Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[FulorianC]

Originally Posted by erethizon

I think Ron Paul’s popularity shows that there are a lot more Libertarians out there than the U.S. normally gives credit for. This is not really surprising when you consider what the Republican and Democratic ideals are. Republicans want the federal government out of their wallets but all up in our personal lives. Democrats want the federal government raiding our wallets, but out of our personal lives. It would seem a lot more logical that the two major parties would be one that is in your wallet and personal life and one that avoids getting involved in either one (the latter is what the Libertarian party is all about).

The former is Populism. Not quite socialism, but basically mob-rule democracy with a heavy emphasis on oppressing minority thought.

Basically, it's Hillary. She's a populist, not a liberal. She's very keen on telling everyone what we may and may not do, while taking all of our money.

[FulorianC]

Originally Posted by tjac

Maybe, with his cancer and all, he's afraid of death without trying.

That pretty much invalidates any kind of Presidential run. Nobody wants to vote for a candidate that's likely to die before his 4 years are up.

I've heard a lot of people comment that RP is just too old. A valid point, as he'll be 76/77 by the time a potential Presidency ends, but he's honestly one of the most vigorous of the candidates and seems to be in excellent health.

[erethizon]

Originally Posted by FulorianC

The former is Populism. Not quite socialism, but basically mob-rule democracy with a heavy emphasis on oppressing minority thought.

Basically, it's Hillary. She's a populist, not a liberal. She's very keen on telling everyone what we may and may not do, while taking all of our money.

Yeah, it is essentially populism, but since the specifics of populism vary so greatly (Peter Wiles wrote “To each his own definition of populism, according to the academic axe he grinds”) that I decided to not bother to give it a name. Ross Perot was a populist candidate in 1992, but he did not run under that party name. In a nut shell, if you think the government should make all decisions for the people you are at one extreme (sometimes called populism) and if you think the federal government should stay out of pretty much everything they can you are at the other extreme (Libertarian). The founding fathers of the United States of America were esentially Libertarians. That was just not the title that was used back then.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by erethizon

I think Ron Paul’s popularity shows that there are a lot more Libertarians out there than the U.S. normally gives credit for.

No, it means there's a lot of people in the US who have no idea what Paul truly stands for, but have heard one or two things that they agree with and just figure they agree with all of his policies. And there's also a lot of people who will comment on their support of Paul with the following disclaimer: "well, his policies on X and Y I don't necessarily agree with, but he's just SO principled!"

[erethizon]

Originally Posted by Eomer

No, it means there's a lot of people in the US who have no idea what Paul truly stands for, but have heard one or two things that they agree with and just figure they agree with all of his policies. And there's also a lot of people who will comment on their support of Paul with the following disclaimer: "well, his policies on X and Y I don't necessarily agree with, but he's just SO principled!"

Almost no one agrees with everything any candidate stands for or even any political party stands for. You associate with the people that are most similar. Anyone who thinks America’s forefathers were basically right that the federal government should be as small as possible and not rule over the lives of the people (the way the king of England had) is more or less a libertarian. Most of them just do not realize it because they think there are only two political parties.

[Foradream]

Originally Posted by darksensei

How does having military bases in the Middle East improve American security interests around the world? How does U.S. Navy fighting pirates in Sudan help American security? People's views have been so warped to thinking economic interests are the same as national security. Look at the debate last night, a question was who wants to pledge staying in Iraq with permanent military bases? I say, who wants to volunteer to serve in those permanent constructs in Iraq like the behemoth embassy? Apparently not diplomats. You're painting a target on the people stationed there, and having military bases in the middle east only creates animosity. Note Ron Paul isn't advocating withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the war in Iraq ended up having absolutely nothing to do with OUR national security.

Can you honestly not see the advantage to having military bases spread across the globe? Or, of having intelligence agents in various countries?

REALLY?

[Kaio]

I would support Paul's despite some of his policies because we might achieve middle ground. The president isn't some kind of dictator, he can't just say... okay i'm getting rid of the IRS.

However, he may succeed in working with congress on his primary goals which I am either for completely or don't have a problem with. He wants to reduce spending and balance our budget. I totally agree with that, him wanting to go back to the gold standard is an odd but complicated issue I haven't made a real decision on. But his chance of achieving such a goal is zilch so it's a non-issue.

