2012 Election: The ATS Republican Straw Poll

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Been supporting Ron Paul since 2007 and never looked back.

Many people are afraid of his foreign policy but it is the only one that makes sense, it is either you want peace or you don't.

Peace is one thing, but obsequiousness in the pursuit of peace is another thing altogether. The most peaceful times I've ever personally know are those times when folks knew beyond doubt that I could and would rain hell down on them if they troubled me, and would give them the shirt off my back if they didn't, and needed it.

The objective should be to get along in peace with all people as far as possible, and make it plain that if they don't want peace, you are always willing and able to accommodate them, in spades and much to their detriment.

International politics is much like interpersonal relationships (after all, BOTH start and end with people), but on a scale writ large.

You're assuming the war on terror is actually REAL.

Which it isn't, don't believe me? check out all of the major government contracts that were won because of the war on terror. It isn't actually about terrorism, it is only the vehicle for more fascism and militarism.

Don't buy into that crap, and this is why war isn't necessary.

Originally posted by nenothtu
As you say, it really should have been pursued through intelligence gathering and surgical SpecOps strikes, without a massive regular troop build up.

Which sounds alot more like what Ron Paul proposed immediately after 9/11 (within the Constitution)....

10/10/2001--Introduced.
September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, including any similar planned acts against the United States in the future. Authorizes the President to place a bounty, from amounts appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
www.govtrack.us...

I think we should pull the regular army out now. The objective was completed, and we should adopt the policy we should have all along going forward. Fight them assymetrically so they're not draining us dry.

In this cycle, Romney is the new mcCain. Progressive to a fault, Republican in name only, and slow out of the gate. A guaranteed loser.

I agree completely.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

You're assuming the war on terror is actually REAL.

Of course it's real. real bullets are flying, and real people are dying. It doesn't get any realer than that.

Which it isn't, don't believe me? check out all of the major government contracts that were won because of the war on terror. It isn't actually about terrorism, it is only the vehicle for more fascism and militarism.

I worked for a building contractor for a while. He built houses. Those houses were real. the fact that a contractor was involved did not make them imaginary.

Don't buy into that crap, and this is why war isn't necessary.

When wars are no longer necessary in reality, as well as in fantasy, I'll join you in a chorus of Kumbaya. The fact is, there are folks in this world who just won't leave you alone until you impress upon them the importance and wisdom of leaving you to your beauty sleep.

reply to post by eLPresidente


Religious extremism is very real. Of course, war profiteers have used it as the new boogey man in order to gain support for unlimited tax money being distributed amongst them and their buddies for their contracts. They also use that money to prop up dictators that oppress people, and make them hate and blame us for our government supporting their tormentors, creating an endless cycle of hate, war, and money. If we're able to pull out of the affairs of other nations for the most part, we can actually stop making more terrorists, but we will probably still have to deal with the ones we've already created at some point. But as we've been saying, it needs to be done assymetrically.

ron paul!!!! And i hate iowa what makes them so fracken special?

Why isn't Fred Karger listed in the poll?

He is an official Republican candidate.

Originally posted by 27jd

I think we should pull the regular army out now. The objective was completed, and we should adopt the policy we should have all along going forward. Fight them assymetrically so they're not draining us dry.

Oh, I agree that the regulars, except for a couple of QR battalions, ought to be pulled out and brought home. I think they would be more effectively employed lining the southern border, and to a lesser extent the northern one, rather than being decommissioned, though. It would be a good idea to keep a few air assets in theater as well, for special occasions.

This is the first I've heard of the Letters of marque and Reprisal, which is odd, all things considered. I really should have heard of them long ago. I do recall hearing of a 25 million USD bounty on bin Laden, which must have been part of that concept.

Letters of Marque are a nice touch, but essentially meaningless in ground warfare in a foreign country. Holders of them are subject to the same penalties and restrictions of the host country as any regular mercenary, and they only provide a sort of immunity in the issuing country. Maritime Letters of Marque are somewhat different, since they are generally employed on the open sea, rather than within the boundaries of another country where other law applies.

