Ron Paul Cant Win

[Unkotare]

He always seems to have that James Stockdale "what am I doing here?" look on his face.

 

[Avatar4321]

First, he doesn't have the support from the base of the republican party.
Second, he doesn't appeal to independents.

Wrong.

Ron Paul beats Obama among Independents

Third, he is attack material. Let sick people die, get rid of CIA, DHS, FBI, INS etc. Just makes him look nuts.

He never said we should let sick people die.

Ron Paul’s answer to Wolf Blitzer’s question, transcribed precisely, was “No.”

As to Republicans who would vote for Obama over Ron Paul, they are called unrepentant neo-cons, and chances are they care more for Israeli security than US domestic prosperity.

A stone could beat Obama among independents right now. That will be different a year from now.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

Vote for whomever you want. That's your choice, right, and responsibility.

But a piece of free advice, humble yourself. Regardless who you vote for, pride and haughtiness will destroy you and those around you unless you become humble.

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you think that we need ALL the bases established overseas or that a small fraction of bases could accomplish the same goal?.

You would have to look at each one individually and assess the particular situation there. Could be we need more, or maybe we could consolidate some, but I don't think "a small fraction" is anywhere near realistic.

Absolutely, each one needs looking at. If you don't think we can exist with a small fraction, you have not looked at the actual situation then. As I said - there are hundreds of bases in Germany alone. There is a base there whose only purpose is to house an FMO office. Essentially, an entire base that only loans out furniture to military that is moving into the country. Why dies there need to be a separate base for that? No reason at all. Remember, each base requires its own security, fencing and many other support functions. What purpose is there for a base in Germany, Italy and the UK. Why do we have major operational bases in some of the Muslim countries when the same interest could be served in Italy, a much closer ally.


There is many places that the military could save massive amounts of money through simple reduction of our overseas presence. That would be a great start to reducing the deficit.

 

[Dragon]

Interesting that Paul is being called a "liberal Democrat" on this thread. He isn't one, of course -- neither liberal nor Democrat (he's a libertarian Republican) -- but I think the fact he's being called one reflects, not that the people calling him that have lost their minds, but rather that the focus of this thread is the Republican nomination rather than the general election. Thus, where Paul differs from conservatives is under scrutiny, not where he differs from liberals. Naturally, those positions might make conservatives see him as a liberal; generally speaking these are liberal positions. But at the same time, he takes other positions which are very conservative on other issues.

A libertarian, which Paul is, is neither a liberal nor a conservative. Conservatives consistently favor the interests of the rich and powerful and want to keep the lesser folk (whether citizens or foreigners) under watch and control. They favor strong government at times when that serves this interest, and oppose it at times when it does not. A liberal is more or less the polar opposite of this, favoring the interests of the lesser folk over those of the rich and powerful, and wanting to weaken government where conservatives want it strong, but wanting to strengthen it where conservatives want it weak.

Libertarians, unlike either liberals or conservatives, are consistently opposed to strong government. (That's why libertarians like to say they are consistently "pro-liberty." In libertarian thought, government is the sole and only enemy of liberty, and so weakening the government is always in service to liberty. Liberals, of course, disagree.)

The points where a libertarian like Paul disagrees with conservatives are exactly the ones under discussion: things like foreign policy (libertarians tend to be anti-intervention and to oppose the use of military force if there is any alternative), immigration (libertarians oppose draconian solutions that conservatives favor), and similar areas where a strong government would serve the interests of the rich and powerful and keep the lesser folk pressed down. Libertarians, like liberals, oppose this sort of thing, although for different reasons.

The problem for Paul is that most people simply don't think in those terms, and don't oppose a strong, intrusive government across the board as a matter of principle. Libertarianism in practice has very few adherents, and is not likely to have more in the future.

