Ron Paul for President

[Glocktogo]

You are right, I overreached.

Saw this post after posting mine. Thanks. I don't hold any animosity towards anyone on this thread. Politics is always contentious. I'm just way past ready for a change. Obama wasn't it and neither will Newt or Romney be it. I just think that we need to hold out for a real change. RP may not be it either, but the's the only one in this race that's even marginally different.

 

[Glocktogo]

Why should I donate money to a candidate who doesn't 100% support the Constitution?

Agreed. I feel he is in fact the least of the lesser evils. Do you feel that any other candidate currently in the race has a higher percentage of actual votes in support of the Constitution?

Every single candidate in this race sucks rocks. I will not cast my vote for someone who I believe will cause additional damage to my country. You unpatriotic types can cast your votes for your parties or the lesser of the evils if you wish, but don't criticize those who stand for something.

I like the cut of your jib sir! Permission to come aboard granted!

 

[sanjuro893]

I usually avoid conversations about Ron Paul because it turns into a heated argument, but with his gains in the polls, I'd like somebody to address a question. (Bear with me) I would sleep well at night with Ron Paul's domestic policies. Nobody would come for my guns, my privacy, or force me to sign on with government health care. That being said, I think his foreign policy is ridiculously naive. Whether you like it or not, we have resources and assets that MUST be protected overseas in foreign countries and Americans who work there who likewise must be protected. We have not been a self sufficient nation since the early 1800's and probably never will be again. If we just pulled out and left all of these places as Ron Paul would have us do, there would would be no North Korea and South Korea, no Nicaragua, El Salvador, or Grenada if not for our "interference". Just a bunch of countries that belong to the Soviet Union and millions of dead Koreans and Latin Americans. I want to ask the supporters of Ron Paul (and Paul himself, actually) what he thinks about the Monroe Doctrine. This was a document written to protect the interests and rights of the U.S. and it's citizens from European colonization in South America. It is in my opinion very necessary especially in this day and age. Instead of just "minding our own business" which seems to be his all-encompassing position on foreign policy, why won't he support a policy that stops foreign powers from interfering with our interests and our citizens who live and work overseas? His website claims "America First" but I think NOT interfering with some of these conflicts in other nations would only ensure that we get attacked by a major foreign power. In the 1800's it was colonization from Europe. During the Cold War it was the Soviets. If we just back down from every where all at once, who knows who'll come knocking on our back door? China maybe?

 

[cowzrul]

I don't hold any animosity towards anyone on this thread. Politics is always contentious. I'm just way past ready for a change. Obama wasn't it and neither will Newt or Romney be it. I just think that we need to hold out for a real change. RP may not be it either, but the's the only one in this race that's even marginally different.

I like what you posted here. I don't particularly get a warm and fuzzy about RP or any of the other candidates; however, I will vote when the times comes because thats my choice. What I find more disturbing is the generalizations that are flung like poo in this thread. To say somebody is unpatriotic because they vote for the lesser of two evils is asinine. To say if somebody abstains from voting they are handing the victory to a certain party is knuckle-headish.

 

[henschman]

I think Ron Paul is a lot more likely to beat Obama than the other GOP candidates if he wins the nomination. He has always gotten a huge majority of the Independent vote, which are really what elections come down to. 40% of the country will vote for the Dem no matter what, 40% will vote for the Rep no matter what... it is winning independent votes, and pulling support away from the other side, that wins elections.

I don't think Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum are likely to win... myself and many other Republicans are fed up with establishment neo-con RINOs, and will abstain rather than vote for one of them.

For me it is Ron Paul or not at all, just like last time around.

sanjuro, I think the threat of countries falling to Communism was overblown back then, and all of the boogeymen that the neo-cons try to get us worked up about nowadays are even more so. I think what happened in Vietnam really illustrates this, because basically our worst fears came to pass... after we pulled out, Vietnam fell to Communism... and now it is one of our biggest trading partners in the region. It never turned into any kind of threat to us, and it was never capable of being one. That just goes to show what a crock the whole "domino" and "monolithic communism" theories were, which led us into that war. And now people are afraid of muslim countries invading us and converting us to Islam?!

It pays to take a look at history. All the greatest empires in the world fell apart because of too many foreign entanglements, and the debt associated with them. Our foreign policy should be exactly what John Quincy Adams said in 1821: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm

 

[RickN]

Might want to mute the talk radio and take a look at what Rasmussen (notoriously conservative-leaning, by the way) shows.

I don't do talk radio or any of the talking heads on the boobtube either. I am going by polls of his supporters. Around half of Pauls supporters in the open primary states are Democrats who say they will vote for Obama in the general.

Like I have said before, I do not support Paul but if he wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him over Obama. I will hate doing it because in a way I feel Ron Paul is just as deluded as Obama, but he does have some good ideas and will still be better then Obama. Not by much but a least a step in the right direction. Hopefully someone else will enter the race soon. Heck even Palin is looking pretty good right now compared to what we have.

 

[sanjuro893]

I think Ron Paul is a lot more likely to beat Obama than the other GOP candidates if he wins the nomination. He has always gotten a huge majority of the Independent vote, which are really what elections come down to. 40% of the country will vote for the Dem no matter what, 40% will vote for the Rep no matter what... it is winning independent votes, and pulling support away from the other side, that wins elections.

I don't think Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum are likely to win... myself and many other Republicans are fed up with establishment neo-con RINOs, and will abstain rather than vote for one of them.

