raisindot wrote:That would be a tiny number of votes. If you were inclined to vote for Paul, you'd never vote for Obama, since Obama is the absolute opposite to the right-wing libertarian values Paul stands for.
He's still better then the other repubs. I prefer Obama, but if a repub had to win, i'd rather it be him. I happen to agree with some of the stuff he says. Not all of it, but some. at least, more then any other repub. but he's also centrist in alot of ways. he's not a war-monger, but also not one for regulation even if it could help. He's for the free market despite it helping to get us in the mess we are in, but against things like the overly aggressive, and frankly racist, immigration policies we have. i disagree with lowering taxes, but do agree the loop holes in our current tax code need to be closed.
frankly on the tax issue, i think those supporting the latter haven't sold their side of the argument very well. it would help if they could give numbers, like those in favor of raising taxes on the 1% who can say, if we raise it this much, this is how more we'll get. I could support tax laws that close the gaps instead raising taxes, if, and only if you can prove to me it'll get more money flowing into the system.
i just don't get why it has to be so complicated. you earn income, no matter WHERE it comes from, you pay taxes on said income. simple. no strike that, i do get why, so that there CAN be loop holes. Mitt Romney admitted he only pays something like 15% because its all capital gains. and thats less that "I" pay.
"The reason an author needs to know the rules of grammar isn't so he or she never breaks them, but so the author knows how to break them."