Why should I vote for Ron Paul?

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 4436

So, as I kinda like Ron Paul (heretoafter referred to as RP) I am not convinced on his foreign policy stance.

He seems a little too dovish to me. Not wanting to take out Osama Bin Laden, no wanting to stop Iran from getting nukes, etc....

Now I get his point that if we stopped mucking around in other countries they might leave us alone. That's possible, they MIGHT. Then again they might hate us so much that they would want to destroy us anyway.

I am not one to just wait and see what Iran will do when the get nukes. I'd rather stop them first, or gently persuade Israel to do it for us.

*******

I'm on board with many of his other points, but his isolationism frightens me. Am I off base? Did I miss-interpret his words? Please tell me.

Also, please keep the discussion civil. Treating me, or anyone else, like an idiot for not loving RP is not the way to convince people. I've asked this question elsewhere, and I'll say that the response was more of an attack than a persuassion. You catch more flies with honey....

Thanks, Ty dog out!

Private Joined: Feb 15, 2010 Posts: 110

I would vote for him solely because he is the best option out of the bunch, like when you are late for work and grab the banana off the counter that has the least amount of brown spots.

He has a lot of good ideas and some might even be revolutionary enough to turn this bus around. However, a couple other of his ideas aren't just out of left field, they seem downright laughable. For instance, the "recall of all the troops worldwide and stick our collective heads in the sand and hope no one tries to hurt us" theory just doesn't hold water.

The best part about this country is there is no omnipotent dictator. Even if the fearless leader has some screwball ideas, the majority of us have to agree on those ideas for them to be put in place. So, maybe we can take some of his good ideas and scrap the rest? I am not 100% sold on this guy either but he seems to be the only genuine candidate that has the best interest for the country in mind.

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 4436

What about his reponse to allowing Iran get nukes?

Newbie Joined: May 31, 2010 Posts: 5 Location: Burbank,il

I am a member here because basically the city of Chicago dictates what i can and cannot carry to protect myself. So I have to ask.What gives us the right to tell another nation what it can or cannot have?Just a question.

Corporal Joined: Mar 07, 2010 Posts: 583

Umm..... Genocide?

Private Joined: Dec 16, 2010 Posts: 185

I think he was all for taking out Bin Laden with a small strike force back in 2001. He was NOT for the full blown, trillions of dollars down the drain, total occupation of TWO counties until eternaty.

As far as Iran, He doesn't think its any of our business unless they attack us. Can you imagine if China invaded Canada AND Mexico, then put sanctions on the US? We would all be "BRING IT ON! WE'LL F*@K YOUR $#!T UP!" Sanctions are precursors to war. Sanctions are what caused Japan to bomb Pearl harbor. Sanctions are what caused us to enter WWI.

And on the subject of Iranian Nukes, these people can't produce GASOLINE! Do you honestly think they can produce an ICBM? Also, imagine if China had military bases all over the place? Would we be cool with that? So why do we think the WHOLE PLANET should be cool with us having bases where ever we want them? Plus, of all of the military spending on the planet we spend 70% of it. That means if you take all of the money every other government on the planet spends on military and doubled it, that would still be LESS than what this government spends! Part of that is all of the bases all over the world, subsidizing countries' defence spending so they can spend money on being socalist states!

Ron Paul is not a pacifist, or an isolationist. He's just not a war monger.

He's all for kicking butt if someone messes with the US. He's all for an awesome Navy and military troops protecting the US, not Japan, Germany, Korea, Australia, etc.

If you listen to what he says and not what the talking heads on Fox News say, you may realize he wants to follow the Constitution, PERIOD. He's for individual right and the Government to get out of everything possible. That's great news on this, the 220th anniversary of The Bill Of Rights!

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:46 am

Don't vote for Ron Paul. Vote for the candidate you know for sure will return this country to its Constitutional Principals. Vote for the candidate that will put this countries interests first and all other countries second. Vote for the candidate that will slowly dissolve Fanny and Freddie. Vote for the candidate that will rid the Federal Reserve or at a minimum do a full fledge audit. Vote for the candidate that will abolish the Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Housing. Finally, vote for the candidate that has your interests at heart and not those of the special interests groups or their own.
I personally can think of only one candidate that can and will to the best of his/her ability accomplish those tasks and I hope you do as well.

Private Joined: Dec 16, 2010 Posts: 185

Bobc wrote:

Don't vote for Ron Paul. Vote for the candidate you know for sure will return this country to its Constitutional Principals. Vote for the candidate that will put this countries interests first and all other countries second. Vote for the candidate that will slowly dissolve Fanny and Freddie. Vote for the candidate that will rid the Federal Reserve or at a minimum do a full fledge audit. Vote for the candidate that will abolish the Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Housing. Finally, vote for the candidate that has your interests at heart and not those of the special interests groups or their own.
I personally can think of only one candidate that can and will to the best of his/her ability accomplish those tasks and I hope you do as well.

If the politician you're describing is NOT Ron Paul, then I can't think of a politician who fits your aspirations.

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 4436

I get the whole bases all over the world thing, and I agree with it.