Paul could also be attacked from the left, because just as many of his stances are abhorrent to liberals as to conservatives (they're just different ones). That's really his problem. Most people in the U.S. are either liberal or conservative or some form of moderate. Libertarianism is a philosophy that appeals to very few, mostly those who are so strongly thinking types that an intellectual theory can override their common sense. (Libertarians share this trait with Marxists, in my observation.)

 

[Wicked Jester]

it is more than one country attacking another.....an attack like that would cause other Latin American countries to jump in on either side..had Venezuela invaded Panama and Colombia would have responded against him and his croonies...his croonies are obligated to jump in and help him...the Central American countries with the exception of Nicaragua would have lined up against Chavez and then Mexico would jump in and you would have an entire Latin American war on your hands right in your back yard..and refugees from all of those countries in the US. You do realize that Chavez has a military agreement with South American countries in his ALBA agreements right?

So you think we need to spend 1.3 trillion dollars a year to maintain an empire so if one country decides to attack another we can dedicate more tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers to protect another nation??

Here is a CLUE

Were broke, weve been printing money for the last ten years to try and keep our heads above water, but now all that money we printed is pulling us down. Any increase the interest rate will immeadiatly bankrupt the government.

With regards to Chavez and all that nonsense, if your going to come in with off the wall bat-shit theory's then provide a link for where your getting your facts.

I live in Honduras that is where I get my facts. You think that his ALBA agreements are off the wall theories? Where in the hell have you been? This is why fools should not get involved in politics....especially when they are clueless as to why we do not want to pull out our bases from everywhere.

but since you continue to have your head in the sand....

Chavez wants military alliance against US - Geopolitical Monitor

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Hugo Chavez suggests invading Honduras after coup

perhaps you are the only person who did not know about the unrest that happened on June 29, 2009 and that is why you are unqualified to determine what is needed and Ron Paul is even more disqualified than you are.

The the thing about the Paullette's, is that they seem to think we're still living in the 1700's, where Paul's foreign policy would have worked fine....It's a far different world out there these days. Our interests abroad are far greater. The whole dynamic of the world has changed these last 240 plus years.

They need to wake up and get a damn clue.

 

[Kuros]

Paul could also be attacked from the left, because just as many of his stances are abhorrent to liberals as to conservatives (they're just different ones). That's really his problem. Most people in the U.S. are either liberal or conservative or some form of moderate. Libertarianism is a philosophy that appeals to very few, mostly those who are so strongly thinking types that an intellectual theory can override their common sense. (Libertarians share this trait with Marxists, in my observation.)

This is where you slipped from an amusing (but erroneous) pop-psychology rant and just began to troll. Nobody should trust Dragon's characterization of libertarians (or even of conservatives or liberals). Liberals care principally about the ends and are entirely too dismissive about the means. Libertarians recognize that the means are the ends; namely, responsible and limited government.

Here are some examples of "Theory overriding common sense":

*End the wars and cut military (not legitimate defense) spending

*Balance the budget

*Let drug policy go back to the States


The only problem I have with my fellow libertarians is their seeming unwillingness to raise taxes temporarily to pay down the debt. But nobody is perfect. Especially not a poster who cheerleads for 73%-90% top marginal tax rates in this global environment:

 

[Unkotare]

[ If you don't think we can exist with a small fraction, you have not looked at the actual situation then. .

If I don't agree with you, I have not looked at the actual situation? That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

 

[Kuros]

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

Vote for whomever you want. That's your choice, right, and responsibility.

But a piece of free advice, humble yourself. Regardless who you vote for, pride and haughtiness will destroy you and those around you unless you become humble.

Is that what they're calling listening to Hannity and O'Reilly these days: An exercise in humility?

I could see why you'd call it that, though.

 

[FA_Q2]

[ If you don't think we can exist with a small fraction, you have not looked at the actual situation then. .

If I don't agree with you, I have not looked at the actual situation? That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

Well, maybe that came out wrong

Can you support your contention that we may need so many bases overseas?

