For Romney & Paul, A Strategic Alliance Between Establishment & Outsider...

[Paulie]

What about Paul as Treasury Secretary? I am just curious where people stand. I vote according to my principles and a vote for Romney would violate those principles so I can't do it no matter what. I honestly don't think Paul would do it because it would tarnish his message.

Treasury sec would be great though, he would have a spot on the presidents working group on financial markets, better known as the plunge protection team.

 

[Paulie]

Here's a little something to chew on. If Rand got the VP slot, it would give him much needed experience and exposure at the very heart of our political system. That would, in the future, put him in a much stronger position for a shot at POTUS.

That might be a very good thing for the Libertarians generally, because they really do need to get a much deeper understanding of International Relations. They lose huge amounts of support simply because of their dangerously naive stance on Foreign Policy.

You're not acknowledging the fact that US economic and foreign policy are interfixed. You can't be for Ron Paul's economic solutions without being for the restructuring of US foreign policy objectives. But here's the good news: if we were to make significant cuts to scheduled spending and let the cash deposits of US citizens circulate within the US' private sector -- rather than floating overseas en route to government transactions transferring the cash flows into the US government's political currency account used to purchase votes (power) -- we wouldn't need to rely on petrodollar and military hegemony to back our currency because we'd finally have enough $USDs circulating within the US economy to ramp up domestic investment --> production --> output --> income --> private wealth creation to legitimately back a sound US currency.

If government isn't spending more money than it takes in, government doesn't need to engineer monetary and regulatory schemes to seize wealth from its private citizens. And we'd no longer have to export our military to the Middle East because the possibility of OPEC nations dropping the petrodollar standard would no longer threaten hyperinflationary implosion of our economic/national security. It's hard to wrap your head around at first, but:

-- if government doesn't desire perpetual expansion of its own power;

-- then government won't need the blank check our military hegemony grants it;

-- then government won't need to maintain current levels of military spending.

But then terrorists will kill us all!

 

[Dr.Drock]

I didn't say you said that, I said that's what we do.

Our long term strategy in Iraq was to kill 100,000 people in a 7 year war where the end result is a gov't run by Islam who's leader is a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah?

What's our strategy in Afghanistan? All I hear is that the Taliban will be retaking the gov't, which isn't much difference than the druglord family running things now.

What's our strategy in Libya? Was it to arm Al-Qaeda loyalists?

How can a war that's based on a principle, terror, who's goal is to kill terror suspects, ever be won?

You keep making my point for me. Your view is naive - and that's being nice about it. Libertarian principles won't keep the US safe... they will just make an unstable world more unstable. We must be a proactive country on the world stage - both with our friends and with our enemies. We cannot just hide within our borders and pretend it's not our business. If we had done that in WWII, the whole world - including our country - would be a much darker place.

Gubmint can't keep you safe any better than they've run the post office, ameliorated poverty, wiped out recreational drug use, or run the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security & Medicare.

Wake the hell up.

Well said, that's the point i try to make to people who want big gov't in some areas, while at the same time complaining they can't effectively run big gov't in other areas.


How can you call a president and congress incompetent because they can't do anything but skyrocket debt and all the departments are wildly inefficient, but magically somehow perfectly competent when it comes to foreign policy and having military all over the world?

 

[LibertyForAll]

You keep making my point for me. Your view is naive - and that's being nice about it. Libertarian principles won't keep the US safe... they will just make an unstable world more unstable. We must be a proactive country on the world stage - both with our friends and with our enemies. We cannot just hide within our borders and pretend it's not our business. If we had done that in WWII, the whole world - including our country - would be a much darker place.

Gubmint can't keep you safe any better than they've run the post office, ameliorated poverty, wiped out recreational drug use, or run the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security & Medicare.

Wake the hell up.

Well said, that's the point i try to make to people who want big gov't in some areas, while at the same time complaining they can't effectively run big gov't in other areas.


How can you call a president and congress incompetent because they can't do anything but skyrocket debt and all the departments are wildly inefficient, but magically somehow perfectly competent when it comes to foreign policy and having military all over the world?

Willful Ignorance?

 

[Avorysuds]

Paul is not a threat to anyone.

lol, no one said he was... Without Paul's support you lose tho.

 

[imbalance]

Here's a little something to chew on. If Rand got the VP slot, it would give him much needed experience and exposure at the very heart of our political system. That would, in the future, put him in a much stronger position for a shot at POTUS.