His foreign policy is where most people probably resonate with him. No matter what people say muslims around the world that have a problem with the U.S. to the point of attacking us or supporting the attackers agree on ONE thing.

It's not that they fucking hate our "freedom" it's because we are affecting theirs. The reason for Al Quaeda's existence is that the saudi monarchy isn't really that popular and us having troops in the holy land is both sacrilege and ridiculously offending. Our costly and ridiculous support of Israel, a nation built upon the land of others in recent years that pretty much doesn't stand for the fundamental ideals that we believe in is second. We are directly supporting the killing of muslims both militant/terrorists and even more innocent civilians. We supporting a country whose polices result in killings of innocent families.

Are the terrorists attrocius? Are the terrorists attrocius? Of course, but our current course is doing NOTHING but adding more fuel to the fire. Radical Islam may be on the rise again but in the last 50 years I can safely say confidently that we've helped the movement greatly rather then deter it.

Paul was also against Iraq before it happend. That to me is crucial because I was in the same boat. As i said before I come from a muslim background and I pretty much have met with and continue to meet with muslims from all over the globe and quite often.

The think tanks, the neocons, and most importantly the very small number of Iraqi's that told us that we would be greeted happily by the civilians sounded UNIVERSALLY ridiculous then to us and their new theory's sound ridiculous now.

Iran is not where we want them to be but i guarantee you that invading them will both be difficult for our stretched military which recently had to send the marines over to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and our surge in Iraq. Also invading iran which would have most likely been a far more moderate nation if not for our interventions in the past. Secondly despite Bush's best efforts to the contrary there are moderate elements desparately fighting inside Iran. The new generation of Iranian's, the students, are against the hardliners and are also fighting desparately. They are protesting and they want a less religous nation.

We have to let the country try to fix themselves. When they have plans to DIRECTLY threaten our freedom and lives here in the U.S. we should act. But going to war with any nation that has some elements with animosity towards us sets a dangerous precedent.

Ron Paul is the only repub candidate and is maybe only one of only two (Kucinich being the other) candidates for the presidency that agrees. Being non-interventionist should be the way our nation is run. Any world policing we do should be a league of nations like NATO and the U.N. I was proud of our actions with NATO in places like KOSOVO where people where there was genocide going on.

I would be proud of this country if we pushed in the U.N. to go into other areas of genocide and massive injustice to the tune of killings tens-hundreds of thousands just because of race/religion. But we aren't doing that...

Also I almost forgot about his policy on personal rights. He quotes my favorite Ben Franklin quote of all times. Something alone the tune of "Those who give up essential liberties for security, deserve neither liberty nor security." The country wasn't founded by people who were afraid of war/revolution or their own safety to protect their rights. We shouldn't hand them ours...

Ron Paul as a candidate is almost too perfect imo.

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Foradream

Can you honestly not see the advantage to having military bases spread across the globe? Or, of having intelligence agents in various countries?

REALLY?

Paul isn't against intelligience gathering at all. He's said so numerous times, he just doesn't believe that the CIA has the right organization for the job. They also do things that aren't directly related to intelligence gathering that negatively effect us. We have gotten caught or publically attempted to change political climates in numerous countries and we've suffered for it.

[Khorum]

You haven't even spent ONE second thinking about the consequences of an isolationist America have you? You don't have the first fucking clue why the Wolfowitz Doctrine was relentlessly prosecuted with single-minded determination both by Bill Clinton as well as Bush. You're just aping your fucking raghead anti-American uncles' GUT FEELINGS again without regard (or even a basic grasp) of historical realities.

What "new theories" from which "think tanks" did you really have issues with Kaio? Because last I checked you sat there and misquoted a fucking PEW poll for some imagined advantage without even citing its original source. You couldn't even recognize the leading moderate voices amongst your "friends" in CAIR when a video was crammed in your face.

How does your "non-interventionism" measure up to the 1.2 million Iraqis who perished under Saddam and the millions of Kurds and Shiites who would not be alive today if Ron Paul's bullshit anti-hegemonist insanity had been contagious? Oh that's right, it doesn't. But I don't blame you, because those think tanks, scholars and academic journals are all pretty much unanimous on the fact that radical wahabbism actually stems from the opportunistic exploitation by ambitious charlatans of uneducated young poor muslim men. Not Western Adventurism or CIA "doing other sneaky things teehee". But you don't give a shit about that. You've expressed your resentment for rigorous detail and rational analysis and have consistently depended on your GUT FEELINGZ.

