Ron Paul in 2012?

so Ron Paul won another straw poll. i doubt the republic leadship has the cajones though to put him on the ticket and for that reason i can guarntee Obama will beat any contender, although he has a good chance of not getting my vote this time. i'm not the kind to choose the "lesser evil" which would usually be a democrat so if theres a strong green or independent canidate this time i'll give them a go. ron paul could reasonably capture a large amount of independents and with the fractionalized right and the disallusioned left that could make a difference but somehow i see those with money and power on all sides being too wary of Ron Paul. granted if Kucinch ran as an independent I'd vote for him, but thats none to likely. who knows maybe the crazies will be right and it won't matter who is elected come 12/12/12 when Quetzalcoatl or Ron Hubbard will rule the day…

and for the record i haven't drunk the Ron Paul kool-aid yet

Like most libertarians, RP has some very good ideas (budgetary sanity, for one) and a few very bad ideas (return to the gold standard, in particular). Unfortunately, it's far more successful to run a campaign on vague crap and empty promises (looking at you, Barack!) than to have an actual plan. An actual plan gives people something to vote against. The leftie mainstream media will ignore the 10 good ideas to hammer endlessly on the 1 bad idea, and that's the end of the election.

You've got some real spread in your choices, though. You've got RP, who is quite a ways right, and you've got Kucinich, who probably has posters of Lenin and Marx on the ceiling over his bed. Unless you're largely ignoring policy in favor of any guy that claims to be outside the mainstream, I don't know how you consider both of those guys at the same time.

curious said:

so Ron Paul won another straw poll. i doubt the republic leadship has the cajones though to put him on the ticket and for that reason i can guarntee Obama will beat any contender,

Click to expand...

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to form a solid opinion on him, but I'd be amazed (and disappointed) if Obama got reelected.

Paul is a bit on the old side for a viable presidential candidate. Wont he be 78 in 2012?

August 20, 1935. Yep, that's pretty far up there. Saint Ron was 70 and 74 when he was elected and age was considered an issue for him. McCain would have been 72, and his age was held against him thru the entire campaign.

Doesn't Ron Paul have some radical ideas on the military? I seem to remember some interview where he wanted the US military to stop all operations abroad, and I presume downsize it as a result.

curious: Crap! That probably means we'll get a follow-up movie of Battlefield Earth.

Militarily, he's very isolationist. I don't know about bringing every guy back and running up the drawbridge behind them, but he's certainly wanting to cut back significantly. It's a valid, but not the solely valid, interpretation of the constitutional directives for the common defense.

In terms of an "imperialist" spectrum, you'd have RP on one end, Cheney and the neo-cons on the other, and the democrats wandering around the room looking for flowers.

As with most politicians RP has some good ideas. His problem is that his bad ideas are REALLY BAD. Gold standard? Get rid of the fed? Withdraw all overseas troops? And then he calls a neo-secessionist as his first witness ever as committee chair...

I like Ron Paul. Obviously I don't agree on all of his ideas but as far as politicians go he seems trustworthy. That alone is why I'd be willing to vote for him. The only problem is that he will never get elected. No matter how good his ideas, the media won't give him face time and therefore the average American won't know who he is.

I rarely comment on American politics, but one thing is bothering a number of people down here about your incumbent. Oz is a huge ally and supporter of the US. Egypt has long been a strong ally as well. However, where was the support for Egypt from BO? If anything he encouraged the destabilization from the reports we saw on our news. Now, I'm not saying what happened in Egypt was either good or bad (that's a different issue), but what concerns us is the treatment by the US of one of its supporting countries!! I have your back takes on an entire new meaning, or as Big Julie was wont to say, Et Tu Brute!!

Corwin said:

I rarely comment on American politics, but one thing is bothering a number of people down here about your incumbent. Oz is a huge ally and supporter of the US. Egypt has long been a strong ally as well. However, where was the support for Egypt from BO? If anything he encouraged the destabilization from the reports we saw on our news. Now, I'm not saying what happened in Egypt was either good or bad (that's a different issue), but what concerns us is the treatment by the US of one of its supporting countries!! I have your back takes on an entire new meaning, or as Big Julie was wont to say, Et Tu Brute!!

Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

"Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website."

Obama, like all Dimocraps, is a maggot.

The current president is stuck with the allies of the previous ones. At some point a previous president (gee, Reagan) decided to support "president for life" Mubarak and so every US prez since then has been stuck with him. It's the old "enemy of my enemy is my friend" stupidness.

That's how we (and you too BTW) get stuck looking stupid when something like the revolution in Egypt happens. If you back "your man" it looks like you are against freedom and democracy. If you back "the people" then all the other tin pot dictators who are your "allies" get nervous and might not cooperate.

Corwin said:

I rarely comment on American politics, but one thing is bothering a number of people down here about your incumbent. Oz is a huge ally and supporter of the US. Egypt has long been a strong ally as well. However, where was the support for Egypt from BO? If anything he encouraged the destabilization from the reports we saw on our news. Now, I'm not saying what happened in Egypt was either good or bad (that's a different issue), but what concerns us is the treatment by the US of one of its supporting countries!! I have your back takes on an entire new meaning, or as Big Julie was wont to say, Et Tu Brute!!