Wish I could find the video. But cant seem too. All I know is I heard Ron Paul say he is not of any political junction. Therefor his listed side is that of who portray's him as.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Oh, I agree that the regulars, except for a couple of QR battalions, ought to be pulled out and brought home. I think they would be more effectively employed lining the southern border, and to a lesser extent the northern one, rather than being decommissioned, though. It would be a good idea to keep a few air assets in theater as well, for special occasions.

I think that may be a real possibility under RP...

A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done.
www.ronpaul.com...

No politician out there has there sh_t together the way he does. It's too bad he's not better at getting his message across and staying on point with it. If they can work with him on that, I think people will see what he stands for more clearly. When he's on the spot he has so much to say in regards to his personal feelings and stories about an issue, that a lot of times his policies seem unclear.

This is the first I've heard of the Letters of marque and Reprisal, which is odd, all things considered. I really should have heard of them long ago. I do recall hearing of a 25 million USD bounty on bin Laden, which must have been part of that concept.

Right, but I think they could then contract a special ops team, that's privately funded for for such assymetric threats. Like SEAL team 6, but not officially under the government. Not bound to military ROE's. I bet they'd be some scary f-ers, and maybe a good deterrent to attacking us. You know there's some dudes that would be there in a heartbeat.

Ron Paul's founding fathers policy of no entangled alliances and trades with all would've likely prevented all of this 'blowback'. Why is it even necessary to fight all of these wars? especially wars that can't be won? What does it mean to 'win' in Afghanistan? please..tell me, I'd love to know so I can write a letter to the President in case he didn't get the memo.

Then corporations use this war as a means of making money, your analogy of a building contractor has nothing to do with this scenario.

...awww, there was no option for "none of the above"...

Originally posted by eLPresidente
What does it mean to 'win' in Afghanistan? please..tell me, I'd love to know so I can write a letter to the President in case he didn't get the memo.

We supposedly went in to get Bin Laden, that's it. We can leave now, and in the end history would show we 'won'.

I agree that if stop the entanglements, the blow back will stop too.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Ron Paul's founding fathers policy of no entangled alliances and trades with all would've likely prevented all of this 'blowback'. Why is it even necessary to fight all of these wars? especially wars that can't be won? What does it mean to 'win' in Afghanistan? please..tell me, I'd love to know so I can write a letter to the President in case he didn't get the memo.

Well, that's sort of subjective, I suppose, since none of the higher-ups have shown themselves able to define a "win" - which is another failure of leadership. Personally and subjectively, I'd classify a win as erasure of the Taliban, AQ, and allied groups from this planet, and any other where they might return here from, and giving the Afghans the proper assistance this time around to build the country they want, rather than the one we want them to have. Go ahead and fire off your letter to the prez, and let me know how that turns out.

I could go along with the "no entangling alliances", since what generally happens is that we form an alliance, then carry the brunt of the burden, and pay for that privilege. The benefit generally seems to all go only one way, and that way is away from us. Free trade with all would cause me to balk. There are just some folks in this world that I won't do business with.

Then corporations use this war as a means of making money, your analogy of a building contractor has nothing to do with this scenario.

My analogy of the building contractor has EVERYTHING to do with that scenario. What do contractors of any stripe do where you're from? Around here, they do a job or provide a service, and collect the money for it. That seems to be a general thing in the contractor rule book, whether it's a building contractor, a military contractor, a cable contractor, or any contractor.

Contractors make money by doing a job, which is what you just said they did.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


About the second page. Why can't I pick a candidate for environmental policy? Conservatives don't consider it an issue?

Nice to see a political poll though.

ok so how do we view the results?

Originally posted by TaxpayersUnleashed
ok so how do we view the results?

They will release it when they can manipulate the numbers
Seriously though, they will release it later in the week after it closes. I have a feeling it's going to be like a popular youtube video where there are 10,000 likes and 1 dislike. You'll then get the ensuing comment that "1 guy missed the Ron Paul box", which will be star'd by hundreds.

Ron Paul is popular with many of the young voters...and many of the older voters too...tonight on CNN....I was watching Piers Morgan ......interviewing Ron Paul....for a few minutes....one reason I think many want him in office is because he is for legalizing drugs such as pot and heroin.