 

[Avatar4321]

I am a Constitutionalists and obviously I know more about history of conservatism and history then you. I blame people like you for continually voting for whoever Mark Levin and Sean Hannity tell you, I blame people like you for not thinking outside the mind state of Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney.

The founders preached a non-interventionist foreign policy; trade with nations but entangling alliances with none. Why don't you read Tafts purpose for a foreign policy, RR's memoirs, or GWB in 2000.

Wake up.

Vote for whomever you want. That's your choice, right, and responsibility.

But a piece of free advice, humble yourself. Regardless who you vote for, pride and haughtiness will destroy you and those around you unless you become humble.

Is that what they're calling listening to Hannity and O'Reilly these days: An exercise in humility?

I could see why you'd call it that, though.

Who the heck cares about Hannity and OReilly?

 

[Unkotare]

We need as many as are practically required to fulfill their function of meeting our obligations to our allies, guaranteeing the stability and open trade routes upon which we depend for our economic interests and to prevent regional conflagrations that would prove much more costly than playing the role that only US power can play in the world today.

 

[Dragon]

Liberals care principally about the ends and are entirely too dismissive about the means. Libertarians recognize that the means are the ends; namely, responsible and limited government.

If your ends are "responsible and limited government," then perhaps you can say the means are the ends. But if your ends are the liberty and well-being of the common man, then those are obviously not the same, and there will be times when limited government doesn't serve that end at all.

The ends of liberalism have always been the liberty and well-being of the common man. Limited government has been, at times, a means to that end. At other times, big government has been a means to the same end. That isn't true for libertarians, because limited government is itself the end they value, and not a means to some other end, as it is for both liberals and conservatives.

Paul has very limited potential appeal, because most people are somewhere on the liberal-to-conservative scale, concerned with their class interests and other practicalities, not with the size and scope of government as a theoretical principle. That's why just about everyone agrees with something or other that Paul says (because just about everyone thinks the government is doing something it shouldn't), but hardly anyone agrees with everything he says (because hardly anyone agrees that the government should be pared back across the board).

When I made the observation that libertarians and Marxists share that characteristic of putting theory ahead of fact, I was speaking from personal experience of both. The specific ideas of libertarians and Marxists are very different, to be sure, but they both put those ideas ahead of any practical considerations and have a hard time seeing and accepting how small their constituency really is.

 

[FA_Q2]

We need as many as are practically required to fulfill their function of meeting our obligations to our allies, guaranteeing the stability and open trade routes upon which we depend for our economic interests and to prevent regional conflagrations that would prove much more costly than playing the role that only US power can play in the world today.

That's a nice non-answer. I agree with the statement but I believe that goal would be better served with a small fraction of the bases today. I see how much waste we have in our airlift and defensive capabilities and it is sickening. I don't think we will get any further on this topic though so I will leave it at that.

 

[Unkotare]

The ends of liberalism have always been the liberty and well-being of the common man. .

Bull

Shit

 

[Unkotare]

We need as many as are practically required to fulfill their function of meeting our obligations to our allies, guaranteeing the stability and open trade routes upon which we depend for our economic interests and to prevent regional conflagrations that would prove much more costly than playing the role that only US power can play in the world today.

That's a nice non-answer. .

It's a nice real answer.

 

[Dragon]

Unkotare, this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that I shouldn't take your content-empty, rude, and childish responses to me personally. That seems to be the way you treat everyone.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare, this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that I shouldn't take your content-empty, rude, and childish responses to me personally. That seems to be the way you treat everyone.

Congratulations. Now shut the fuck up.

 

[Dragon]

Congratulations. Now shut the fuck up.

Hardly. The fact I shouldn't take it personally doesn't mean I have to take it seriously, either.

 

[FA_Q2]

Unkotare, this thread has opened my eyes to the fact that I shouldn't take your content-empty, rude, and childish responses to me personally. That seems to be the way you treat everyone.

LOL, now now. Play nice in the sandbox.