The crux of Paul's fiscal policy is predicated on limiting the role of the federal government substantially, enhancing the role of the states, and significantly reducing taxes. I disagree with his approach, but the argument is that by reducing federal expenditures (his plan calls for a $1 trillion reduction in the first year) and reducing taxes, taxpayers will have more disposable income through which they can generate the economy by way of the public sector. I didnt say you mischaracterized his position, but caricaturized it which I thought was pretty evident. As I said, I'm not arguing the merit of his policy because I dont believe in it. Impractical and silly as it gets? Are you kidding me??? Approximately $4 trillion dollars and 225,000 lives, 555,000 disability claims in the VA, and 8 million refugees worldwide as a result of our foreign policy in the past decade. I'm sure that policy is very practical and serious.
I dont thinks drugs are okay. I think they should be decriminalized, and yes, ALL of them. Portugal completely decriminalized drugs over 7 years ago and the process has been a resounding success by all accounts. You can read about it here I would also encourage you to watch a recent debate on this issue that took place at Brown University. Glenn Greenwald advocated for decriminalization against former Bush drug czar John Walters <iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/32110912?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/32110912">Janus Forum - Should the US Legalize Drugs?</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user4517835">Brown University</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
How much of that is Iraq, and how much of that is Afghanistan? And is the war in Afghanistan unjustifiable? Look, saying that we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, and not killed Bin Laden, combined with the idea that we need to completely withdraw from the Middle East, is insane. America possesses the right, if not the duty, to reshape the Middle East into something that will benefit us. And that means killing those who attack us at bare minimum, which means hunting that SOB Bin Laden.
Ron Paul voted for the Presidential authorization to go into Afghanistan. What gives the U.S. "the right, if not the duty, to reshape the Middle East into something that will benefit us," especially when that right comes at the cost of allowing the people of the Middle East their right to self-government? And we wonder why they hate us...
Obama would crush Ron Paul. The only problem with Obama is execution. He wanted approval from the right.
May I suggest actually listening to Jon Huntsman? He doesn't get much play, but he is obviously the best candidate of the bunch; he's not just towing the line to the extreme right like everyone else is. Obama would crush Ron Paul. Obama would crush every single GOP candidate... except Huntsman, if he got more play (and he would if he got the nomination). I'm quite liberal, but I'd probably vote for Huntsman over Obama in a general election given the disappointment Obama has been.
Right, he just wouldn't have killed Bin Laden because the Pakistanis can obviously be trusted, and has ranted about sending in private mercenaries to do that job like in 2008. And as for what gives the US that right? Nothing, as nations are not individuals. They do not possess the same rights that individuals have, but they do not have the restrictions either. Nations above all must serve their people and work in their interests, not in the name of abstract ideals like justice or democracy or world brotherhood. The US currently possesses hegemony. Someday, it will end, as all things do. But preserving and protecting that hegemony is the most important priority. ( It's amazing how Paulites can rant about the importance of self-determination, all while hating Woodrow Wilson, that fool who attempted to bring morality into international relations and only created war.) It may be over a century since he left, and people may not want to admit it, but this world is not Gandhi's or Havel's. It is Bismarck's, and it remains so.
So, there's nobody in the Republcian field other than Paul willing to give us the magical realism spiel that reduce taxes + cut spending = magically solve everything, despite the massive amount of empirical evidence to the contrary? I disagree. [/quote] I'm not going to argue that Iraq wasn't a mistake or that the mistake of Iraq didn't perpetuate a non-mistake in Afghanistan into a mistake - - but Paul is hardly alone in raising this issue.
Ron Paul's central theme is crazily deregulated econmic markets. This is an extremely beneficial dogma to only the top 1 percent and even more for the top .1%. This is why the Koch's and others have funded him and his ideas. Sorry Paulies. The Drugs and anti-interventionism are minor side ideas. Wthout the extreme benefits to the narrow well being of the top .1% his economics theories help, he would probably be an unknown baby doctor with a few pamphlets to his name or a low watt AM radio ranter with a few followers in bum***k TX.
PS. He most reminds me of Joe the Plumber and/or the original Tea Party folks who were coopted by the big moneyed right without even knowing it.
