|
Ron Paul chances? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
Being of the Libertarian mindset I do like many of the things Ron Paul preaches. However, I also know that even if elected, many of the things Ron Paul attests to will never come to fruition. He still has the legislative branch to deal with, and even though he may think one thing, hundreds of other elected officials will think another. The president simply does not hold the power (legally) to enact many of the changes he would like to see.
That being said, I strongly believe that the US cannot continue to head down that path it currently has set itself upon and many, if not all of the other candidates seem happy to more or less continue in the direction we are pointed. Could Ron Paul realistically abolish the Federal Reserve or enact many of his more drastic Libertarian ideas? No. Could Ron Paul help to curb the growth of government and bureaucracy while making changes to international and domestic policy? Probably.
The way I see it, Ron Paul has many ideas for drastic changes that when mixed with the "status quo" ideology of mainstream Republicans and Democrats would equal real world changes that would be more moderate, but not possible given the other candidates being elected to office. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Could Ron Paul realistically abolish the Federal Reserve or enact many of his more drastic Libertarian ideas? No. Could Ron Paul help to curb the growth of government and bureaucracy while making changes to international and domestic policy? Probably.
|
His intentions are in the right place. His actual policies are insane. Why would I elect another George Bush? Clearly I can't count on congress to reign him in ffs. He's another junior Bush, idealogical extremist. I want a realpolitik president who will do what's RIGHT for our country. Seriously how many more times do we need history to repeat itself? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
His intentions are in the right place. His actual policies are insane. Why would I elect another George Bush? Clearly I can't count on congress to reign him in ffs. He's another junior Bush, idealogical extremist. I want a realpolitik president who will do what's RIGHT for our country. Seriously how many more times do we need history to repeat itself? |
I personally do not believe his policies are "insane." To me what is "insane" is to continue to elect presidents from the same cookie cutter and to allow them to march the country into a state of unmanageable and pervasive federal government. To me, Paul is an idealogical extremist in the right direction; away from our current federal government ideology. You can label him extreme in that he differs from the current Washington political mood, but again, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Two questions;
1. Which candidate fits your "realpolitik" criteria?
2. What part of history will repeat? Another Bush I'm assuming? |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I personally do not believe his policies are "insane." To me what is "insane" is to continue to elect presidents from the same cookie cutter and to allow them to march the country into a state of unmanageable and pervasive federal government. To me, Paul is an idealogical extremist in the right direction; away from our current federal government ideology. You can label him extreme in that he differs from the current Washington political mood, but again, I don't think that's a bad thing.
Two questions;
1. Which candidate fits your "realpolitik" criteria?
2. What part of history will repeat? Another Bush I'm assuming? |
Ron scares too many people with his 'fringe' thinking.
I like the guy myself (since I'm also of a Libertarian mindset) although I have to admit, some of his policies are a bit too much for Washington to chew.
At the same time though, the current, bloated administration doesn't want to give up its bankroll...
What's crazier really? |
|
|
| Spirit5 |
I agree with Neophono although I'm not totally into the libertarian mindset. But I also agree with OCCrider. I just don't think his wanting to abolish all of these government programs and departments would make things better. Would his monetary policy when it comes to taxation really work? I just don't think his libertarian, or any real libertarian style government works in a country this large with so many services and programs established. There would definitely need to be more people with his mindset to truly make things work.
The best government would have some libertarian ideas but to totally change the way the government itself operates without a drastic rethinking on the part of both the people and the legislators, would not work. It would be him against congress, which is essentially what is happening with Bush. He'd be a lame duck. It's one thing to limit government, it's another thing to completely change something..i.e. turning a program like social security or health insurance into privatized or based on the market, rather than how it works now. And sure those two things need to be fixed, but would privatizing it make it better or worse? Minor changes might fix it, but a complete over-haul will not. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like he would really change too many things and it would be a gamble as to whether those things that are changed or abolished would really make things better..or worse. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I personally do not believe his policies are "insane."
|
Fine than justify his whacky policies. Justify eliminating the central bank. Justify returning to the gold standard. If you want to defend his policies than start DEFENDING them.
| quote: |
To me what is "insane" is to continue to elect presidents from the same cookie cutter and to allow them to march the country into a state of unmanageable and pervasive federal government. |
Can I ask you a candid question? Where have you been over the past several years when quite a number of people have been pointing out the unmitigating growth of the "unmanegable" and "pervasive" federal government under Bush? Moderate reform that might actually accomplish what's best for our nation has been suggested a million times on any number of issues. Much of this has been ignored, ridiculed, and/or scorned and just now you've realised that it is the time for radical change???
