Why is everyone on the Ron Paul bandwagon?

Anyone who makes comments like "he's just another politician" or "he's no different than the others"... has obviously not done much, if any, research on Ron Paul and does not deserve to be making or even participating in threads like these, without being labeled an idiotic troll. Plain and simple.

Even if you disagree with much of what he has to say, it'd be pretty darn disingenuous to say he's anything like your typical politician. The fact is, you can't compare any of our recent President's or presidential candidates to Ron Paul... for they would be nothing alike.

If you are too darn stupid to see why, maybe you should go back to school and stay out of important topics such as this. If you genuinely want to know why he's different, I suggest looking into Ron Paul's 35+ years of history in politics... something you should have obviously done before making such silly threads.

reply to post by tHEpROGRESSIVE


Thats a main reason we're broke.

The main problem I have with Ron Paul is that he has made all of these promises, and has said he's going to do this and that but just how is he going to get congress to approve his list of things that he's going to do?

My prediction is, if he does end up getting elected that congress won't do anything and he's just going to be another do nothing president.

Big promises but nothing done.

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.

No different?

This man has had the same message for 30 years. "We the people" are nothing without a constitution, something Dr. Paul holds above even his own personal beliefs.

There's a reason why this man, despite having a growing backing from the people (growing everyday), is hated by the Media and his own party. He is a threat to the powers that hold power over the people.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by muse7

So basically you've come to the assumption that absolutely nothing he'll want to do as President will be approved by congress and therefor he's no different and no better than the other Presidents of passed... and as a result, anyone that chooses NOT to have such a naively pessimistic point of view and actually support/vote for Ron Paul, are just fools jumping on a bandwagon?

Wow.

Originally posted by muse7
The main problem I have with Ron Paul is that he has made all of these promises, and has said he's going to do this and that but just how is he going to get congress to approve his list of things that he's going to do?

My prediction is, if he does end up getting elected that congress won't do anything and he's just going to be another do nothing president.

I thought that Congress would just kill all of his changes at first, too. But then the thought hit me that if we had a Pres that would go to battle for us, then the people would really put A Lot of pressure on Congress.

The roar would be deafening.

Thing is that if we wanna fix this country short of some revolution that probably wouldn't work out so well anyway, it will take some sacrifice and that's the thing--I think--that scares folk about Ron Paul.

But we have a chance to fix it that way rather than tear it all down and start over. Whichever, but I'd like to see our Constitution restored.

It was a good deal. What happened?

reply to post by Navieko


He's too radical, but good luck to him getting Democrats on his side if he does end up winning.

He'll definitely need it.

Originally posted by tHEpROGRESSIVE
The states are broke and cannot print money so how are they going to be able to afford SS and Medicare and Welfare and Medicaid.

Well the idea is to let Social Security and the other programs phase out over a relatively long period of time. This is the only real way to do it. With Social Security, it's attrition. Eventually those on it will die and the young can decide not to participate. This is a very long term thing so it's not like anyone will be out in the cold. This is simply a complete misunderstanding of how one would get rid of such a huge program like that.

As for the others, the States have a wide variety of options in this regard. Again, none of this would be done overnight so the states would have ample time to both decide and implement any dovetailing options. Additionally, the money that currently goes to the Federal Government can be moved to the States without the additional bureaucracy layer of the Federal Government by eliminating Social Security and Income taxes and by instituting them or increasing them on the State level depending on need.

It's not really a difficult thing to figure out if you really wanted to. This would ensure maximum freedom of the State's citizens (which is what they are first, before an American citizen) to choose what kind of social system that state would have.

Even currently the State's vary on what services they offer. Massachusetts is very liberal and offers quite a lot of services but their taxes are higher and my state of Virginia is pretty conservative and offers much less but our taxes are lower.

Long story short, the system is already in place and working. The federal government really just doles out the money to the State systems already, so why not bypass the extremely wasteful middleman.