Originally posted by 27jd

No politician out there has there sh_t together the way he does. It's too bad he's not better at getting his message across and staying on point with it. If they can work with him on that, I think people will see what he stands for more clearly. When he's on the spot he has so much to say in regards to his personal feelings and stories about an issue, that a lot of times his policies seem unclear.

That may be one of his stumbling blocks - his personal feeling perhaps shouldn't weigh so heavily in the equation. That's actually my biggest problem with Bachmann, too. She handled the recent dustup over her "God said be submissive to your husband" comment poorly, in my opinion. Religion is a fine thing for a person to have, and if they're happy with it, I'm all for it. The problem is, God is pretty much apolitical. He doesn't run any particular country - he has a whole universe to look after, which must be a fairly busy job. Since God doesn't run countries, we have presidents to handle that little detail.

Got a presidential decision to make? Don't bug God with it - he has another solar system to build or something. Just handle it.

Instead of coming up with that cockamamie "submission means respect" BS, she'd have been better served by saying "Nah. God runs universes and stuff. I can handle the presidential decisions without bugging him about it." basically, in my mind what she failed to do was point out the glaring difference between a personal, family decision and a public, government policy decision. That makes me wonder if she knows the difference, since she failed to point it out in a hell of a hurry to any one asking, thus setting them straight. Instead, she chose to re-define a word to mean something that it doesn't, which in turn causes me to question her communication skills.

If it hadn't been for that, I'd have been sorely tempted to vote for her, based solely upon the vehemence of the liberals and progressives' attacks seeking to demonize her. If they fear her that much, she can't be all bad!

Right, but I think they could then contract a special ops team, that's privately funded for for such assymetric threats. Like SEAL team 6, but not officially under the government. Not bound to military ROE's. I bet they'd be some scary f-ers, and maybe a good deterrent to attacking us. You know there's some dudes that would be there in a heartbeat.

Now, you KNOW that hiring private military contractors to do that sort of work in lieu of the military would send all kinds of folks stratospherically spastic, right? What those folks fail to realize, apparently, is that most of those contractors are former military themselves, and got the job to begin with specifically because they are very good at what they do, and they gain employers by being expendable. No one likes mercenaries, so no one really much cares if they get killed in the performance of their contracts. When the bodies get shipped home, there are no parades, no "poor little Johnny died for his country". There's just the pay-to-date to settle with the next of kin, if the contract calls for even that.

Expendable, yet some folks would still get all sorts of ill tempered over it.

There really are some real life "Lear Jet SWAT teams" out there that could do the job, and do it well, and yes, they are SCARY folks. I'm not talking Xe class mercs - those guys are cowboys by and large, because the hiring standards appear to have been relaxed at Xe, if there ever were any. Of course, that could be sour grapes on my part - I don't like Eric Prince, or anything he stands for, so that may color my opinion somewhat. The really good ones are absolutely NOT famous or limelight hogs. Being a cowboy and trying to stand in the spotlight are traits one doesn't commonly think of with the phrase "the quiet professionals". Believe it or not, most employers don't want it to get out that they've hired mercenaries, so hiring "famous" guys just doesn't happen in any but sweetheart contracts. Being famous works against mercenaries. Honest "fame" for getting the job done doesn't usually happen until after you retire, or get killed.

Anyhow, I can't see Ron Paul hiring contractors, but I believe that would go a long way to getting the job done, despite the weak sisters who want to scream and wring their hands over it. Look at the bright side, though - no more flag-draped coffins flying into military bases, no one able to complain that his dad/brother/cousin/pool boy got killed "in service to his country". Folks just plain don't give a rats ass about mercenaries unless they're looking for something to gripe about. A win all around. I just have doubts that Ron Paul would even consider it.

I would, though.

Originally posted by caladonea
Ron Paul is popular with many of the young voters...and many of the older voters too...tonight on CNN....I was watching Piers Morgan ......interviewing Ron Paul....for a few minutes....one reason I think many want him in office is because he is for legalizing drugs such as pot and heroin.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Hi Ron Paul.

Is it me or did this poll only last 8 hours?
Okay. OP is from the 14th....