Seriously, how long is the attention span of you people??
| quote: |
To me, Paul is an idealogical extremist in the right direction; away from our current federal government ideology. You can label him extreme in that he differs from the current Washington political mood, but again, I don't think that's a bad thing.
|
Heh, look I'm sorry but if the past decade has taught me anything at all, there is no right direction with idealogical extremism.
| quote: |
Two questions;
1. Which candidate fits your "realpolitik" criteria?
|
Nearly ANYONE over Paul. I'll take Romney, Clinton, Obama, Guiliani, Thompson, etc.
I strongly disagree with Romney's social policies but he's a smart guy and he would be a halfway decent president. Clinton is probably teh smartest but also the most political. Obama is a fantastic leader but is also naieve and unexperienced. ALL of them are smarter than to make arguments from ignorance.
| quote: |
2. What part of history will repeat? Another Bush I'm assuming? |
Ummm yes. ing idealogues are what's ruining this country. Iraq is a fine example of what can happen when you place trust in people who refuse to adapt when reality diverges with ideology.
FFS I'm a libertarian. That doesn't equate with anarchy. You don't even need to take an economics class to know what a market externality is and when it's appropriate for governments to have a role in society. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Fine than justify his whacky policies. Justify eliminating the central bank. Justify returning to the gold standard. If you want to defend his policies than start DEFENDING them. |
I will get to those later. I'm not saying he's the perfect candidate, and I don't believe there ever has been, so I won't agree with everything, however I will go through those points later.
| quote: |
Can I ask you a candid question? Where have you been over the past several years when quite a number of people have been pointing out the unmitigating growth of the "unmanegable" and "pervasive" federal government under Bush? Moderate reform that might actually accomplish what's best for our nation has been suggested a million times on any number of issues. Much of this has been ignored, ridiculed, and/or scorned and just now you've realised that it is the time for radical change???
Seriously, how long is the attention span of you people?? |
Yes, I've been sitting in the corner and just now I've realized the government has gotten bigger and it's time for a change. :rolleyes:
I've seen democrats and republicans become the same party over the last several decades with both leading to bigger, more invasive government. It used to be republican meant smaller government and democrat the opposite, but that hasn't been true for years. Finally a candidate with at least enough marginal popularity to make me feel like I wouldn't be completely throwing my vote away comes along and I will get excited about it. Before it was picking the lesser of two evils, knowing full well that each would bring about the same, just to differing degrees. Now there's a candidate that has at least a shot in hell of getting elected that could at least potentially slow the momentum FDR started a half century ago.
I'm not sure why you think I've been happily cheering on the sidelines as both democrats and republicans push for a bigger government. That has certainly not been the case. I've been a self-professed libertarian since I joined these boards and I urge you to find a post where I have differed in that stance in regards to the current (or any previous) administration.
| quote: | | Heh, look I'm sorry but if the past decade has taught me anything at all, there is no right direction with idealogical extremism. |
And the past several decades have shown me that the US is hell bent on socialism and big government. The only thing extreme about Ron Paul's overall viewpoint is that he doesn't agree with that direction. Yes, that is a gross oversimplification, but if I'm stuck with a moderate ideology that will inevitably lead me where I don't want to go, and an "extreme" ideology that has at least a chance of righting the ship, I'll take the chance. The longer the country slips, the more painful and difficult it will be to correct it. I've given up waiting for a "mainstream" candidate to arise from either major party that could change the direction of the country, so I'll go more extreme.
| quote: | | Nearly ANYONE over Paul. I'll take Romney, Clinton, Obama, Guiliani, Thompson, etc. |
Again, I'm tired of the status quo. I'm tired of being able to lump all the other candidates into the same basic category and position. My option is to vote for one of those and continue to blissfully watch as the government continues to balloon (as insinuated earlier) or I can take a chance on a candidate that promises not to let that happen.
| quote: | Ummm yes. ing idealogues are what's ruining this country. Iraq is a fine example of what can happen when you place trust in people who refuse to adapt when reality diverges with ideology.