Maybe you did not grow up during the cold war, but I did. Our government and our people freaked out at the prospect of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Beyond that we didn't just sit back and let them put their nukes all over the world or take over other countries without a fight.

Yes, I did grow up during the cold war and the level of freaking out then doesn't compare with now. There's nothing Paul has said to suggest that if we had actionable intel on an imminent threat we could not take action. This policy has been in place for a very long time, back since Daniel Webster was in Congress.

What Ron Paul is proposing is that we pull everything back into our own borders and sit back and play nice until we are attacked. Then we can respond in his eyes.

So he would let Iran get nukes and possibly nuke Israel first, then us.

A few things.

1) If Israel was nuked, the offending nation would not have a chance to hit us because they would be a sheet of glass courtesy of the US government.

2) Read up on US policy on preemption. Start with the Caroline Affair which is pretty clear and has been recognized by anyone who matters. This is part of the reason the president can use the military for a limited time without congressional approval.

3) I disagree with Paul on one point, the CIA. We need to bolster it and take the gloves of in terms of assassination.

Ron Paul would have none of that. We would just sit here and do nothing while the rest of the world went wild. According to Pauls logic we should have never helped the allies defeat Germany because they never attacked us. So if you want to live in a world where England and France are part of some Nazi regime then VOTE RON PAUL!

His position is not to wait until we are attacked, his position is that if Congress feels there is a threat to national security it has the authority to declare war. Not attacked, but believe there is a threat.

As for WW2, it's not even reasonable to discuss in isolation because WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, our provoking of japan, and many other elements came into place then. Either way, it's not really the prerogative of the president to authorize or declare war, so your point is moot.

Because the overwhelming majority of his campaign financing is provided by grassroots fundraising. In fact, he recently raised almost $3million dollars in three days compliments of his 11,000 + support base (larger than any other support base). Thus, he isn't beholden to corporatist financial overlords.

Because he received more financial support from the military in 2008 than any other Republican candidate and even more than Obama.

Because he voted against the Patriot Act.
Because he voted against the Military Commissions Act.
Because he wants to decentralize our bloated, broke, corrupt government.
Because he wants to dissolve the TSA.
Because he voted against ALL of the wars.
Because he is opposed to the death penalty.
Because his voting record is shockingly consistent.
Because he speaks out about the false pretense of said illegal wars and aims to disclose the commercial interests driving the hyperbolic "war on terror".
Because he opposes civilian assassination without due process.
Because he is opposed to torture.
Because he's had years of congressional experience.
Because he wants to end the fed - And because he sponsored and subsequently fought and fought and fought to pass legislation which made it possible to audit the Fed for the first time since its nefarious, unconstitutional inception.
Because he isn't backed by WallStreet.
Because he accurately predicted the burst of the housing bubble.
Because he accurately predicted blowback from our atrocious foreign policy (9/11)
Because he realizes that engendering an unrealistic, unsustainable dependency on big Government is irresponsible, demoralizing and undermines individual liberty.
Because he voted against the bailouts.
Because he understands the proper role of Government as defined by the Constitution.

Because he is a champion of the Constitution.
Because he is a true son of the Republic.

Regards,

FTE

Originally posted by KrazyJethro


3) I disagree with Paul on one point, the CIA. We need to bolster it and take the gloves of in terms of assassination.

Do you have any concept of how dangerous that line of thinking is? My guess is not or you probably wouldn't make ridiculous statements like this.

reply to post by tHEpROGRESSIVE

Ron Paul
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy.

Well at least he wants people to pay more for the privilege of being able to back their SUV over grandma and the kids. If fuel did double in price here i could no longer afford to drive my modified 5.4L V8 petrol guzzling emission spewing global warmer.

I stand by what i said that he genuinely appears from my prospective to be a good man that stands by his principals and is not willing to bend over for more votes and support like most politicians.

reply to post by muse7


Here's an example of why I support Ron Paul based on ... what I regard as political economics as taught by a mainstream Harvard economics professor.

