Ron Paul comes in from the fringe

[BDBoop]

I don't agree with everything Paul says but he is the only Republican i would vote for over Obama.

Yeah, right. Just like when Biden said that he could vote for McCain. You lefties are always trying to pick the repub challenger.
You people know that Paul would be the one person Obama could beat. Also, why would you vote for somebody that conservative? Your saying you could vote for someone very liberal, or you could vote for someone very conservative? I don't think so.

You can only speak for yourself. So - I'm guessing you are saying you could NEVER vote for a democrat. Right?

 

[Stashman]

The President is commander and chief over all military matters, and though he would consult with officials over the best way to do it, I think he alone has the power to order a bases closing. Don't quote me on this but I think that is more than likely the way it is.

Congress holds the purse strings. Additionally, the entire base closure moves post-Cold War was put under BRAC.

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC)

Base Realignment and Closure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, the CiC leads our troops, but Congress controls the budget for them.

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a question though. Would he not have the sole power to order the troops home? And if does wouldn't that lead to the bases being closed due to their being empty and serving no purpose? Just curious on this point.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well let's be realistic. None of us can really understand what goes on in daily intel briefings, the situation room, etc. I really don't think it would be very easy to just close down 150 bases like that.

Which is why I find it interesting that Ron Paul said as soon as he steps into office, he's going to end the wars immediately. What if those same intel reports from military reports talk about how we cannot withdraw from Afghanistan quite yet?

Ending the wars "immediately" would have all sorts of economic repercussions just added to an already bad economy. Thousands would be put out of work (employees working for government contractors, for example), more troops returning and trying to enter the civilian work force, not to mention the enormous costs (which is NEVER discussed) of covering their war-related health care issues.

I'm sure someone as smart as Ron Paul knows all that, so "immediately" ending the wars is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. Unfortunately, Obama's own campaign rhetoric is still being used against him as "promises not kept." Blah...blah...blah...

 

[MaggieMae]

The other thing people seem to not entirely realize about his social policy (which will never get through Congress anyway) is that he's not about to legalize everything through the federal government. It's all going to be left up to the state governments, which is where Ron Paul (along with Gary Johnson) and I disagree.

The federal government isn't the only one that can be oppressive and take away civil liberties.

Nobody doubts that, but we also know that it's easier to change your state's laws than it is to change federal law.

Not when it comes to state taxes and fees, which is where more hikes have been seen in the last two years than from the federal government. States desperately need revenue since businesses that folded and unemployed people don't pay taxes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well let's be realistic. None of us can really understand what goes on in daily intel briefings, the situation room, etc. I really don't think it would be very easy to just close down 150 bases like that.

Which is why I find it interesting that Ron Paul said as soon as he steps into office, he's going to end the wars immediately. What if those same intel reports from military reports talk about how we cannot withdraw from Afghanistan quite yet?

Ending the wars "immediately" would have all sorts of economic repercussions just added to an already bad economy. Thousands would be put out of work (employees working for government contractors, for example), more troops returning and trying to enter the civilian work force, not to mention the enormous costs (which is NEVER discussed) of covering their war-related health care issues.

I'm sure someone as smart as Ron Paul knows all that, so "immediately" ending the wars is nothing more than campaign rhetoric. Unfortunately, Obama's own campaign rhetoric is still being used against him as "promises not kept." Blah...blah...blah...

Except that Ron Paul knows that simply paying these soldiers so that they're not unemployed is more harmful to the economy in the long run, so yes he would bring the troops home immediately.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The other thing people seem to not entirely realize about his social policy (which will never get through Congress anyway) is that he's not about to legalize everything through the federal government. It's all going to be left up to the state governments, which is where Ron Paul (along with Gary Johnson) and I disagree.

The federal government isn't the only one that can be oppressive and take away civil liberties.

Nobody doubts that, but we also know that it's easier to change your state's laws than it is to change federal law.

Not when it comes to state taxes and fees, which is where more hikes have been seen in the last two years than from the federal government. States desperately need revenue since businesses that folded and unemployed people don't pay taxes.

You think it would be easier to try to force the federal government to change its taxes than it would be for your state government?

 

[MaggieMae]

No, but they are the best at it. Which is why Paul has the right idea. When has the Federal government ever ensured freedom? They don't, they are the greatest threat. You are asking for the serpent to protect you, good luck with that.

Incorrect and Paul is wrong – the greatest threat to civil liberties is by state and local jurisdictions. For example, two counties in Kentucky are working to violate the First Amendment while California’s Prop 8 was a violation of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately there are further examples.

