Ron Paul comes in from the fringe

[Stashman]

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.

A President should always do as the people want him to do. So if the majority of the American people want our troops to come home than he is obliged to do so, and the consequences of it would just have to be dealt with. I know we are living in times where the will of the people is often ignored, but Ron Paul seems to be the only one that will actually put the people first.

 

[Contumacious]

The fact that Ron Paul and his ideas are being discussed and debated all over America and on the internet, means he has already won.

What ‘ideas’? He has no idea what he’s talking about. I have yet to hear him cite any case law or precedent in support of his bizarre ‘interpretation’ of the Constitution. It’s as if he thinks it’s 1800.

Never mind Ron Paul.

Only the lunatic fringe supports restoring Capitalism and individual rights.

Parasites of the world, UNITE.

.

 

[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.

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.

I don't think those are liberal policies in this day and age, however. Sure liberals are against what they perceive to be Republican wars, but the way they now support Obama's wars wholeheartedly. Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors. The same goes for the rest of those issues as well.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

If any of them (presidents and wannabes) ever get serious about that specific issue, they need a plan to use those bases for alternative purposes. There is base housing on many of them just crumbling (like most of our infrastructure) and they could be refurbished to house low-income people, homeless, shelters, even special schools. In fact, they should consider turning the whole thing over to the private sector and simply sell off the land such bases are on to the highest bidder and let them build whatever they want there. After all, the end result would be that elusive four-letter word = J.O.B.S!!!

 

[Auxous]

Sure, many are hypocrites which is expected.

Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors.

Greenwald is not a progressive. Where did you get that from?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

And do what with them?

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

Right now I do, yes. With the exception of a couple of states, they are all constitutionally obligated to balance their budgets. They would not arbitrarily cut off any increase in revenue just because some ideologues say they should.

 

[Divine Wind]

A President should always do as the people want him to do. So if the majority of the American people want our troops to come home than he is obliged to do so, and the consequences of it would just have to be dealt with. I know we are living in times where the will of the people is often ignored, but Ron Paul seems to be the only one that will actually put the people first.

Agreed a bit, but the President should also act in the best interests of the people. If all of a parent's kids voted to have ice cream for dinner, would we think the parent was being responsible for doing it? Also, the fact the President is obligated to abide by treaties, all of which are approved by Congress and, by extension, "We, the People", overrides any short term fancies about bringing all of our troops home today. This is why Ron Paul is blowing smoke when he mentions he will "safely withdraw our troops". That can't happen in one Presidential term and probably not even 3 or 4 due to treaty obligations and various trouble spots around the world.

Foreign Policy

If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

If any of them (presidents and wannabes) ever get serious about that specific issue, they need a plan to use those bases for alternative purposes. There is base housing on many of them just crumbling (like most of our infrastructure) and they could be refurbished to house low-income people, homeless, shelters, even special schools. In fact, they should consider turning the whole thing over to the private sector and simply sell off the land such bases are on to the highest bidder and let them build whatever they want there. After all, the end result would be that elusive four-letter word = J.O.B.S!!!

I agree completely that they should sell the land.

 

[kaz]

A president only has one vote

He has no vote, but he does have the veto

He can't arbitrarily end wars

Obama's policy was to continue Bush's policy and timeline in Iraq, he wasn't overruled. Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, he wasn't overruled. And Obama ignored and bypassed congress in Libya. Have some intellectual honesty.

close gitmo

Again Obama's policy was to keep it open. He was overruled on nothing here. He didn't even close the prison, which he could have done.

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.

You gave no example where this actually happened.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure, many are hypocrites which is expected.

Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors.

Greenwald is not a progressive. Where did you get that from?

His stances on the issues. What would you call him? Some call him a "civil libertarian" but it essentially amounts to the same thing.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

And do what with them?

Leave them alone.

 

[Divine Wind]

I agree completely that they should sell the land.

It's open for selling now. The problem is much of it is contaminated and no one can afford the clean up costs without government tax dollars.