For me it is Ron Paul or not at all, just like last time around.

sanjuro, I think the threat of countries falling to Communism was overblown back then, and all of the boogeymen that the neo-cons try to get us worked up about nowadays are even more so. I think what happened in Vietnam really illustrates this, because basically our worst fears came to pass... after we pulled out, Vietnam fell to Communism... and now it is one of our biggest trading partners in the region. It never turned into any kind of threat to us, and it was never capable of being one. That just goes to show what a crock the whole "domino" and "monolithic communism" theories were, which led us into that war. And now people are afraid of muslim countries invading us and converting us to Islam?!

It pays to take a look at history. All the greatest empires in the world fell apart because of too many foreign entanglements, and the debt associated with them. Our foreign policy should be exactly what John Quincy Adams said in 1821: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm

I appreciate it. Although I think communism wasn't quite as overblown as you may think. Cuba turns communist, we do the Bay of Pigs thing, then leave it alone. Next thing you know, they invade Grenada and we have to check them. Nicaragua turns communist, El Salvador is about to be next, so we fund the contras to interfere. If that hadn't happened, would Guatemala have been next? What about Mexico? Nowadays, I think the biggest threat from communist tyranny takes place in our own congress, but if we hadn't interfered, who knows what would have happened? I find it odd that every time a country turned red, sooner or later they attacked another country to "free" the workers. Anyway, I appreciate your opinion......

 

[tran]

I don't do talk radio or any of the talking heads on the boobtube either. I am going by polls of his supporters. Around half of Pauls supporters in the open primary states are Democrats who say they will vote for Obama in the general.

Like I have said before, I do not support Paul but if he wins the GOP nomination I will vote for him over Obama. I will hate doing it because in a way I feel Ron Paul is just as deluded as Obama, but he does have some good ideas and will still be better then Obama. Not by much but a least a step in the right direction. Hopefully someone else will enter the race soon. Heck even Palin is looking pretty good right now compared to what we have.

I agree with Rick on this one.

 

[Glocktogo]

I usually avoid conversations about Ron Paul because it turns into a heated argument, but with his gains in the polls, I'd like somebody to address a question. (Bear with me) I would sleep well at night with Ron Paul's domestic policies. Nobody would come for my guns, my privacy, or force me to sign on with government health care. That being said, I think his foreign policy is ridiculously naive. Whether you like it or not, we have resources and assets that MUST be protected overseas in foreign countries and Americans who work there who likewise must be protected. We have not been a self sufficient nation since the early 1800's and probably never will be again. If we just pulled out and left all of these places as Ron Paul would have us do, there would would be no North Korea and South Korea, no Nicaragua, El Salvador, or Grenada if not for our "interference". Just a bunch of countries that belong to the Soviet Union and millions of dead Koreans and Latin Americans. I want to ask the supporters of Ron Paul (and Paul himself, actually) what he thinks about the Monroe Doctrine. This was a document written to protect the interests and rights of the U.S. and it's citizens from European colonization in South America. It is in my opinion very necessary especially in this day and age. Instead of just "minding our own business" which seems to be his all-encompassing position on foreign policy, why won't he support a policy that stops foreign powers from interfering with our interests and our citizens who live and work overseas? His website claims "America First" but I think NOT interfering with some of these conflicts in other nations would only ensure that we get attacked by a major foreign power. In the 1800's it was colonization from Europe. During the Cold War it was the Soviets. If we just back down from every where all at once, who knows who'll come knocking on our back door? China maybe?

Likewise no longer in the 1800's are several countries that no longer require our sustained military presence in perpetuity. We still do so because of entrenched outside interests that do not coincide with the welfare of our nation. We do not need to withdraw from the national stage, we need to restructure our presence. Do we really need 30,000+ troops stationed in Korea when our Tomahawk missile, laser and satellite guided munitions capacity and technology literally eclipse the effective reach of the US into the DMZ of years past? Do we really need over 60,000 troops in Germany anymore? Do we still need almost 50,000 troops in Japan? Our warfighting doctrine has evolved significantly since these numbers were set, so why hold onto antiquated ideologies? I would contend that our projection of military strength would be far better served by spending that money on updating our fleet, amphibious, paratroop and air power than sending so many of our personel to fixed bases overseas for long periods. It would strengthen the flexibility of our response to emerging and imminent threats. It would also allow the possibility to de-escalate a number of conflicts and reduce the inflammatory presence of our troops. Hell, the mere presence of a military base near a military town in the U.S. is always a love-hate relationship. Imagine how much so in a foreign country?

The economies in Japan, Korea, Germany, etc. are at least as good as our own, if not better at the moment. I'm not advocating that we withdraw from the international stage, but perhaps not monopolize it for a few years? I think that's a reasonable approach. I haven't seen anything from the Paul camp yet that rejects that stance. I think too many people interchange isolationism for interventionism. Several of the interventions we've embarked upon in the last few decades have worked against us in the long run. Perhaps we simply need better vetting of the crusades we're willing to undertake?

I like what you posted here. I don't particularly get a warm and fuzzy about RP or any of the other candidates; however, I will vote when the times comes because thats my choice. What I find more disturbing is the generalizations that are flung like poo in this thread. To say somebody is unpatriotic because they vote for the lesser of two evils is asinine. To say if somebody abstains from voting they are handing the victory to a certain party is knuckle-headish.

Thanks. We're all mostly of like minded positions, we just differ on how to achieve them.

 

[Hobbes]

Only 1 thing can save this thread.

[Broken External Image]