Ron Paul

[superpunk]

The stuff that's coming out now about stuff he published earlier (racist/anti-semitic stuff) is really going to hurt him. Even if those weren't his writings/thoughts, they've got his name on them. The closer they look into this guy as his support swells and his opponents turn more attention to him, things are just going to get worse and worse for him imo.

His economic ideas (the things that most people "like" about him because they are simplistic, easy to understand and seem to make common sense which is useless in world economics - but most voters aren't smart enough to realize that) are insane but relatively harmless. No idea he has would ever actually get past congress i.e. abolishing the fed, moving back to a gold standards, etc.

The issues that could create problems like I mentioned earlier are his military ideas. They sound good to me, because they are simplistic and common-sensey. I'd love giving up the empire, closing down our foreign bases and bringing all the troops home. And as commander in chief I imagine he could pull alot of that off. But, how would that impact the world scene? I'd love someone to interview some generals and get their feedback on that.

 

[dbair1967]

Because comparing him to another past president who also had military service is useless, seeing as most of our past presidents have some sort of military experience. It doesn't dictate what their policy is.

Clinton didnt, neither does current president Zero.

My comparison to Carter was because while he had military experience, he ended up being a huge "softy" and anti-military in general. he greatly cut military spending and put us at risk without thinking of the consequences. I picture Paul as being very "soft" as well. Unless we are going to do the right thing and drill for our own oil, doing what Paul suggests internationally (especially in the Middle East) is insane.

If you want me to think you're informed when you call him "whacko," you're going to have to come with more than that.

The last debate is a pretty fair example of why I (and many others) think he's slightly off his rocker.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

The stuff that's coming out now about stuff he published earlier (racist/anti-semitic stuff) is really going to hurt him. Even if those weren't his writings/thoughts, they've got his name on them. The closer they look into this guy as his support swells and his opponents turn more attention to him, things are just going to get worse and worse for him imo.

His economic ideas (the things that most people "like" about him because they are simplistic, easy to understand and seem to make common sense which is useless in world economics - but most voters aren't smart enough to realize that) are insane but relatively harmless. No idea he has would ever actually get past congress i.e. abolishing the fed, moving back to a gold standards, etc.

The issues that could create problems like I mentioned earlier are his military ideas. They sound good to me, because they are simplistic and common-sensey. I'd love giving up the empire, closing down our foreign bases and bringing all the troops home. And as commander in chief I imagine he could pull alot of that off. But, how would that impact the world scene? I'd love someone to interview some generals and get their feedback on that.

And how would that improve the economic situation at home? That's thousands and thousands of extra applicants for already scarce US jobs.

At best, you could send a few divisions down south to do border patrol (no mexican gang is going to fuck with an army division, much less a platoon) and clear that mess up.

 

[superpunk]

I didn't say it would help anything. The military does drive our economy more than any private entity could.

But I guess if you wanted to you could make the argument that if we weren't so concerned with maintaining the empire abroad we could spend more money on projects to stimulate the economy at home. Maintain the military in the name of defense and spend the money we save on maintaining foreign bases on our infrastructure which could really use it as there really hasn't been any major push in that respect since Eisenhower I guess?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I didn't say it would help anything. The military does drive our economy more than any private entity could.

But I guess if you wanted to you could make the argument that if we weren't so concerned with maintaining the empire abroad we could spend more money on projects to stimulate the economy at home. Maintain the military in the name of defense and spend the money we save on maintaining foreign bases on our infrastructure which could really use it as there really hasn't been any major push in that respect since Eisenhower I guess?

Let's hope the Dems don't take the office again under that scenario. Everybody would be on welfare.

 

[superpunk]

Let's hope the Dems don't take the office again under that scenario. Everybody would be on welfare.

This response makes tons of sense in a thread about Ron Paul's ideas.

 

[peplaw06]

Clinton didnt, neither does current president Zero.

Hence my choice of the word "most."

My comparison to Carter was because while he had military experience, he ended up being a huge "softy" and anti-military in general. he greatly cut military spending and put us at risk without thinking of the consequences. I picture Paul as being very "soft" as well. Unless we are going to do the right thing and drill for our own oil, doing what Paul suggests internationally (especially in the Middle East) is insane.

Your comparison is not really a comparison at all. You said it yourself, you "picture" Paul as being soft. Not sure what evidence there is that this is the case. Nothing I've seen him say indicates he is soft. Withdrawing our troops out of occupied countries without a congressional declaration of war is just following the Constitution, it's not soft.

And I don't understand your correlation with oil and withdrawing our troops from the mid-east. Do you think our military presence has *helped* our oil dependence or the price of oil?? That makes no sense.

The last debate is a pretty fair example of why I (and many others) think he's slightly off his rocker.

Last I saw he was still leading in Iowa polls. Apparently not enough people think he's off his rocker.

 

[peplaw06]

The stuff that's coming out now about stuff he published earlier (racist/anti-semitic stuff) is really going to hurt him. Even if those weren't his writings/thoughts, they've got his name on them. The closer they look into this guy as his support swells and his opponents turn more attention to him, things are just going to get worse and worse for him imo.

Obama's associations from the past didn't seem to hurt him enough to cause him to lose. I think most informed voters don't just automatically discount a candidate because they have an association with someone like that. The problem is when most voters aren't informed.

His economic ideas (the things that most people "like" about him because they are simplistic, easy to understand and seem to make common sense which is useless in world economics - but most voters aren't smart enough to realize that) are insane but relatively harmless. No idea he has would ever actually get past congress i.e. abolishing the fed, moving back to a gold standards, etc.

Apparently what we've been doing re: the economy isn't working. It would be insane to continue the same old shit. That's what all of these politicians know, except Paul. No one has any real ideas to fix this mess. I think a return to simplicity (or as I wold call it, what is Constitutional) might be a good idea. Though I'm no expert.

The issues that could create problems like I mentioned earlier are his military ideas. They sound good to me, because they are simplistic and common-sensey. I'd love giving up the empire, closing down our foreign bases and bringing all the troops home. And as commander in chief I imagine he could pull alot of that off. But, how would that impact the world scene? I'd love someone to interview some generals and get their feedback on that.

Why do you keep calling his ideas simplistic? Is it because they follow the Constitution, and don't require some ridiculous twisting of the rules to fit a particular politician or party's agenda?

The general public opinion of the United States around the world isn't exactly sterling. I don't understand why we feel the need to be the world's peacekeeper when we have serious issues we need to deal with at home. It may not be PC, but I'll say it anyway. Who cares about the rest of em right now? We need to take care of our own problems.

 

[superpunk]

Well, Obama didn't say in the Obama Report that 95% of the blacks in DC were criminals and that we should just let Israel be destroyed by Pakistan, either.

Simplicity sounds good to people who aren't prepared to think too deeply or unselfishly about the problem. Changing the economy to Paul's simple plan is impossible in that it would likely destroy the economic balance of the whole world and for that reason would never be allowed by Congress. None of Paul's ideas would ever make it past either house. So they aren't even really worth talking about in a discussion about him, they're just non-starter talking points that people like because of their simplicity. You just can't apply household "I can't spend more than I bring in" principles to the world at this stage in the game no matter how much you'd like to.

The military ideas are simple and good and could actually be accomplished by Paul. But again, I don't think their simplicity might be what's best for America or the world, no matter how nice and cute they sound. I think that sort of selfishness contributed toward getting us into this mess. When you decide to formulate policy with no regard to how it will affect the rest of the world you end up screwing yourself. The United States can't survive in it's own little bubble.