Which are dwarfed by the Federal government spending us into the ground with unconstitutional programs. Uncontitutional spending includes: Social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, education, energy, TSA. The wars in the middle east which aren't for defense of the US. The war on drugs. And with States you have a choice to live there, with the Federal government their crimes damage us all. You have no sense of perspective. You're weeding the garden while your house is on fire.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every American the right to equal access to all of a state’s laws – including marriage – regardless the opinion of that state’s majority

OMG, you are an idiot. It says nothing of the sort.

Why is it some partisan hack has to always jump in with a snarky and insulting attitude. This was a decent thread, with a decent conversation going. Just shaddap if your hatred rules your life.

 

[Stashman]

We have troops in 130 countries and maintain 700 bases world wide. Does anyone have the accurate number of troops we have overseas?

 

[Auxous]

I wonder what lefties would do if Paul got the nomination. They would be stuck between voting for Obama or voting against their beliefs since Paul's stances are overwhelmingly more liberal than this administration's.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wonder what lefties would do if Paul got the nomination. They would be stuck between voting for Obama or voting against their beliefs since Paul's stances are overwhelmingly more liberal than this administration's.

Only if by liberal you're speaking in the classical sense.

 

[kaz]

Incorrect and Paul is wrong – the greatest threat to civil liberties is by state and local jurisdictions. For example, two counties in Kentucky are working to violate the First Amendment while California’s Prop 8 was a violation of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately there are further examples.

Which are dwarfed by the Federal government spending us into the ground with unconstitutional programs. Uncontitutional spending includes: Social security, medicare, medicaid, welfare, education, energy, TSA. The wars in the middle east which aren't for defense of the US. The war on drugs. And with States you have a choice to live there, with the Federal government their crimes damage us all. You have no sense of perspective. You're weeding the garden while your house is on fire.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every American the right to equal access to all of a state’s laws – including marriage – regardless the opinion of that state’s majority

OMG, you are an idiot. It says nothing of the sort.

Why is it some partisan hack has to always jump in with a snarky and insulting attitude. This was a decent thread, with a decent conversation going. Just shaddap if your hatred rules your life.

Sure, if you don't hate people then you make up Constitutional rights. I don't care about gay marriage other then I oppose all government marriage. But that doesn't mean access to gay marriage is in the Constitution. I am pro-choice, but abortion isn't in the constitution. I think drugs should be legal, but that doesn't mean people's right to do drugs is in the Constitution. I oppose the death penalty, but that doesn't mean States can't impose it. Are you detecting a pattern here?

And BTW, you should Google what "partisan" means if you're going to use the word since you don't know what it means.

 

[MaggieMae]

Well Gary Johnson wouldn't be terrible, and that's the only candidate running for President that I could see Ron Paul asking to be his running mate. If not Johnson then I don't know who it would be, but I can't see Ron Paul picking any of the others.

He's not going to make Gary Johnson his running mate. It's going to be a social conservative to give the base a reassurance.

I doubt that very much. Ron Paul won't pick someone from the fringes who could possibly destroy the entire effort (as McCain did). He won't pick someone whose primary "issues" are gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and the like, because obviously those people use wedge issues because they don't understand the bigger ones that really matter.

 

[Divine Wind]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a question though. Would he not have the sole power to order the troops home? And if does wouldn't that lead to the bases being closed due to their being empty and serving no purpose? Just curious on this point.

Yes, theoretically he could do that, but he is also obligated to do some things by treaty. Additionally, Congress has the power to persuade him through the budget such as "If you don't keep our troops in Saudi Arabia, we won't fund your 'feed the children' program" so, politically, the President could box himself into a corner by doing something others consider rash.

 

[MaggieMae]

Ron Paul's beliefs have certainly become more mainstream than they were in 2008. Still, I don't think he has a path to the nomination, much less to the White House.

One thing that puzzles me is the people who like Paul and Obama. As an Obama supporter, I don't really get Paul's appeal. When I first heard about Paul, a friend was trying to get me to support him by emphasizing his consistent ideology. While he does have a very consistent ideology for a politician, it seems to be about as far from mine as one can get. Why would a Democrat like Paul, especially during a time period dominated by economic issues?

Well it says under your name that you're a progressive so I might assume, always dangerous but I'll do it nonetheless and allow you to correct me if I'm wrong, that you're probably against all these wars we're engaged in right now. If so you have to admit that Obama is certainly a militarist whereas Ron Paul would end all of the wars first thing. So can you vote for a candidate who you know will end the wars, end the torture, and put an end to Guantanamo Bay even if you don't necessarily agree with him on the economic issues?

If you are against all of those things, and like I said I'm just assuming that you are, this article may be of interest to you. It was written by a progressive.

Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)

A president only has one vote. He can't arbitrarily end wars, close gitmo, or any other program already given congressional approval. Obama found that out the hard way. The only way the Vietnam war was ended was because it was defunded, not because Nixon said to do it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have a question though. Would he not have the sole power to order the troops home? And if does wouldn't that lead to the bases being closed due to their being empty and serving no purpose? Just curious on this point.

Yes, theoretically he could do that, but he is also obligated to do some things by treaty. Additionally, Congress has the power to persuade him through the budget such as "If you don't keep our troops in Saudi Arabia, we won't fund your 'feed the children' program" so, politically, the President could box himself into a corner by doing something others consider rash.

Well Ron Paul wants to cut a lot of programs, so that might be a win-win for him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul's beliefs have certainly become more mainstream than they were in 2008. Still, I don't think he has a path to the nomination, much less to the White House.

One thing that puzzles me is the people who like Paul and Obama. As an Obama supporter, I don't really get Paul's appeal. When I first heard about Paul, a friend was trying to get me to support him by emphasizing his consistent ideology. While he does have a very consistent ideology for a politician, it seems to be about as far from mine as one can get. Why would a Democrat like Paul, especially during a time period dominated by economic issues?

Well it says under your name that you're a progressive so I might assume, always dangerous but I'll do it nonetheless and allow you to correct me if I'm wrong, that you're probably against all these wars we're engaged in right now. If so you have to admit that Obama is certainly a militarist whereas Ron Paul would end all of the wars first thing. So can you vote for a candidate who you know will end the wars, end the torture, and put an end to Guantanamo Bay even if you don't necessarily agree with him on the economic issues?

If you are against all of those things, and like I said I'm just assuming that you are, this article may be of interest to you. It was written by a progressive.

Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)

A president only has one vote. He can't arbitrarily end wars, close gitmo, or any other program already given congressional approval. Obama found that out the hard way. The only way the Vietnam war was ended was because it was defunded, not because Nixon said to do it.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief and has the power to bring the troops home. If that were to happen the wars are effectively over. Gitmo would require an act of Congress so good luck to him on that, but the President can end a war whenever they choose to do so.

 

[MaggieMae]

As I've already explained Ron Paul's position hasn't changed at all. He's always said that he would prefer a flat tax to the income tax, assuming of course that it reduces taxes, but that his ultimate goal is to simply do away with the income tax and replace it with nothing.

Except he has always wanted to see the government funded through excise taxes and tariffs. The flat tax is something new as far as I know.

His compromise would be allow citizens to opt out of excess federal programs and pay a 10% tax and nothing more, and whoever would prefer to keep the government programs would simply stay with their regular income tax structure.

And by the time Congress got through picking through the details and arguing ad nauseam over them, plus figuring out how to control such a ludicrious policy (which would mean verifying that someone opting out of federal programs actually is), Ron Paul will be dead and buried. It's the SYSTEM that's fucked, period. Policy changes of that magnitude take forever to be implemented, if at all. My money is on if at all.

 

[MaggieMae]

Once you're the nominee, America has no choice but to get to know who you pick. Who the hell was Sarah Palin?

And why was Sarah Palin picked? To reassure the base.

Ron Paul is likely to pick someone who is going to appeal to more voters. Picking Gary Johnson is just picking another version of himself. Though I personally think Gary Johnson would be a more effective President than Paul.

Reassure the base what? That they have a pretty face with an annoying accent and no real knowledge of anything beyond her talking points memos?

Sarah Palin has an accent? Hmmm, no. She screeches, but doesn't do it in an "Alaskan" accent.

 

[Auxous]

I wonder what lefties would do if Paul got the nomination. They would be stuck between voting for Obama or voting against their beliefs since Paul's stances are overwhelmingly more liberal than this administration's.

Only if by liberal you're speaking in the classical sense.

Even in the modern day sense. Anti-war, anti-war against drugs, anti-secret prison, anti-corporatism, pro civil liberties, etc.

Sure Paul believes in sound money, auditing the Fed, opening up health care to the market, instead of drowning it even more with bureaucracy, thinks that welfare is a state issue, etc.

Still Paul shares many liberal beliefs and has more conviction than Obama.

 

[MaggieMae]

My point was, that Palin was a nobody and now she has millions of supporters and there isn't a single person who doesn't know who she is.

She was just the wrong type of nobody.

Perhaps. Though Johnson has some positions that would scare away a number of voters. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid by 43% and making them block programs turned over to the states is not going to go over well with seniors.

Medicaid already operates on block grants by the federal government for the states. And it isn't enough. If they added Medicare, just where does Mr. Johnson think that funding would come from? Just assigning a different moniker doesn't change the fact that both programs would still be funded by the federal government.