Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

I often wonder why more folks over there dont get behind Kucinich?

Originally posted by projectvxn
I love Ron Paul.

Think his foreign policy is atrocious.

His followers are some of the most stuck up prima donnas I've ever had to deal with.

But Ron Paul is a good guy. Maybe even worth voting for.

Really? His foreign policy is the only part I really like about him, and I'd figured most people agree here. Would you be able to clarify your position on his foreign policy because I'm really curious. Do disagree with him on the notion of withdrawing foreign US bases around the world?

reply to post by muse7


i don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he's the only one talking about anything real.

the country is going bankrupt if the troops don't start coming home.
the other candidates would be happy to leave everything as is to continue.

HUD is a disaster, there's a high rise ten minute walk from me, started years ago, still empty and not completed.
while they are spending new money on a new project 5 miles from here.
the connected construction industry is the main benefactor.

no child left behind is a financialy unsustainable educational illusion,
everyone i know would love to see these unfunded mandates end.

our financial system is a Titanic that has already hit an iceburg and will hit more if not straightened out.
"printing" more trillions will not solve the problem of a dysfunctional financial system.

and yes our Congress is corrupt, inept, and very despicable, but someone has to say it as it is.

and who else is there?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
You do know the President of the USA has about as much power as the CEO of say IBM, right? Comes down to value of commodity, and in the global markets, the USA's stock is falling dramatically.

Why do you think that Ron Paul's platform hinges on "privatization?" This is the political terminology for screaming "SELL! SELL! SELL!" into your phone.

Never insinuated that, I hinted that Ron Paul will for one, not get the republican nomination (because he won't play ball and continue selling the little guys out), and that if by some miracle he got the nomination, and then elected.... we'd be visiting him along side JFK as soon as he costs one corporation 1 billion in profits.

Hell I bet I could find some junkie to whack out a guy for $100, never mind what a big corporation could find to do a job like that.

Originally posted by jam321
Ron Paul has already said he would do this, he would do that etc. But until he convinces me how he is going to get Congress to approve his list of "what I'm going to do" I just see him as another politician promising the world.

How is he supposed to convince you unless he gets elected?

EVERY politician, "promises to change the world."

Do you expect him to say "Well, I am going to give it my best to improve the economy, but I can't promise anything. If I get a chance, I will end the wars. I may be able to lower government spending.." ect

The only way he (or anybody else, generally) get elected is by promising 'change's people want.. getting them is another monster.

(these politicians are like salesmen.. the product they are selling is themselves.. you are more likely to buy from a confident one, than one that is unsure)

I don't know why but Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes sense to me.
but then again, I don't understand tom cruise, so maybe it's some sort of resonance thing.

reply to post by Shar_Chi


because ATS is a vehemently, sometimes even violently, right-wing messageboard. It's like John Birch with a noose collection, really.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I agree that we probably don't need bases all over the world. HOWEVER. His notion that if we just withdraw from the world and mind our own business that we will never be attacked again is ridiculous.

He seems to have this idea that because we are the most powerful country militarily that we can afford to drop our guard, recall all the spies, and not kick any more ass. He believes that no one can cause us injury and that no one is planning to regardless of our policy in foreign affairs.

I think that view is very naive

reply to post by ReadyPower

How is he supposed to convince you unless he gets elected?

So I guess your going on nothing but HOPE once he gets elected. Kinda like the hope everyone had in the last election. If he wants to convince me he could start getting Congress to sign on to the proposals he is making.

But he knows that won't happen because Democrats won't support his ideas, Republicans will be 50-50 and in the end nothing gets done.

The only way he (or anybody else, generally) get elected is by promising 'change's people want.. getting them is another monster.

True. And the MONSTER is what I am waiting for these candidates to address. How do they plan to get what they are promising?

Originally posted by tHEpROGRESSIVE
Ron Paul would not have even tried to get Bin Laden or Qadaffi. He would just let all of these evil people do whatever they want just to save a dollar. He would cut off social security and medicare and welfare and medicaid and people need that to live.

Between this and your previous post, you seem terribly confused as to what the end goal is. The common misconception is that because some don't believe the Federal Government should do something that no one should or will should they cease.

