News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[mheslep]

Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg

 

[Evo]

Paul humor.

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/cartoon_010212_A.jpg

LOl.

 

[ThomasT]

... What I don't get is why so many people say Ron Paul isn't a real candidate ...

I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).

 

[Evo]

I think it's at least partly (mostly?) because that's the image that the mainstream corporate media is promulgating. Just imagine the problems that a Ron Paul with the power of the presidency might cause for the status quo.

This is not to say that I would vote for Ron Paul. I wouldn't. But I don't think he's the least desirable GOP candidate (in GOP field wrt which, imho, all candidates are undesirable for one reason or another).

Only Santorum is scarier. IMO. But, yeah, even the republicans don't like the line up, 58% polled don't want any of them.

 

[turbo]

I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.

 

[ThomasT]

Only Santorum is scarier. IMO.

I agree that Santorum is worse. And so, apparently, do most Americans ... at least for the time being.

And, while not particularly desirable, imo, a Ron Paul presidency would at least be interesting. Whereas a, say, Mitt Romney presidency would be pretty boring, ie., just more of the same business as usual, imho.

 

[ThomasT]

I don't know a single Republican who has a "favorite" out of that batch of lukewarm dishwater. It's pretty sad. This country has a pretend "two-party" system in which the top officials in both parties are beholden to the wealthy/big businesses. The GOP has tossed in the towel for 2012, IMO. Not a good thing.

I basically agree with this assessment. It's "a good thing" only in the sense that Obama has established, imo, that he's not going to do any great harm ... but then he isn't really advocating, or making happen, changes that I think would significantly improve the lives of average Americans. (Of course, it can be argued that that's mostly due to the intransigence of the GOP dominated congress, which is a topic for another thread.)

 

[Evo]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.

 

[ThomasT]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide.

Well, that's an empirical question that can only be definitively answered if America was to implement Paul's isolationist ideas.

Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.IMO.

But it could be argued that the people who are in positions to do anything about international politics are tools of the status quo. So, it's wrt that consideration that I would consider a Ron Paul presidency to be ... interesting.

 

[Tosh5457]

The thing is that Ron Paul's isolationist ideas (not to mention just being plain idiotic) would cause so much hatred against the US, if any of his crazy ideas were to be implemented, it would be global suicide. Of course, it's because people that understand international politics realize this that he will never be taken seriously.

IMO.

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.

 

[MarcoD]

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

 

[Tosh5457]

Life is never that simple. For all we know, Europe could have been fascist or communist by now, Saddam could have taken over the Middle East and slaughtered half of it, and Israel might have gone down the drains decades ago.

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.

 

[MarcoD]

The reasons for USA going to war against Iraq weren't that noble, to prevent Saddam from taking over the Middle East. The fact that US could have or could have not prevent an eventual bigger evil isn't a reason to support a war, especially when there are darker reasons behind that war.

And you can't compare WWII to this... The Axis posed a threat to the Allies back then, and now do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA? Not even to Israel, with the support they've been getting from US. But on the Israel issue, USA-Israel alliance is one-sided: USA has always helped Israel, but what has Israel done for US? That's not even an alliance, that's just a country that doesn't need aid receiving aid from another country. If it wasn't for the strong political power Israel has on Washington, they'd get nothing. If the corrupt politicians weren't influenced by the pro-Israel lobbies, they'd end the alliance with Israel and let Israel govern for itself.

Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)

 

[mheslep]

do you really think Iraq poses a threat to USA?

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

 

[turbo]

I am not very happy with these wars either, but there are two sides to this coin.

The nuts that promoted these wars are very fond of presenting false dichotomies. There is no international/foreign relations issue that has "two sides", and it's high time that somebody in the press mans up and explains that - loudly and over and over again. Politicians are professional liars, and if they can get enough of the public to get behind them, they can do tremendous damage with such simplistic claims.

 

[Tosh5457]

Man, motives are irrelevant. The end result of the Iraq war should have been, in human terms: "-1 massmurdering idiot intent on invading other countries." The end result is now obscured with the equation: "-100K Iraqis dead." So you can see what went wrong, in humane terms, in that war, the rest is irrelevant, and you can see all mistakes from there. Roughly, nobody cares about whether the guy was murdering people with WMDs or kitchen knifes -so the UN presentation was a cock-up,- everybody (now) cares about oil, or other, motives -which could have been avoided with some clear statements,- nobody knows whether US got out of Iraq too early, too late, or just in time, since the "-100K Iraqis" is an awful statistic.

The oil motives, the geographical motives, Israel, the strategic alliance motives, nobody really cares about it long term. The only thing people most people in the world will care about is the humane equation and why that conflict ended with that equation which will spring all mentioned other 'inhumane' motives. And it is all irrelevant, since the only thing which matters is the humane equation.

(Btw, the above is not meant as a critique on the US.)

Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there...

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

So just to make sure they don't get attacked again, US should stay on the Middle East forever?

USA's foreign policy is completely nuts. The military spending is monstrous, especially when US has so much debt. The question is not if US should cut on military spending or not, the question is how much they should cut. And to make those cuts the mentality about foreign policy has to change... USA are in NATO, they're allies with Europe... They don't need a fraction of the military they currently have.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes, because USA's current foreign policy definitely doesn't cause hatred against the US. And the terrorists hate USA because they hate freedom, right? It's not because USA has been on the Middle East doing damage and building bases for a long time, and helping Israel?

