Ron Paul

  1. Wow, has anyone been following how much he raised yesterday, I think the figure was 6 million in one day.

    Here are his fundraising stats:

    1st: $639,889
    2nd: 2.5 million
    3rd: 5.3 million
    4th: approaching 20 million

    Talk about exponential. Crazy
  2. jcsd
  3. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    No, he's a nut. "Crazy" is right.

    It's amazing how many people have jumped on the bandwagon and have absolutely no clue what kind of crazy things he's proposing, like leaving the UN.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  4. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,122
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    He will be on Meet the Press next Sunday. The show can be watched online later.

    Some of his ideas do sound extreme, but an hour on Meet the Press can be worth a thousand press releases in its information value. He clearly offers ideas that inspire a new generation of voters.

    Note that Russert has been interviewing all of the candidates. See the list of candidates along the right column of the page and click to watch.

    So far he is the only Republican that has a chance of getting my vote. After the last seven years we might just need someone like Ron Paul. That's what happens when you support crazies like Bush.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  5. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    He doesn't even have an environmental plan. In a live interview when asked about GW/C02 he said he'd heard about it, but said it would work itself out naturally based on marketing needs. That video of the interview was posted in another thread here.
  6. There are some things I don't agree with him, and then there are some things I really love about him:

    His impeccable voting record. The most honest politician I've ever witnessed in my lifetime. I'm reading his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom.

    Great book, he's basically been saying the same thing for 20+ years, hasn't flip-flopped at all. He supposedly has studied Austrian economics for the last 20 years too.
  7. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,122
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But he is dedicated to the Constitution, and that is more important that any other issue.

    If we have a constitutional government, then the will of the people will follow. By definition that would include environmental issues.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  8. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    Hopefully the will of the people will be to elect someone that has all of his bulbs lit. :eek:
  9. ShawnD

    ShawnD 953
    Science Advisor

    He might be a bit strange, but he speaks his mind because he knows he can't win. He took a strip off Giuliani, he openly talks about completely withdrawing from the middle east, he had the guts to say 9/11 was due to bad foreign policy, he talks about how the war should not have happened, and he talks about government bloat in general. He's not the kind of person you want leading the country, but he's worth having around.
  10. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    He wants to pull all foreign aid to other countries and isolate the US from the rest of the world. You've heard about his stand on refusing aid to Darfur?
  11. Astronuc

    Staff: Mentor

    There's a guy in the building where I work who supports both Kucinich and Ron Paul - and displays bumper stickers of both on his car. I think he's a self described liberal-libertarian who has some rather nutty ideas. Last presidential election, he supported Nader.
  12. ShawnD

    ShawnD 953
    Science Advisor

    He may have given a silly statement about Market Forces ending slavery, but the idea of pulling out isn't so foreign. If you can look at your own citizens and say "deal with your own problems" then why not apply that same logic to the rest of the world? That makes at least as much sense as the current republican view of letting lower class Americans fix their own problems but trying to save the world when it comes to international problems. If the country can't deal with its own problems, why would it take on the world's problems?
  13. mheslep

    mheslep 3,404
    Gold Member

    Rep. Paul's close adherence to the constitution in the face in the status quo must certainly be the reason for his wide appeal. For me, the interesting question about Paul is whether or not this position is taken out of courage or nuttiness. That is, a nut doesn't require courage to challenge the status quo because he doesn't rationally analyze all the consequences of doing so. After watching more of him I believe there's some courage there and unfortunately also some nuttiness. I saw him a couple weeks back in a televised house committee where Bernanke was testifying on the economy/Fed and specifically on the falling dollar vs other currencies. Paul went off on a rant, a fair description I think compared to the solid & quiet Bernake. Now when you are running for President and you question the Fed Chairman seems to me you should have a very good handle on the facts before launching into a rant. Paul went on about this would eat up the savings of the common man (?). Bernanke explained that would only be the case, um, if one was buying all your food, etc from overseas and traveling to the south of France, and that the falling dollar would would, uh, have little effect on inflation, which is, uh, what you really mean. Doh!
  14. mheslep

    mheslep 3,404
    Gold Member

    I don't recall where he specifically said this , but if so then good example: You say guts, I say nuts on this one. The logic of the argument is that if somehow the US didn't antagonize Al-Qaeda that they would chill out; the evidence is almost completely the other way. If Paul's policy is hand's off the world, then what about the consequences? A non-nut has to consider them. Does that mean sit by and allow the enslavement of women, WMD equipped Al-Qaeda, the destruction of Israel?
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  15. If Ron Paul had "close adherence" to the constitution he'd realize that the United States is bounded by any international treaty it signs onto that's ratified by the congress (Article VI). The US can't go entering into agreements and then back out of them, according to the constitution. He has as much spin on the constitution as the so-called "constitutionalists" or any other politician.