Click to expand...

You shouldn't confuse support for a country with support for a dictator. Supporting a movement for democracy is the best support you can give to a country.

It is funny how some people claim they want to bring democracy to countries like Iraq or Afghanistan by war but see a problem, when the people try to get democracy by themselves like in Egypt.

I am curious how the western countries react, if the people in Saudi Arabia, which is the worst dictatorship in the region, try to fight for democracy.

Michael Ellis said:

Obama, like all Dimocraps, is a maggot.

Click to expand...

This language only makes yourself look like an asshole.

In short: Too old. You need the energy of someone in their prime to actually pull off the schedule of a president - it can get pretty crazy by the looks of it.

Still, if it's going to be a Republican, I would prefer him over a certain Palin..

his wikipedia article makes him out to be a racist, pretty cool guy imo.

who likes darkies or bum bandits anyway?

Corwin said:

I rarely comment on American politics, but one thing is bothering a number of people down here about your incumbent. Oz is a huge ally and supporter of the US. Egypt has long been a strong ally as well. However, where was the support for Egypt from BO? If anything he encouraged the destabilization from the reports we saw on our news. Now, I'm not saying what happened in Egypt was either good or bad (that's a different issue), but what concerns us is the treatment by the US of one of its supporting countries!! I have your back takes on an entire new meaning, or as Big Julie was wont to say, Et Tu Brute!!

Click to expand...

bkrueger said:

You shouldn't confuse support for a country with support for a dictator. Supporting a movement for democracy is the best support you can give to a country.

It is funny how some people claim they want to bring democracy to countries like Iraq or Afghanistan by war but see a problem, when the people try to get democracy by themselves like in Egypt.

I am curious how the western countries react, if the people in Saudi Arabia, which is the worst dictatorship in the region, try to fight for democracy.

Click to expand...

You fail to see the point he's making. What kind of ally nation/govt, a govt that has given many billions in aid/support, allows for and encourages it's ally government to be toppled? Honestly, you think we supported Egypt for the people??? It was for ME stability, and now a quick correction is better than a long drawn out battle. This isn't about the legitimacy of the Egyptian peoples' right to protest, it's about the signal America is sending to other ally nations/governments. That is, don't expect a good ally, expect us to go which ever way the wind blows. Strategically these events could hurt US ally nation ties/cooperation.

As for the Saudis fighting, they were bought off by their King to the tune of 37 Billion, so I doubt it…

-EDIT-

Rest is a discussion for another time.

RP has some ancient albeit unelectable cojones...

The Russian deal is absolutely mind blowing in its stupidity and really shows how naive at time this administration is when it comes to foreign affairs. Really, looking at some of their gaffs (the ones that stand out is how many nominations of people they have made without being aware of the skeletons in their closets), its not that surprising.

That said, I have a hard time finding fault with their action/inaction in Egypt. I don't think any of our western allies need to be concerned as they are allies of ideology (generally speaking), rather then allies of convenience or necessity. Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. are all the latter. Essentially our support has always been contingent on them being able to deliver what we want, which is stability and threat neutralization. Obviously that has usually come along with being extremely repressive.

Obama & Co were in a bad spot with these protests. Support Mubarak and at best, he cracks down even harder (and we are viewed as even more hypocritical) and feed Al-Queda and their allies, or at worst, Mubarak falls and the new government, while possibly democratic, is anti-American.

IMO, once it was obvious that this was not going away, and that this was good for the fight against AQ, they had to ditch support for Mubarak. No other choice.

So unless we start backing a fascist dictator in Aussie land, I think you are ok Corwin!

Back on topic, Ron Paul does have some great ideas, but he has some amazingly bad ones as well. Auditing the Fed is not only good, but absolutely necessary. Dissolving it, returning to the gold standard, or allowing currency competition are monumentally bad.

If Paul ends up as the GOP candidate, the election is going to look like a reverse mirror of 1972.

The only thing I agree with Ron Paul about is that we need to stop fighting wars we have no vested interest in. Bring everyone home and lets focus on educating and training Americans for the 21st century. It's just insane that we are STILL in Afghanistan on some vague charter of "Keeping Al-Qaeida From having Safe Havens." Give me a break.

He's pretty conservative on a lot of other issues, though. Plus, he has the support of some pretty racist groups. Whether he asked for that or not — it makes me uneasy.

I really wish a truly, truly, liberal President would step up. Or maybe if President Obama is re-elected, he'll be more aggressively left-wing in his second term because he has nothing to lose?

A big problem with independent candidates in the US is that unless pre-election polls have them in the 30-40%+ range, many people, who would have otherwise voted for the independent come election day, vote for one of the two dem/rep's instead. Why? People can be so biased against one of the parties that they'll play a game of "anyone but him/her" and give up on the candidate that interests them. It's moronic and was in effect during the Clinton/Bush Sr./Perot election (Perot still got 13% of the vote).

So, the biggest obstacle to Ron Paul is the modus operandi of not only the partisan political machine but the voting population.

Oh and DOWN WITH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE! Every person's vote should count in a popular NATIONAL majority and not just for a state's delegates.