Why Ron Paul makes me nervous

Originally posted by Grimpachi
The biggest problem he faces is his stance with Iran. I cannot in good faith vote for a man that would knowingly allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon.

How would you feel about a country that was determined to take away the nuclear weapons the US already has? Telling the world what to do seems a little hypocritical.

Nuclear weapons and the United States

Current stockpile 5,113 total

Even if Ron Paul were elected and would just sit there for 4 years only vetoing unconstitutional bills and bringing back the troops home from around the world, he would still be the best president in modern history.

Hopefully he destroy every unconstitutional law (like the NDAA/Patriot Act/Military commission act) by executive order. Stops the missile shield in Europe which is aimed at Russia. Stop foreign aid and arming dictatorships...

Stuff like that.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


From what I've seen, he believes that it is each states responsibility to regulate and control all kinds of things, and when a state gets it wrong to the detriment of its people, then the Federal government would step in.

However, I don't think he means that the government would not regulate industry. I haven't seen anything to suggest he is even remotely contemplating that corporations have free reign.

None of this would happen overnight either. It would take years to unravel all the massive controls the federal government has implemented on the people. People would have their say throughout that time also, and we know that it's not as simple as putting paper through a shredder to retract a law.

People wanted change from Obama, and he failed to deliver. Voting for any of the others is voting for more of the same. All of the others I have seen either suggest no change at all, or increasing government control over the people. None of them are going to be beneficial for the USA.

I believe the youth of America will keep voting for that change for decades to come, until their elected actually does what they're told to do by the people and what they promise to do in their campaign.

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by Grimpachi
The biggest problem he faces is his stance with Iran. I cannot in good faith vote for a man that would knowingly allow them to obtain a nuclear weapon.

How would you feel about a country that was determined to take away the nuclear weapons the US already has? Telling the world what to do seems a little hypocritical.

Nuclear weapons and the United States

Current stockpile 5,113 total

edit on 19-12-2011 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

I do not draw parallels there between us and them. The world is the way it is we have nuclear weapons we invented the nuclear weapons and to be honest I wish we were the only ones with them. I don't believe the world becomes a safer place when smaller countries or any other country obtains them. If you want to draw a parallel how would you feel about Al Qaeda developing a nuclear weapon? I say no. We need to do what ever is necessary to stop this from happening.

I have heard the argument that it would be used as a defenseive weapon but in truth the best it can be used as is a deterrent. The use of a nuclear weapon is anything but defensive. I have seen plenty of propaganda that has come out of Iran talking about how they will destroy Israel. In my opinion if they acquire this technology they will use it against Israel and I am not willing to leave that to chance. We're not talking about a highly organize stable country like Russia was, Iran has its own set of problems.

If you are suggesting that because we have nuclear weapons and other have have nuclear weapons then why shouldn't they that argument isn't even worth debating. The world is what it is, let's not allow it to become any more dangerous. The idea that Iran would only use nuclear weapons as a deterrent is naive and a simplistic view of the world.

I do not advocate going to war with Iran I do not feel that is necessary but if we overt a crisis by localizing where we believe the weapon is being developed and surgically bomb that area. We have recently developed a new bomb that can penetrate the ground into hardened bunkers that previously we did not have access to and we should use it to take out their nuclear capability.

There would be no need to send in soldiers on the ground or to occupy their territory just a surgical strike with minimal casualties to keep them from getting their hands on the most destructive man-made force on the planet.

There was one other thing that Paul said that had me a little upset. He made a statement about why did we have drone in their territory. I don't need the expert or a genius to explain that. Honestly he knows exactly why we're flying over their territory. God I hope he does. We have been worried that Iran would invade Iraq as soon as we pulled out. They have been longtime rivals so it would make sense to keep an eye on their troop movements and military status in time leading up to our withdraw and even after we have gone. The other reason which is obvious is to see if we can gather any Intel on their nuclear program. So the statement Ron Paul made where he said why would we have a drone flying there anyway made me lose some faith in him.

National defense isn't always done within our borders. Some of his ideas and his stances scare me. I just don't know what he will be strong enough militarily. What he wants is reminiscent of isolationism. Last time when we became isolationists we wound up in world war where if we hadn't been so self involved it's possible that war could have been averted. Sometimes you can have peace through strength.

I will be paying attention leading up to the election and I hope he elaborates further on his vision vision for our role in the world. As much as I like the man there are still things he needs to prove himself on. If he truly believes in peace at any cost then he is asking for too much. The human race and the world has not evolved that far yet.

reply to post by detachedindividual


The problem I see is there are not going to be very many young people voting. I am on another thread talking to people who say they're not even going to bother to vote. I even told them that they could write in a name at the very least they should be heard. This is the one time where it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor you are counted as the same you are equal to one another. I'm afraid that most of what I said fell on deaf ears.

Only about 30% of the country votes. The elderly have the highest turnout where the young have the lowest. As I told them I guarantee all the rich people will vote. Kind of a sad state when the 99% will only come out as about 15% that was my guess but I hope I am wrong.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

"The Jungle" was not accurate. I recall reading all about this book. I think it had to do something with the people he was writing for and working with or something. Anyway, you're a sheep.

(it might have had something to do with communist propaganda about the west and marxism)

Besides, the government is way beyond regulations right now. It has become hte Oracle. It has become hte predictor of future destiny. It has become the mover of fate.

It's not about protecting the rights of people anymore. It's about leading the people (different).

That's why I call you a sheep. Because the government is leading you with ease.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Yes then another republican candidate or Obama will be your best choice. Iran is no threat to the United 'States and Israel can take care of themselves. I believe you are a victim of the propaganda that is put out to serve Israel's interests and not the interests of the American people. Most American's can't find Iran on a map but lots want to bomb this place .... that's all they know.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


The danger is the forming of corperate cartels, product monopoly protected by law and illegal trade agreements.

If this doesn't happen because it is properly controlled by federal government corperations will have to adjust the quality and price to the consumer demands and fair competition will be possible. Nothing wrong with that, and how it should be....in theory. Practically there is a decease roaming around called Money Crazy and Speed Greed.

If there is a cure for those two illnesses the people in the world and america will have a chance for peace, happiness and stuff.

It is good that federal government doesn't force its ideas concerning religion upon the citizens or the way they should live. The government should make it a priority to catch real criminals...especially big corperations and the ones that are wearing suits and have a lot of money. The confiscated money can be used to provide healthcare, education and create chances for a beter future for the less fortunate among us. Wow...what a fund will that be!!


Just some stuff what came to mind....

Yes, I agree that the U.S. is over-regulated.

Over Regulated? Sure but not really regulated. The regulation is coming from a bunch of people that have been propped up by big corporations like GE, Monsanto, Goldman Sach's, ect. How can there be real regulation when the people are for their respective corporations?

Ron wants to give the regulation to the states, not have little to no regulation.

The Jungle is a great book, btw.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


What do you think about him being the only candidate that believes our revolving murders of the citizens of sovereign nations are absolutely wrong? Does that make you nervous?

/TOA