    I also disagree with his belief in market capitalism. Corporations become so big that they become "too big to fail" and rely upon the government far more than the "welfare cheat," whoever that's supposed to be. Also, the market has proven ineffective in numerous areas and thus R&D funding is necessary by the government (particularly in space exploration, automotive standards, computing, etc.).
  16. I saw that too. You kind of have to know that Paul analyzes the market through Austrian economic school of thought. I felt he did say some great things to Bernanke.
    Austrian Economics vs. Bernanke's Economics

    A lot of people actually support his views with economics, he was just on Jim Cramer's mad money and I thought Jim Cramer was going to start worshiping him at one point.

    Nevertheless, In my opinion, Paul seems to have a firm grasp of monetary policy compared to other candidates.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  17. D H

    Staff: Mentor

    Unfortunately, I know exactly how loony he is. Thanks to Republican gerrymandering designed to counter previous Democratic gerrymandering, Ron Paul is now my representative in Congress. He appeals to the mix of nutballs, retirees, and engineers/physical scientists that form the bulk of the electorate in this district. One thing I really don't get is his immense appeal to engineers and physical scientists.

    Market forces will take care of all of that.:rolleyes:
  18. Yes, it is "nuts" to state that many foreign policy specialists believe that 9-11 was partly caused by what many CIA specialists have termed "Blowback theory," i.e., the belief that the United States' support of corrupt dictators, radical Islamists (particularly the Mujahideen under the Reagan administration to help fight the Soviets) and so on has made the US a prime target for many in the Muslim world, and that many internationals scholars trace the spread of Islamic fundamentalism to the 1953 Iranian coup d'├ętat in Iran, which led to much hostility and resentment towards the US as well as the spread of fundamentalism.

    It's "nutty" to believe that the United States is not winning the hearts and minds of the moderate Muslim world and that to effectively combat terrorism we should punish those responsible (as in accordance with international law) and engage in social and ideological activities in addition to the use of force, despite what Bruce Hoffman at the "left-wing" Rand corporation says.

    I'm sure you can give me the names of foreign policy experts who actually believe that that this a "nutty opinion," and that it's not just "nutty" according to the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, and Rudy Giuliani's foreign relations adviser.

    I believe that the argument is that United States foreign policy has been, and is currently, increasing the role of Islamic fundamentalists and militant Jihadists, despite our best efforts, so we need a change in policy, not that they will just "chill out" if we don't respond in someway. Ron Paul is not saying that, and in fact he voted for the use of force in Afghanistan.

    The claim is backed up by the facts and international relations experts, and I can give the studies if you like.

    The evidence is that US foreign policy has not been effectively combating terrorism around the world.

    What about the fact that the United States has far more often had absolutely disastrous rather than successful results using the military in the third world (i.e. Vietnam)?

    Ronald Reagan claimed he was going to put an end to the change the "evil" Sandinista's were bringing to Nicarauga, and as a result they ended up the second poorest country in the hemisphere in the 1980s, with Ortega currently back in power (not to mention the tens of thousands of people killed in what the World Court condemned as "international terrorism" committed by the US). I'm sure you're upset that the Miskito Indians ended up in a far worse position than under the Sandinistas.

    Or in Brazil, where the US supported Branco, or Pinochet under Chile, or Argentina under Videla, and other dictators part of "Operation Condor" (look it up, you could use the exercise). These right-wing dictators did not exactly have a successful track record when it came to human rights.

    Since you've proclaimed yourself a foreign policy expert who can write off other people's opinions as "nutty," I'm sure you're well aware of the numerous US attempts to put down the democratic movements in the Islamic world, and the fact that some of the US' harshest critics when it comes to the Middle East are Iranians and Arabs who are part of those peace movements.

    It seems that by the US interfering in the third world, the US causes far more trouble (and death) for the people in those countries than had they not intervened at all, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, East Timor, Iraq, and Iraq again in the new millennium are just a few examples.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
  19. Neither can I. In fact, I don't even believe he has such an appeal to engineers and scientists, and some of the most respected physical scientists I know of (Klaus, etc.) are seemingly liberal.

    Can you provide statistical evidence that Ron Paul has a large following of physical scientists (i.e. Ph.D level scientists)? Because according to a chart on wiki, a clear majority of engineers and scientists polled are Democrats.

    For the record, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, but I think American foreign policy sucks, esp. under the Bush administration. It's so far to the right that even many in the foreign policy elite, right-wing realists and so on, think it's extreme.
  20. I haven't spent much time researching the latest candidates but from everyone has posted here, I think I like this guy. It seems pretty Constitionally sound to fix our own problems before we run out and try to fix the rest of the world. Lead by example first if we are going to lead anything.
  21. ShawnD

    ShawnD 953
    Science Advisor

    Canada - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
    Denmark - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
    Sweden - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
    Norway - not in middle east - has no terrorist problems
    USA - strong presence in middle east - has terrorist problems
    Israel - is located in the middle east - has severe terrorist problems

    Seems like to the closer you get to the middle east, the worse things get. Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is. Ron Paul spoke quite a bit about the middle east and foreign policy.

    And in answer to your question: **** the middle east.
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?