Simplified model of a 100% reserve banking institution:

Assets
Reserves: $100.00

Liabilities
Deposits: $100.00

Simplified model of a fractional-reserve banking institution:

Assets
Reserves: $10.00
Loans: $90.00

Liabilities
Deposits: $100.00 (demand deposit)

The bank loans $90.00 in currency, increasing the money supply as it were by an additional $90.00 for a total of $190.00. Moreover, this economist (and perhaps many more) insist that wealth is not created during this process because debt falls to those or the one who is borrowing. So in typical language, "all things equal, no wealth is created."

At this point it's instructive to ask the question, "What does wealth mean?" According to this economist (and probably most all economists) it refers to another term that describes a function of money known as store of value. More specifically, "wealth refers to the total store of all value, including both money and nonmonetary assets" (source: G. Mankiw, Principles of Macroeconomics, 6th Edition).

Take a look at the simplified fractional-reserve model and you'll notice that loans is listed under the assets column. How did that get there if no wealth is created? Basically, this economist appears to contradict himself in his own textbook when he claims that no wealth is created because a) the bank obviously created an asset that will b) earn interest and c) may even be insured against default at the expense of taxpayers (e.g. the most recent BofA swap). At any rate money is created in this way and, from my point of view at least, banks "exist in the economy" and therefore create wealth from nothing, if only for themselves. But beyond that I do believe there is a need for credit institutions. The problem I have is the fictional character that is used to describe banks--it's not an honest assessment of what actually occurs. And then there is the Fed which controls the money supply. If you're an American citizen then you've got to laugh at the irony of your (our) situation concomitant to the unionization of the American colonies. Britain effectively taxed the colonies due to debt incurred thru wars, and that debt was contracted thru the Bank of England, the first (I believe) private central bank. So Britain financed boondoggle and boondoggle without creating a mob uprising thru the use of private lending, but you know the interest had to be paid on that debt & the colonies were ripe for picking. In a sense the same thing is occurring in America today, except that it is occurring on this side of the Atlantic and the offending government is the U.S. Government. So in terms of Ron Paul's message it makes sense to me because his aim is to restore our economy to a more equal state. I mean if you listen to the man you'll find that he consistently says the same thing over and over; furthermore, he consistently votes the same way. His message and voting record indicate that he's all about putting a halt to governmental intrusiveness; and I'm apt to think that he's on the right track in terms of his viewpoints about the Fed because the Federal Open Market Committee has an exceptionally powerful influence on everyone's lives, and the funny thing is that it's a private interest. I mean people can believe all they want that these dudes and gals are altruistic, but I'm more of the opinion that they represent their clients (hence, their own) interests first and foremost.

At any rate this only partially reflects why I support Ron Paul. And while I'm on this topic I'll link a neat report card for any 9-9-9er's out there: taxpolicycenter.org...

Originally posted by relpobre000
Do you have any concept of how dangerous that line of thinking is? My guess is not or you probably wouldn't make ridiculous statements like this.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll take that as an explanation for your comment since you provided none.

Speaking of assassinations was a bit more of an aside than it might seem. The CIA should be bolstered in manpower to deal with asymmetrical threats. Assassination certainly should not be held back as a reasonable option.

I'm well aware of what I am saying.

Peace
KJ

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'll take that as an explanation for your comment since you provided none.

Speaking of assassinations was a bit more of an aside than it might seem. The CIA should be bolstered in manpower to deal with asymmetrical threats. Assassination certainly should not be held back as a reasonable option.

I'm well aware of what I am saying.

Peace
KJ

My comment was an insinuation that you are naive for the statement that you made. You stated that "we need to bolster it and take the gloves of [sic] in terms of assassination.".

This implies that you support a strong shadow group to carry out covert state sanctioned assassinations (read: murders) of people without trials.

Are you sure you're aware of what you're are saying?

Originally posted by relpobre000
My comment was an insinuation that you are naive for the statement that you made. You stated that "we need to bolster it and take the gloves of [sic] in terms of assassination.".