The argument is specious at best, but you've backed up none of what you've said with any kind of rational argument, so the ball's in your court really.

reply to post by projectvxn


To right a US withdraw from the rest of the world will create a power vacuum filled by one of two things

1. China
2. Radical Islamic Extremism.

Neither of them good.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Its not my job to back it up. I was just repeating what Ron Paul has said. He has said we need to stop policing the world and that we cant afford entitlements. So maybe you should ask him to defend what he has said.

Originally posted by muse7
In my opinion he's no different than all of the previous presidents that promised "Change" and to do things different.

Nothing is going to change, absolutely nothing. The president first needs to support of congress to get things done. What makes you all so sure that he's going to come in and change everything?

Please remember that this man is still a politician.

The only way we will change things is when WE the people take action and get things done, instead of depending on other people to bring the "change" that we so badly want.

One thing he won't have to get congressional approval for that he will do during week one of office: bring our troops home. As CIC he will have full authority to direct troops right the hell back to America. That alone is enough for me to vote for him.

/TOA

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by projectvxn

 

To right a US withdraw from the rest of the world will create a power vacuum filled by one of two things

1. China
2. Radical Islamic Extremism.

Neither of them good.

Precisely.

Unfortunately this may be the reason I don't vote for Ron Paul. Since most of the president's job is to deal with foreign affairs, it would behoove me to take this issue into consideration.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I agree that we probably don't need bases all over the world. HOWEVER. His notion that if we just withdraw from the world and mind our own business that we will never be attacked again is ridiculous.

He seems to have this idea that because we are the most powerful country militarily that we can afford to drop our guard, recall all the spies, and not kick any more ass. He believes that no one can cause us injury and that no one is planning to regardless of our policy in foreign affairs.

I think that view is very naive

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm nosy.

This is one of my sticking points with Paul, even though I support him a lot. I disagree with removing the CIA. If anything, if we pulled back from the world militarily we would need to bolster our Navy and foreign intelligence quite a bit.

I think his angle is that if we have a serious threat, we declare war and go after them using the total war doctrine rather than the pansy kid gloves style we've had for 50 years or so.

This is a good strategy to deal with nations, but in asymmetrical wars it really doesn't do much. The CIA needs boots on the ground more than more satellites and electronic intel. We need to find threats and remove them surgically. Not with drones, missiles, and other high profile methods, but with a good ol' fashioned k-bar.

Because unlike most politicians he isn't bought and paid for by lobbyists and actually does things that are good for our country...

He also does what he says unlike 99% of politicians and elected officials....

But yah obama is doing great.../end sarcasm

reply to post by projectvxn


To be honest i don't agree with everything Paul says nobody is suppose to but if we continue the status quo sooner or latelr it will come back to haunt us some say it already has.

We need to resupply,re-equip and fill those coffers and take care of other business in my mind it is about money and resources and those are in short supply and the military was never designed to have a long term sustained combat role anywhere.

That needs to change.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Oh, I wasn't arguing, just expanding on that bit I quoted from you.

The Plan™, if there is one, is to sell off all the assets that have been paid for by the US public, then make off with the gains of those sales. This is what is usually meant when people say things like "this country should be run like a business" - in a business, if something is costing you money, you get rid of it as fast as possible for as much money as possible. Makes sense if your raison d'etre is to turn a profit, but of course, that's not hte point of a government.

Ron Paul - among many others, I'll grant - thinks otherwise. The US public is there as a commodity and labor force to raise profit for his personal interests. All costs we incur must be slashed to nothing, (ending government programs,) all our assets must be liquidated (privatize everything that's left) and then he gets to retire from office with a few billion invested overseas, while we're left with nothing.

Originally posted by tHEpROGRESSIVE
reply to post by KrazyJethro

 

Its not my job to back it up. I was just repeating what Ron Paul has said. He has said we need to stop policing the world and that we cant afford entitlements. So maybe you should ask him to defend what he has said.

Oh it is. You affirm someone or something is wrong. We disagree, but there isn't much to discuss and you are easily dismissed because there is no meat to your opinions.

Yes, the programs need to go on the Federal level. What, exactly, is the problem with that?

reply to post by neo96


I agree.

I believe our focus needs to be more surgical and tactical rather than large scale.

But, again, this doesn't mean we should just withdraw from the world and pretend we're not a part of it.