views: 23214
Re: Ron Paul vs Rick Perry
I like them both. I have to go with Perry.
First it is not fair to put that heavy of a burden on someone close to my grandfather's age. Even if he thinks he is up to it. Just not fair at all. I totally want Paul somewhere in the gov't where he can affect our policy (maybe not our foreign policy so much
). I just don't want to lose him to a heart attack because of stress--he is far too valuable.
Second I think Perry will play better in the country as a whole. He is articulate (most of the time), and can do 10 word answers to tricky questions that the media will for sure throw out at him. Ron Paul has great amazingly well thought out answers to questions--they are complete and full in their scope of answering the question. The problem is that they are 2 pages long, and he has not done well condensing them.
I love Ron Paul I really do, but I don't think he can get the nomination. More than I want a perfect candidate, I want the current holder of that high office out, Perry is not perfect-- the NAFTA nonsense and the gardasil give me pause---but he is worlds better than what we have now. He at least tried to stop the TSA in TX, he has been decent on job growth in TX, he is fab on 2nd amendment, great on homeschooling, great on pro-life, decent on states rights, and does not scare the daylights out of me on his potential foreign policy (Paul does not see Iran as a serious threat--REALLY?!?). So I will take what I can get.
First it is not fair to put that heavy of a burden on someone close to my grandfather's age. Even if he thinks he is up to it. Just not fair at all. I totally want Paul somewhere in the gov't where he can affect our policy (maybe not our foreign policy so much
). I just don't want to lose him to a heart attack because of stress--he is far too valuable. Second I think Perry will play better in the country as a whole. He is articulate (most of the time), and can do 10 word answers to tricky questions that the media will for sure throw out at him. Ron Paul has great amazingly well thought out answers to questions--they are complete and full in their scope of answering the question. The problem is that they are 2 pages long, and he has not done well condensing them.
I love Ron Paul I really do, but I don't think he can get the nomination. More than I want a perfect candidate, I want the current holder of that high office out, Perry is not perfect-- the NAFTA nonsense and the gardasil give me pause---but he is worlds better than what we have now. He at least tried to stop the TSA in TX, he has been decent on job growth in TX, he is fab on 2nd amendment, great on homeschooling, great on pro-life, decent on states rights, and does not scare the daylights out of me on his potential foreign policy (Paul does not see Iran as a serious threat--REALLY?!?). So I will take what I can get.