Is Ron Paul a better Presidential candidate than Barack Obama?

I have been a longtime Barack Obama supporter but recently have been leaning towards Ron Paul.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

Source(s):

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/


What do you all think about both candidates?

Absolutely, Ron Paul is a better canidate then Barack Obama and most main stream canidates.. Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war, voted against the amendment banning gay marriges, voted for lowering taxes for the middle class and poor... he is an advocate for the United States to change their forgien policy, instead of fighting wars where we loose our own people, we should be trading and negoiating with other countries.. Barack is a personality, I'll give him that.. he can sell the idea of freedom and change, but can he do it, No.... We need a president who stands up for these rights not someone who is going to give us faulty promises.. I mean haven't we learned enough from the Bush Administration... Barack is just another corporate/celebertiy sponserd poltician who will tell you what you want to hear but in the end won't be able to deliver... Ron Paul on the other hand has actually had the backbone to call out the US on its forgien policy and demand change.. His ideas are well thought out and in the end will benefit the nations middle class and poor, not just the rich anymore... I believe in him sincerely..

Not if you believe that America needs Universal Health Care.

Barak Obama is the least experianced candidate in the History of this country.

He has been a US Seantor for ony two years and has never been in a leadership position.

A dead cat would be a better choice than Barrack HUSSEIN Obama

why would you want to elect a muslim (in denial) to run our country?

I agree with you, besides Barack Obama is too "green as a politician, he needs more political experience before he can take the highest office.

I wouldn't vote for anyone with Muslim affiliations, so yes, Ron Paul would is a better candidate.

Ron paul has more political experience than Obama. If Obama has more experience, maybe Obama would do a bit better than Paul.

if you want to see their respective voting record or just about anything else about any candidate go to www.votesmart.org- I am going with ron paul also( and to anyone who says ron is a wack job just go to the above site and see what your candidate has voted for in the past) its non-partisan

I don't know how you became an Obama fan because other than his vote on the Iraq war he seems to be against everything else you are for. He may have voted against the Patriot Act but only for political reasons. He would have voted for it if his political party were in office.

Obama seems like a nice enough guy and he's cute, but that is all he has going for him in my opinion. He has extremely left wing views. You just need to take a look at his votes and proposals in the U.S. and IL senate.

Ron Paul actually seems pretty decent to me. I wouldn't mind him as President. I disagree with leaving Iraq, but I like the fact that he had the independence to vote against it before it became popular to do so. He seems to be a man of conviction and he is the only one who I've heard make reasonable arguments for leaving Iraq. I still don't think it would be good but he made some good points.

All I can say is that Ron Paul has NEVER suggested that we might have to attack one of our allies. Obama did (first link).

Obama has charisma but absolutely no clue about foreign relations.

Ron's the guy. See second link for Ron Paul's writings.

One is a true statesman and the other is a puppet. You do the math.

The party leaders will never allow a thinking man to run for President.

I saw Obama for the first time last night and didn't find anything special about him. In fact, it looked like he wans't sure how to answer some of the questions. I just don't get why people keep saying he's a rock star.

If you value your country now more than ever, and want to see it become a Republic again...meaning the rule of law vs. the rule of man, then vote for Ron Paul. I don't agree with everything he stands for, but all in all he defines all the old traditions of the republican party when it used to be the anti war party and the party for state rights and small federal government.
He used to be a Libertarian, and those guys motto is basically do what you want as along as it doesn't hurt anyone.

Barak wanted to open our borders up to illegals; Ron did not.

That alone makes Ron Paul the much better candidate!!

Well, if this were the choice, I'd have to hold my nose and vote for Paul. But, I do not like him. The only difference between them is that she is a traitor, he is a fruitcake. Both are equally dangerous.

Besides the fact that he has no chance of gettign his party's nomination... probably just because of his experience

Ron Paul is a complete wackjob. The public is already aware of this, evidenced by his low support numbers. A vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote.

That is up to the individual voter to decide. Not to be opinionated by bigoted people here that are mostly too young to vote anyway. Only the registered voters at the poles will be the ultimate deciders in this race, It seems as though people here are too narrow minded to see that factor.

Paul has no chance. Don't waste your time.