The other republican candidates will just keep the same foreign policy going, and I don't see how that could be better than what Ron Paul says.

Your sarcasm is noted and well taken, imo. But, imo, the best foreign policy will be something between Bush-Cheney and Ron Paul. Not that Paul's strict isolationist ideas would necessarily be implemented if he were to be elected, but the prospect of it is enough for me to not vote for him. No country can afford to be isolationist, except maybe Monaco as long as they keep the dice rolling.

 

[mathwonk]

does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?

 

[chiro]

does sarah palin have much chance to win the fields medal?

You should have read her paper on "The topological implications of The bridge To Nowhere". If that doesn't win her a Fields medal, then I don't know what will.

 

[ThomasT]

Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.

 

[chiro]

Is my failure to understand the relevance of the last two posts to a "Ron Paul's candidacy" thread perhaps one reason why I will, presumably, never win a Fields Medal? Not that they weren't humorous.

It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!

 

[ThomasT]

It wasn't my fault! Blame mathwonk!

 

[MarcoD]

Ok, you can argue that motives don't count, only the results do. But my initial point was that USA's foreign policy has been causing Middle East to hate them. It's fine that they went after Al-Qaeda, and that they caught Saddam, but why are they still in the Middle East in 2012? Even before the Golf War, USA was already making enemies in the Middle East, and decades later they're still there..

Nah, that was shorthand for: all initial motives are irrelevant since all actors will judge all other actors by outcome.

As far as the US is concerned, they are finishing off a mission considering national security. The rest of the world will hardly care (since they just don't know) and draw conclusions on the outcome of it. And since you're from Europe, like me, the most logical thing is that you're uninformed about US politics, like me, have different interests or stakes, and will draw different conclusions from that.

Somehow the world is a pretty strange place.

 

[chiro]

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

The truth is that, as long as people have this kind of intent, it will continue to happen.

This includes everyone from your murderer that shoots a gas station attendent for drug money to the more high-level, highly organized military attacks that kill many thousands of people.

I bet that there have been many more creative ways to kill, maim, torture, defile, and otherwise hurt other people in ways that are unconscionable to most people, but the fact is that, at least as basic human right in many countries, people are initially given a chance to do whatever they want until they decide to do something harmful: it hasn't (previously) worked the other way around.

What is happening now is that people are considered to be criminals a lot more so than they used to. Look at the amount of fear that propogates nowadays.

The most ironic thing, is that one of the basic ideas of terrorism is for the terrorist to induce a state of fear on the victims to the point that the fear is deep and optimally, perpetual. Ironically, this is exactly what has happened, so in some sense they have accomplished just that.

The way that things have worked in the past have in my opinion been a good model: if someone with the intent uses it for a bad purpose, then if it is recognized as such in a legal sense, then they have forfeited their right to have some of the privileges they once enjoyed based on a social contract.

Trying to control everyone and everything around you is beyond playing god, it is just insane and goes against every form of intuition, common sense, and historical lessons that have come before us.

 

[ThomasT]

Who would have thought 20 guys in some commercial airplanes would have posed a threat to the US?

Apparently, the US government. And long before and up to 9/11/2001.

 

[Chronos]

The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.

 

[ThomasT]

The 'fool me once' mentality is definitely in play now for US security concerns. We are fighting a war against idealogy, not countries.

Something has to be done about the Palestinian problem. Paul's isolationist stance doesn't make any sense wrt this. The US is in a position to force an agreement that is fair to both Palestinians and Israelis, and without some sort of two-state solution, then the problem of terrorism by militant Islamic extremists remains. Of course, the problem might continue even after a two-state solution, but at least that would be a start, imho.

 

[Dotini]

I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist. Is Switzerland isolationist? It does routine business with the rest of the world, is non-interventionist and not a member of the UN. The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially. I think that's Dr. Paul's main point, and his main worth in the historical political dialogue. He will not become President. But his son, or someone who follows his ideas (really the founders') will eventually succeed. The college kids and serving members of the military get this already. Older folks in the entrenched media, entitlement society and military-industrial complex have thicker skulls.

Yep, Ron Paul and his followers are dangerous. Dangerous to the status quo!

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ThomasT]

I think it is a misnomer to say Paul is isolationist.

Ok, then non-interventionalist.

The founders explicitly did not intend for the US to become an empire, a hegemon, an enforcer of it's own idea of global righteousness at the point of gun. It bankrupts us morally and financially.

During the time of the founders it was unrealistic to think that the US could be a global leader. But that changed. And it seems that things are changing again ... from the golden era of American hegemony.

I don't think that interventionism is necessarily a bad thing. And where Paul is clear on the details of his non-interventionist policy, then his position seems to me to be somewhat naive.

I do agree that US policy needs revamping, and that neither Obama nor any GOP candidate other than Paul is set on doing that. But Paul would need to talk about what he might do in much greater detail in order for me to consider him a serious candidate for the presidency.

As of now I wouldn't vote for any of them, including Paul and Obama ... but I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[mheslep]

... Is Switzerland isolationist?

Yes, on matters of military related foreign policy of course it is. Switzerland is probably the most prominent isolationist nation of the 20th century.

But his son,...

While his son Rand shares many of his father's libertarian views, he notably rejects some of the isolationist aspects. Gary Johnson also differs from Ron Paul in that regard.