FFS I'm a libertarian. That doesn't equate with anarchy. You don't even need to take an economics class to know what a market externality is and when it's appropriate for governments to have a role in society. |
Yes, when the wrong ideology is allowed to dictate a course of action I completely agree. I think the wrong ideology has been in power in this country for far too long and again, I see nothing in the current batch of candidates that would show me that is about to change. I don't equate libertarianism with anarchy and I don't equate Ron Paul with it either. You have taken one or two points and now labeled Paul as an anarchist. And FFS, you and I both know the president doesn't hold the power to enact 99.9% of Ron Paul's "extreme" ideas. There are two other branches of government, along with public opinion standing in his way. However, he does have the ability to introduce new ideas and to act as a thorn in the side of those wanting to continue down the road we are on. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I will get to those later. I'm not saying he's the perfect candidate, and I don't believe there ever has been, so I won't agree with everything, however I will go through those points later.
|
I look forward to it.
| quote: |
Yes, I've been sitting in the corner and just now I've realized the government has gotten bigger and it's time for a change. :rolleyes:
|
I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you vote for Bush in 2004? Despite the fact that Bush had long departed the line of fiscal conservatism, limited government, and the endorsement of states' rights? As a matter of fact, if I recall, the growth of federal government was unprecedented since FDR. Can you reconcile your justification then with your justification for extremist action now?
| quote: |
I've seen democrats and republicans become the same party over the last several decades with both leading to bigger, more invasive government. It used to be republican meant smaller government and democrat the opposite, but that hasn't been true for years. |
The Bush administration has been the same type of administration as the Clinton administration? Or ANY other administration in the last half a century? Let's not be revisionist historians here, what kind of constitutional erosions of prior administrations makes what's going on now typical much less acceptable? More to the point, who did you vote for in 2000? I would hope it was a third party considering this behavior has been going on for decades.
| quote: |
Finally a candidate with at least enough marginal popularity to make me feel like I wouldn't be completely throwing my vote away comes along and I will get excited about it. Before it was picking the lesser of two evils, knowing full well that each would bring about the same, just to differing degrees. Now there's a candidate that has at least a shot in hell of getting elected that could at least potentially slow the momentum FDR started a half century ago.
|
Uhh well yea he's not the "lesser" of two evils I'll give you that much. He's a unique "evil" in and of itself. I'm still astounded that you think the 90's and the 2000's were eactly the "same". Actually I'm astounded that you think ANY of the decades have been the same. In the 90's I don't recall fighting a decadal war whereby thousands of americans were dying, we were spending billions of dollars, and the government was infringing upon the constitution. Did I miss something? What about the Clinton administration, the Bush Sr. Administration, the Reagan Administrtion, etc., equates with this one?
| quote: |
I'm not sure why you think I've been happily cheering on the sidelines as both democrats and republicans push for a bigger government. That has certainly not been the case. I've been a self-professed libertarian since I joined these boards and I urge you to find a post where I have differed in that stance in regards to the current (or any previous) administration.
|
I completely understand your sentiments and I believe you however, I probably derive my views from the lack of outrage for a republican lead congress that has trounced "republican" ideology. I feel betrayed and the "justification" for this betrayal is merely salt in the wounds. If you ask me any 90's traditional republican who adhered to the concept of small government should have spoken up in the early 2000s
| quote: |
And the past several decades have shown me that the US is hell bent on socialism and big government. The only thing extreme about Ron Paul's overall viewpoint is that he doesn't agree with that direction. Yes, that is a gross oversimplification, but if I'm stuck with a moderate ideology that will inevitably lead me where I don't want to go, and an "extreme" ideology that has at least a chance of righting the ship, I'll take the chance. The longer the country slips, the more painful and difficult it will be to correct it. I've given up waiting for a "mainstream" candidate to arise from either major party that could change the direction of the country, so I'll go more extreme.