I am concerned that he'll sit and watch while a country that wants to wipe us off of the map gets a nuke and then uses it. Only after we are attacked will he then retaliate.

If I'm in a street fight, and the other guy starts to bend down to pick up a gun off of the ground I will NOT wait until he picks it up and shoots me before I neutralize the threat.

Don't worry, RP is in my top two. If he does well in Iowa he might just make #1. However, if he doesn't earn the R nomination then I will be done with him. I am not a supporter of 3rd party candidates, but that's a different issue. Wink

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:32 am

In a strictly moral discussion, we would be the aggressor if we engaged in a preemptive strike on Iran. The same way we were the aggressor in Iraq. Being the aggressor is immoral and does not produce peace.

Think of it like a street fight. You're walking down the street and another guy is walking up the street. You think to yourself, he could have a knife or a gun. He might want to kill me. So you come to the conclusion that "I better kill him first!" And so you do.

This is the insanity of US foreign policy for the last 120 years.

Corporal Joined: Mar 07, 2010 Posts: 583

I was hoping for herman cain Sad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGQ-ISsDm8M

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 4436

regulatedIllinoisan wrote:

In a strictly moral discussion, we would be the aggressor if we engaged in a preemptive strike on Iran. The same way we were the aggressor in Iraq. Being the aggressor is immoral and does not produce peace.

Think of it like a street fight. You're walking down the street and another guy is walking up the street. You think to yourself, he could have a knife or a gun. He might want to kill me. So you come to the conclusion that "I better kill him first!" And so you do.

This is the insanity of US foreign policy for the last 120 years.

If the guy has publicly and repeatedly called for your destruction and is just about to pick up a weapon with which he can destroy you, then you just wait to see what he is going to do with it?

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:15 am

To speak to your scenario specifically, I would certainly have my hand on my hosltered sidearm. I probably wouldn't shoot him though, he might just be brushing some mud off his shoe.

We have to be very careful about becoming the aggressor. Words alone are not aggression, we have to be free to speak.

However I wanted to dispute your scenario as being parallel to Iran. Iran has not called for the destruction of the United States. Furthermore, if your country was surrounded like this:

http://campaigniran.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/usbases1.jpg

...you would probably want to buy a gun to defend yourself. (In the realm of nation states, a nuclear weapon is analogous to a firearm.)

I am by no means defending Iran; Iran's leaders are hot-headed and irresponsible in their speech. My goal was to provide constructive criticism on the immorality and insanity of US foreign policy.

TylerH wrote:

regulatedIllinoisan wrote:

In a strictly moral discussion, we would be the aggressor if we engaged in a preemptive strike on Iran. The same way we were the aggressor in Iraq. Being the aggressor is immoral and does not produce peace.

Think of it like a street fight. You're walking down the street and another guy is walking up the street. You think to yourself, he could have a knife or a gun. He might want to kill me. So you come to the conclusion that "I better kill him first!" And so you do.

This is the insanity of US foreign policy for the last 120 years.

If the guy has publicly and repeatedly called for your destruction and is just about to pick up a weapon with which he can destroy you, then you just wait to see what he is going to do with it?

Private Joined: Dec 16, 2010 Posts: 185

Once again, Iran does not have the means to produce gasoline, and you think they're going to manufacture a nuclear device and deliver it half way around the world? Chance are much greater that they would attempt to use any device against Isreal, and they can take care of themselves, they have nukes. Why arent you worried about Isreal's nukes? Or pakistan's, if your worried about people who don't like us.

If you want to think of it as a street fight, consider this, in a street fight we would be a 6 foot 6, 250 pound mma champion with 20-10 vision, and who can shoot the wings off a flying gnat at 100 yards with open sights. Iran would be like a hundred pound 12 year old with leg braces who doesn't know which way to point the gun. There would also be other people in between us and them that Iran would go for first. Namely Isreal, and they would retaliate with kind.

Along another line, how do you think the ex-colonies in America felt about England in 1811? England was controlling them politicaly until a rebellion about 30 years prior, and another war was brewing. Do you think the Americans wanted to bake the English cookies? We have been the controlling the governments over there since WWII, they don't like us. Let's try letting them rule themselves.

Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:38 am

+1

VannDaddy wrote:

Once again, Iran does not have the means to produce gasoline, and you think they're going to manufacture a nuclear device and deliver it half way around the world? Chance are much greater that they would attempt to use any device against Isreal, and they can take care of themselves, they have nukes. Why arent you worried about Isreal's nukes? Or pakistan's, if your worried about people who don't like us.

If you want to think of it as a street fight, consider this, in a street fight we would be a 6 foot 6, 250 pound mma champion with 20-10 vision, and who can shoot the wings off a flying gnat at 100 yards with open sights. Iran would be like a hundred pound 12 year old with leg braces who doesn't know which way to point the gun. There would also be other people in between us and them that Iran would go for first. Namely Isreal, and they would retaliate with kind.

Along another line, how do you think the ex-colonies in America felt about England in 1811? England was controlling them politicaly until a rebellion about 30 years prior, and another war was brewing. Do you think the Americans wanted to bake the English cookies? We have been the controlling the governments over there since WWII, they don't like us. Let's try letting them rule themselves.