All you really give a fucking shit about is your vicarious allegiance for the soon-to-be-invaded Islamic Revolution and their abiding ambition to bring Sharia to every corner of the universe. You don't give a shit about how Iraq is being transformed into a peaceful and stable secular society as we speak, you don't even give much of a shit about Iran either, you just want to stop seeing the flower of muslim masculinity constantly humiliated live on CNN and MSNBC and having your delusions of a world that would respect arabs for anything other than unlettered goatfuckers.

[darksensei]

You're a nut case.

[Cadrid]

Originally Posted by darksensei

You're a nut case.

Khorum is just a very dedicated troll, perhaps the most convincing one I've ever seen.

[Vatoreus]

Sometimes I wish I could see the real Khorum.

[Soriak]

If someone trolls with over 2,500 posts, is it still a troll?

[Kaio]

Originally Posted by Khorum

You haven't even spent ONE second thinking about the consequences of an isolationist America have you? You don't have the first fucking clue why the Wolfowitz Doctrine was relentlessly prosecuted with single-minded determination both by Bill Clinton as well as Bush. You're just aping your fucking raghead anti-American uncles' GUT FEELINGS again without regard (or even a basic grasp) of historical realities.

Isolationism isn't being supported by Ron Paul or me so i dunno wtf your talking about. That requires economic and trade changes too. I am not keen on complete non-intervention but I'm definately against pre-emptive war.

Are you still ranting about some goddamn muslim conspiracy to take over the world. I don't doubt theres tons of muslims that believe in that shit from wahabists to whatever but that is not the majority of islam in any way. Not even a majority of terrorists were founded based on it. Osama's beef with the U.S. started the same time his beef with Saudi Arabia started. Mostly for the same reasons as well.

Most normal people aren't like that and you've NEVER given evidence to the contrary. There is no revolution, there were always people in the fringe and all the old islamic empires are dead and no one in their right mind is trying to conquer anything. And if they do try we CAN act then. Just like Iraq on Kuwait. Sr. Bush did fine...

If you want to cite history why don't you come up with ONE example of any terrorist action or anything of the sort related to conquest of the non-believers.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by darksensei

You're a nut case.

Actually a nutcase would regard the unravelling of the American global hegemony as anything other than an absolute fucking DISASTER not only for Americans but for our allies across the world. A nutcase would throw away the toil and sacrifice of millions of Americans who built the most prosperous global community in known history for no better reason than to APPEASE the offended sensibilities of a pack of miscreants who are incapable of confronting modernity.

A nutcase would go on national television and unblinkingly invoke the arch-anarchist Lysander Spooner while demanding the removal of the IRS and the repeal of Federal Reserve Act of 1913. But as crazy-eyed and hopelessly deranged as such a man would be, the worst nutcases are those loopy nutbaskets who follow him.

I mean, let's face it, when you have to ask "How does having military bases in the Middle East improve American security interests around the world?" you're already staring at a giant gaping hole in someone's fundamental grasp of basic history. When someone is still banking on the notion that "You're painting a target on the people stationed there" in Iraq despite how even the worst liberal shitbags like John Fucking Murtha are acknowledging that Al Anbar, the capital of radical islam only six months ago, is now at peace---and how the people in Ramadi are carrying pictures of an American Martyr---we're talking about a serious failure of basic cognizance here. When you're still banking on the myth of failure in Iraq, you're not just behind the times, you've become a nutcase.

Seriously, how hard is it to pay attention to CNN or ABC nowadays and see that the U.S. Marines are redeploying to Afghanistan not because of some EXCRUCIATINGLY RETARDED bullshit "deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and our surge in Iraq", which is so completely detached from reality that the same network that routinely calls Cheney "the most dangerous man in the world" is forced to admit the truth: that the marines are moving because they don't have shit to do in Al Anbar, and not a single marine was harmed in Al Anbar in the month of November.

But the real test of nutcasiness, is that after being confronted by incontrovertible evidence, evidence provided from sympathetic fellow nutcases, one just plugs his ears, closes his eyes and starts squealing about unfair "neocon think tanks" and those "UNIVERSALLY ridiculous" notions about how no Iraqi really appreciated American intervention and how, despite the New York Times, CNN and MSNBC are now showing otherwise, the Iraqi people were somehow actually HAPPY with Saddam's rule.