That might be a very good thing for the Libertarians generally, because they really do need to get a much deeper understanding of International Relations. They lose huge amounts of support simply because of their dangerously naive stance on Foreign Policy.

You're not acknowledging the fact that US economic and foreign policy are interfixed. You can't be for Ron Paul's economic solutions without being for the restructuring of US foreign policy objectives. But here's the good news: if we were to make significant cuts to scheduled spending and let the cash deposits of US citizens circulate within the US' private sector -- rather than floating overseas en route to government transactions transferring the cash flows into the US government's political currency account used to purchase votes (power) -- we wouldn't need to rely on petrodollar and military hegemony to back our currency because we'd finally have enough $USDs circulating within the US economy to ramp up domestic investment --> production --> output --> income --> private wealth creation to legitimately back a sound US currency.

If government isn't spending more money than it takes in, government doesn't need to engineer monetary and regulatory schemes to seize wealth from its private citizens. And we'd no longer have to export our military to the Middle East because the possibility of OPEC nations dropping the petrodollar standard would no longer threaten hyperinflationary implosion of our economic/national security. It's hard to wrap your head around at first, but:

-- if government doesn't desire perpetual expansion of its own power;

-- then government won't need the blank check our military hegemony grants it;

-- then government won't need to maintain current levels of military spending.

But then terrorists will kill us all!

 

[paulitician]

Here are the difficult choices for true Conservatives come November...You either write in a Candidate who you know wont win,don't vote at all, or compromise. Just remember though, your decisions have serious consequences. Do you want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to remain in power or not? Hey, i know the choices aren't great but what do you do? Soon it will be decision time for true Conservatives and Ron Paul supporters like me.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here are the difficult choices for true Conservatives come November...You either write in a Candidate who you know wont win,don't vote at all, or compromise. Just remember though, your decisions have serious consequences. Do you want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to remain in power or not? Hey, i know the choices aren't great but what do you do? Soon it will be decision time for true Conservatives and Ron Paul supporters like me.

Vote for a conservative, a liberal, or don't vote. Doesn't look like they'll be a conservative on the ballot, won't vote for a liberal, so sadly it looks like i'll most likely be sitting this one out.

 

[paulitician]

Here are the difficult choices for true Conservatives come November...You either write in a Candidate who you know wont win,don't vote at all, or compromise. Just remember though, your decisions have serious consequences. Do you want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to remain in power or not? Hey, i know the choices aren't great but what do you do? Soon it will be decision time for true Conservatives and Ron Paul supporters like me.

Vote for a conservative, a liberal, or don't vote. Doesn't look like they'll be a conservative on the ballot, won't vote for a liberal, so sadly it looks like i'll most likely be sitting this one out.

Yeah, unfortunately many do feel the same way. I'm not sure yet. I don't want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to stay in power but the alternatives aren't very appealing either. I don't think i'll sit it out though. I've never done that. It's gonna be rough though.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Here are the difficult choices for true Conservatives come November...You either write in a Candidate who you know wont win,don't vote at all, or compromise. Just remember though, your decisions have serious consequences. Do you want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to remain in power or not? Hey, i know the choices aren't great but what do you do? Soon it will be decision time for true Conservatives and Ron Paul supporters like me.

Vote for a conservative, a liberal, or don't vote. Doesn't look like they'll be a conservative on the ballot, won't vote for a liberal, so sadly it looks like i'll most likely be sitting this one out.

Yeah, unfortunately many do feel the same way. I'm not sure yet. I don't want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to stay in power but the alternatives aren't very appealing either. I don't think i'll sit it out though. I've never done that. It's gonna be rough though.

What alternative? Why aren't Newt and Mitt socialists/progressives?

 

[paulitician]

Vote for a conservative, a liberal, or don't vote. Doesn't look like they'll be a conservative on the ballot, won't vote for a liberal, so sadly it looks like i'll most likely be sitting this one out.

Yeah, unfortunately many do feel the same way. I'm not sure yet. I don't want to allow the Socialists/Progressives to stay in power but the alternatives aren't very appealing either. I don't think i'll sit it out though. I've never done that. It's gonna be rough though.

What alternative? Why aren't Newt and Mitt socialists/progressives?

Yes they are. It's another 'Lesser of two Evils' scenario. Not gonna be a fun Election for true Conservatives.