BRAC Cleanup Spending Surpasses $25 Billion | Association of Defense Communities

Site Overview|El Toro Marine Corps Air Station|US EPA |Region 9|Superfund

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Right now I do, yes. With the exception of a couple of states, they are all constitutionally obligated to balance their budgets. They would not arbitrarily cut off any increase in revenue just because some ideologues say they should.

If those ideologues vote them out they would though.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.



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.

I know what it means, but I guess you missed my point. Just chill is all. We could all go a long way toward cleaning up this board by trying to keep discussions civil for a change. Everyone can recognize a real "idiot" as someone who just likes to spout off but is totally clueless, so I'm all for calling them out. But just injecting insults into an otherwise decent discussion should stop.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

I don't think those are liberal policies in this day and age, however. Sure liberals are against what they perceive to be Republican wars, but the way they now support Obama's wars wholeheartedly. Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors. The same goes for the rest of those issues as well.

You can't generalize on how "liberals" feel (I'm a Democrat, but don't consider myself a "liberal" because the right has so demonized the term). I was never in favor of Obama going along with the generals' plans to expand the Afghanistan war. Never. I favored some kind of negotiating position (once proposed by Biden) between Karzai and The Taliban factions whereby the nation would be separated politically, with the people free to choose which leadership position they favored and live their lives accordingly. Of course that would call for regional elections of some crude sort, but at least it would have been a way for the United States to GET OUT of the middle of the bloody battles.

 

[Auxous]

Sure, many are hypocrites which is expected.

Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors.

Greenwald is not a progressive. Where did you get that from?

His stances on the issues. What would you call him? Some call him a "civil libertarian" but it essentially amounts to the same thing.

What stances makes him a progressive?

 

[Stashman]

A President should always do as the people want him to do. So if the majority of the American people want our troops to come home than he is obliged to do so, and the consequences of it would just have to be dealt with. I know we are living in times where the will of the people is often ignored, but Ron Paul seems to be the only one that will actually put the people first.

Agreed a bit, but the President should also act in the best interests of the people. If all of a parent's kids voted to have ice cream for dinner, would we think the parent was being responsible for doing it? Also, the fact the President is obligated to abide by treaties, all of which are approved by Congress and, by extension, "We, the People", overrides any short term fancies about bringing all of our troops home today. This is why Ron Paul is blowing smoke when he mentions he will "safely withdraw our troops". That can't happen in one Presidential term and probably not even 3 or 4 due to treaty obligations and various trouble spots around the world.

Foreign Policy

If elected President, Ron Paul will continue his efforts to secure our borders, hunt down the 9/11 terrorist planners (who are still at large), safely withdraw our troops from Iraq and other countries around the world

There are a lot of country's that do not want us there, so closing a base and bringing our troops home form there will not be much of an issue. For those countries were this is not the case, than a slow withdraw of troops and negotiations to close the base should be undertaken. If no action is taken in this regard at all than once again the will of the people will be ignored.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I don't think those are liberal policies in this day and age, however. Sure liberals are against what they perceive to be Republican wars, but the way they now support Obama's wars wholeheartedly. Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors. The same goes for the rest of those issues as well.

You can't generalize on how "liberals" feel (I'm a Democrat, but don't consider myself a "liberal" because the right has so demonized the term). I was never in favor of Obama going along with the generals' plans to expand the Afghanistan war. Never. I favored some kind of negotiating position (once proposed by Biden) between Karzai and The Taliban factions whereby the nation would be separated politically, with the people free to choose which leadership position they favored and live their lives accordingly. Of course that would call for regional elections of some crude sort, but at least it would have been a way for the United States to GET OUT of the middle of the bloody battles.

Generalizing is dangerous, but only when it's wrong. We saw the left come out with their various anti-war demonstrations during the Bush Administration, but they've been MIA since Obama took office. Like I said, not all of them are partisans, but there's been a dramatic shift since their guy took office and continued the same policies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sure, many are hypocrites which is expected.



Greenwald is not a progressive. Where did you get that from?

His stances on the issues. What would you call him? Some call him a "civil libertarian" but it essentially amounts to the same thing.

What stances makes him a progressive?

Well he's a big fan of Paul Krugman for starters. Need I go on?