|
The vast majority of the US consists of moderates. This "hell bent" path towards big government only materialized with this republican administration. Ummm, you can define ANY estremism as being soemthing that doesn't agree with a proscribed "direction". That doesn't make it right. What you're advocating is "righting the ship" by shooting your cannon into the left side as a temporary measure. Just because a candidate has perfect foreign policies does not mean that his domestic polices aren't going to things up.
| quote: |
Again, I'm tired of the status quo. I'm tired of being able to lump all the other candidates into the same basic category and position. My option is to vote for one of those and continue to blissfully watch as the government continues to balloon (as insinuated earlier) or I can take a chance on a candidate that promises not to let that happen.
|
Umm you misunderstand me. I'm not lumping them all together. I have definite preferences for a variety of reasons. I'm saying that I would prefer ANY of those candidates over Paul because he stands to do worse.
| quote: |
Yes, when the wrong ideology is allowed to dictate a course of action I completely agree. I think the wrong ideology has been in power in this country for far too long and again, I see nothing in the current batch of candidates that would show me that is about to change. I don't equate libertarianism with anarchy and I don't equate Ron Paul with it either. You have taken one or two points and now labeled Paul as an anarchist. And FFS, you and I both know the president doesn't hold the power to enact 99.9% of Ron Paul's "extreme" ideas. There are two other branches of government, along with public opinion standing in his way. However, he does have the ability to introduce new ideas and to act as a thorn in the side of those wanting to continue down the road we are on. |
A republican led congress had allowed a republican led administration lead to the greatest growth in federal government and spending since FDR. Yes 99.9% of the President's ideas have been implemented. How can you say that there is no manipulation or abuse in such a system? Is this not an "extreme" idea when you consider what the Republican party used to be all about?? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you vote for Bush in 2004? Despite the fact that Bush had long departed the line of fiscal conservatism, limited government, and the endorsement of states' rights? As a matter of fact, if I recall, the growth of federal government was unprecedented since FDR. Can you reconcile your justification then with your justification for extremist action now? |
It was a choice of two evils. Bush or Kerry. I saw nothing as to convince me that things would change under Kerry and I saw no benefit in changing presidents in the midst of major military engagement.
| quote: | | The Bush administration has been the same type of administration as the Clinton administration? Or ANY other administration in the last half a century? Let's not be revisionist historians here, what kind of constitutional erosions of prior administrations makes what's going on now typical much less acceptable? More to the point, who did you vote for in 2000? I would hope it was a third party considering this behavior has been going on for decades. |
And how many of these changes have happened since 2004? And how many of these changes were talked about during the 2004 re-election? I'd answer nearly all for the first and absolutely none for the second. If Bush ran in 2004 telling us all that he'd suspend habeas corpus, go through this attorney general nonsense and continue the direction we were headed with Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, all while continuing to defy the constitution and civil liberties, I don't think he'd have been elected. If I remember correctly, he ran on a platform of cutting the budget and instilling more freedoms on the US via education and Social Security reforms. I fail to see how you can set a track record of "decades" for Bush when he's been president for less than that, and his first four years were not indicative of how his last term has unfolded.
| quote: | | Uhh well yea he's not the "lesser" of two evils I'll give you that much. He's a unique "evil" in and of itself. I'm still astounded that you think the 90's and the 2000's were eactly the "same". Actually I'm astounded that you think ANY of the decades have been the same. In the 90's I don't recall fighting a decadal war whereby thousands of americans were dying, we were spending billions of dollars, and the government was infringing upon the constitution. Did I miss something? What about the Clinton administration, the Bush Sr. Administration, the Reagan Administrtion, etc., equates with this one? |
I'm looking at the overall pattern, and I fail to see how comparing the actions of GW to the potential actions of Paul proves anything since they are nearly completely the opposite in their positions. You're comparing Bush, a president content to continue the current international and domestic policies and continue the "War on Terror," with Paul who has vowed to change both policies as well as end the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to bring other presidents into this, I believe that's another topic and I still fail to see how comparing their actions works when we're comparing them to a vastly different potential president. One of the reasons I like Paul in the first place is because he is so vastly different from those before him.