This implies that you support a strong shadow group to carry out covert state sanctioned assassinations (read: murders) of people without trials.

Are you sure you're aware of what you're are saying?

edit on 22-10-2011 by relpobre000 because: derp

Yes, that is what I am saying. I really don't think I could be more clear than that. It's not like this is something new in America.

reply to post by followtheevidence


Wow thank you for laying that out! His record speaks for itself. I feel like I'm watching one of those disaster movies where one person( Ron Paul) is warning everyone about an impending disater, but noone heeds the warning until it's too late. Only when the shtf will people then realize... maybe I should've voted for Ron Paul. I know if given the chance Ron Paul would make real, beneficial changes in this country. RON PAUL 2012

I believe military spending has increased in 10 years from around 250 billion to 698 billion (2010 figures) and was backed up slightly to around 650 billion in the current budget proposal. Comparison to other countries should be telling you something.


Rank Country Military expenditure, 2010[2] % of GDP, 2009
1 United States 698,105,000,000 4.7%
2 China 114,000,000,000 2.2%
3 France 61,285,000,000 2.5%
4 United Kingdom 57,424,000,000 2.7%
5 Russia 52,586,000,000 4.3%
6 Japan 51,420,000,000 1.0%
7 Germany 46,848,000,000 1.4%
8 Saudi Arabia 39,200,000,000 11.2%
9 Italy 38,303,000,000 1.8%
10 India 36,030,000,000 1.8%
11 Brazil 27,120,000,000 1.6%
12 Australia 26,900,000,000 1.9%
13 South Korea 26,550,000,000 2.9%
14 Spain 25,507,470,000 1.1%
15 Canada 21,800,000,000 1.5%
16 Israel 16,000,000,000 6.3%
17 United Arab Emirates 15,749,000,000 7.3%
18 Turkey 15,634,000,000 2.2%
19 Netherlands 11,604,000,000 1.5%
20 Afghanistan 11,600,000,000j 1.8%
21 Poland 10,800,000,000 1.8%
22 Greece 10,398,498,000 3.2%
23 Singapore 9,829,496,000 4.3%
24 Colombia 9,191,000,000 3.7%
25 Iran 9,174,000,000 1.8%
26 Republic of China 8,535,000,000 2.4%[3]
27 Egypt 7,150,000,000 2.1%
28 Pakistan 6,410,000,000 2.8%
29 Mexico 6,300,000,000 0.5%
30 Norway 6,200,000,000 1.6%
31 Algeria 6,000,000,000 3.8%
32 Sweden 5,500,000,000 1.2%
33 Thailand 5,200,000,000 1.9%
34 Indonesia 4,740,000,000 0.9%
35 Kuwait 4,700,000,000 4.4%
36 Iraq 4,663,000,000 5.4%
37 Belgium 4,544,000,000 1.2%
38 Denmark 4,330,000,000 1.4%
39 Austria 3,650,000,000 0.9%
40 Oman 4,047,000,000 9.7%
41 Switzerland 4,000,000,000 0.8%
42 Venezuela 4,000,000,000 1.3%

reply to post by imawlinn


Absolutely. As the only worthy candidate, he deserves at least that much.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
It's not like this is something new in America.

That's a healthy attitude to have, you know:


If it has happened before in America then that makes it okay.

I simply can't contend with that level of ignorance.
You should sleep well at night knowing that men in black suits have free reign to come into your home and end your existence.

I think that if you take a moment and listen to Ron Paul speak of personal freedom, that you would indeed find yourself on his band wagon.

I think based on his statements that he would agree with you that the president should never be the messianic figure that people make them out to be.

This is why he wants to get rid of much of the federal governments different departments. This is why he would cap his salary at $40K.

I want you to listen to his speeches on youtube. Not just one, but three.

Why do I think he's going to be different? His history. His voting record. His message. They have been the same for the last 10+ years.