The only reason anybody believes this is true is because some Paulite said it and people keep repeating it. He's been in the top three before, but it has been very rare. He is typically 4th or 5th in national polling and he has also been 6th. In fact, more often than he is 3rd he is fifth, as he is right now in aggregate polling: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html He is presently closer to last than 3rd.
im not disputing the polling, but do yall think that the overall schizophrenia of the GOP primaries has anything to do w/ it? the thing is that his support is stable while others have gone from clear front-runner to crash and burn. look no further than pointy boots, who went from 31.8 share to 7.7. that graph is pretty cool - paul is the orange line and its the straightest one on there after the flatlining nirvana-fanatic huntsman. follow the orange line across and he is goes from 4th and 5th up to 2nd. he may not be as solidly 3rd as us paultards think, but he is far from last. the andy warhol quote about everyone getting their 15 minutes has never been more appropriate than this GOP primary. it just shows the 'anyone but romney' attitude. romney is their version of john kerry so if they want to win they wont nominate him, but they just cant settle on anyone else. and yes, ron paul will never get the nomination. he could win every poll/debate/ect from here on out and he will not get it. the GOP establishment would sooner blow up the party than hand it over to him. that being said, in a general election i still think paul would do well against obama. republicans would either stay home or vote for paul, independents would go to him and even more left-minded democrats who are unhappy w/ obama on war and civil liberties issues.
Sad to say, but this is probably the most accurate characterization posted. As an older poster who remembers his early days, I can not separate Ron from the LaRouchites and Moonies at the tables next to him at the airport. They all hounded you with their "message" as you tried to make your way through the airport. Maybe Deckard remembers. The tactic hasn't changed, it's just moved from the airport to the internet.
Well, that's the thing. Paul has his base who will stick with him through thick and thin. But it is very difficult for him given his unconventional viewpoints for him to expand out of it, so while he'll be more consistent than merry go round of "Not Mitt Romney" candidates, it also pretty much guarantees that he will never be that main not-Romney candidate which could significantly boost his support - to top it off, I do remember Paul supporters including myself at the time throwing their support behind Romney as a last ditch opposition to McCain. Like I've said before, a lot of Paul supporters seem to think that if more people knew about Paul, he would be the overwhelming favorite, something which just isn't true. People know about Paul, especially anyone who has ever done a political discussion on the Internet. They just reject a lot of what he says.
Here's one of my problems with Paul and the State's rights people: at what point is the lowest common denominator of accepted political practice. if you let States decide things like abortion, medical mar1juana or right to die do at what point do people actually migrate to live under the laws they choose are right? Would we accept racial discrimination in the South? Full assisted suicide in Oregon? Corporate tort protection in Delaware? You've got 200 years of debate, decisions and precedent where in almost in every indecent the Federal policy was on the right side of history (but then again, you have Citizens United).
The "states rights" issue is where you have the intersection of Ron Paul and the old southern racists, some of the early Paulies. Anyone over the age of 50 or with some knowlege of recent American history knows this code word and its modern day use. I will acknowledge that it is now not just about race as it is easier to get say Idaho to allow unlimited coal power pollution, anti-union laws and other bennies to certain wealthy interests so that there is an economic benefit to Koch Industries and other libertararian heavy hitters.
I agree with you, it is almost sad that Paul and Huntsman do not get more play and attention. I am independent, while I have some liberal views really and dont think we should impose any sort of religious views towards people's decisions, let alone be anti-muslim/gay or whatever else, I have been disappointed by Obama and economically I am more towards the right in many ways. Huntsman and Paul are the only two candidates in the entire fiedl including obama who don't play BS political games. These guys are intelligent and most importantly they are honest and the best representation that you can count on. I love how honest paul is about America and where we make our mistakes rather than playing to emotions and pretending we are prefect, but he is a bit extreme on how he is with the fed and naively trust the market always works out. Huntsman is more realistic in this regard and wish he would get more attention. And his daughters are pretty hot. More importnatly, I don't get how americans fall for the same old politicians BS games over and over again
I would love Paul to be the republican't candidate for the election. Obama would destroy him. Easily.