| quote: | | I completely understand your sentiments and I believe you however, I probably derive my views from the lack of outrage for a republican lead congress that has trounced "republican" ideology. I feel betrayed and the "justification" for this betrayal is merely salt in the wounds. If you ask me any 90's traditional republican who adhered to the concept of small government should have spoken up in the early 2000s |
I guess deep down, I don't see Ron Paul as a "republican" in the modern sense of the word. He is much more libertarian which to me has become the republican party of old. His track record tells me that he has been the republican standing up and shouting that we are going the wrong direction but his cries fell on deaf ears as his party has changed. As I've said before, I don't think the president has the power to change what Paul would like to, especially since he is running on a platform of constitutionality and I cannot see a president making the kinds of radical changes Paul would like to without following the document he wishes to preserve. However, he can influence public opinion and that alone might be enough to make current republicans (and democrats alike) change their current positions. I don't expect major changes under Paul, but there could be a change in attitude and hopefully a reversal of the apathy towards our current national direction the public has.
| quote: | | The vast majority of the US consists of moderates. This "hell bent" path towards big government only materialized with this republican administration. Ummm, you can define ANY estremism as being soemthing that doesn't agree with a proscribed "direction". That doesn't make it right. What you're advocating is "righting the ship" by shooting your cannon into the left side as a temporary measure. Just because a candidate has perfect foreign policies does not mean that his domestic polices aren't going to things up. |
I disagree, the push towards big government started with FDR and has been a gradual progression ever since. Bush may have used the "war on terror" as an excuse to speed the process, but nearly every president between the two has taken steps towards expanding the scope of the government. I think it would be very "revisionist" to not see how other presidents have also lead us to where we are today. I'm not saying Bush's role in the matter should be downplayed, but neither should the role of presidents before him.
I eluded to it earlier, but what I hope for with Paul is a change in the overall attitude of this country. Socialism is "easy" in that it takes personal responsibility from the individual and places it with the government. Each successive generation that grows to rely more and more on the government will make it all that much more difficult to "right the ship" as well as to reverse its course. And as far as the potential to " things up," sure, that's always there. Bush wasn't necessarily "extreme" in his viewpoints when elected, but look where that has left us. I think the possibility of Paul managing to do the same is decreased because his ideas are so different and he'd be constantly fighting the senate as well as public opinion. Besides those we also have impeachment, the courts and his term limit. I guess I feel that I know where a mainstream candidate will lead us and although I can't be 100% sure where Paul would go (mostly because of his interaction with current republicans and democrats, as well as public opinion) I'm willing to take a chance in the hopes that it will be better than where we're going.
| quote: | | Umm you misunderstand me. I'm not lumping them all together. I have definite preferences for a variety of reasons. I'm saying that I would prefer ANY of those candidates over Paul because he stands to do worse. |
I guess that's the heart of the matter. I'll take the risk of the potential "worse" of Paul over the known "worse" of the other candidates in the hope that instead of worse we get better. In my mind the election of a mainstream candidate will definitely make things worse, whereas the election of Paul at least has a chance of making things better.
| quote: | | A republican led congress had allowed a republican led administration lead to the greatest growth in federal government and spending since FDR. Yes 99.9% of the President's ideas have been implemented. How can you say that there is no manipulation or abuse in such a system? Is this not an "extreme" idea when you consider what the Republican party used to be all about?? |
I do, but again, I don't consider the current republican party to be anywhere near the party of old. I see Paul as that "old school" republican, and without a neo-con/republican such as Bush in office, you'd have Paul who would neither introduce such ridiculous bills as Bush or allow senate-approved laws of the same caliber to pass without a veto. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
Here's a list of issues we could all go through, edited down from ontheissues.org list. I'll put them up first and we can add or subtract if people would like. Here are the topics only;
Abortion/Stem Cell Research
Budget & Economy
Civil Rights
Crime/Drugs
Education
Environment/Energy
Foreign Policy
Health Care
Social Security/Welfare/Entitlement Programs
Taxes |
|
|
| erdega |
Don't Delay: US Out of Iraq Now
by Rep. Ron Paul
| quote: | I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation's seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.
I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial "Iraq regime change" legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East.
This is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the president. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.
To those who believe this act would some how end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, "REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ." However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities.
I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the president to submit a "Strategy for Iraq" by the beginning of next year. This "strategy" is to include:
"A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act."
In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide "surge."
Congress' job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.
In summary, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing US presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded US presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
