|
On January 16 2012 08:50 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:47 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:42 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:36 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:24 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:17 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:11 gold_ wrote:On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote:
Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things. Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing.  There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say. A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way. He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says. This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya. He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress. Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans. What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster. And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit. I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then. Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works. I think you're vastly underestimating how much of an effect the president can have.
On domestic policy?
His only power is the bully pulpit, and that doesn't really work too well if a president doesn't control his Congress.
I'm curious, what exactly are you thinking about...?
|
On January 16 2012 08:41 Zalithian wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can call Ron Paul an isolationist.
Because dropping out of NATO makes you one?
Avoiding 'entangling alliances' is pretty much what isolationism is, a policy of free world trade does not make you any less of an isolationist. Unless we redefine what the word actually means that is.
|
On January 16 2012 08:51 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:50 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:47 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:42 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:36 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:24 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:17 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:11 gold_ wrote:On January 16 2012 07:58 OsoVega wrote:
Ron Paul is right about the economy and the drug war. He's wrong about foreign policy, and social issues. The problem is, with a conservative Senate and House, he will have strong support for his social views, but little support for his non-statist economic and drug views. Also, as the President, he largely controls foreign policy even if the Senate and House are against him. I predict, if elected, Ron Paul would be able to fulfill everything bad that he believes in and none of the good things. Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing. There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say. A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way. He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says. This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya. He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress. Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans. What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster. And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit. I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then. Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works. I think you're vastly underestimating how much of an effect the president can have. On domestic policy? His only power is the bully pulpit, and that doesn't really work too well if a president doesn't control his Congress. I'm curious, what exactly are you thinking about...?
Oh, I guess this is where the confusion is coming from. I'm not mostly talking about domestic policy.
My main point is a simple one. By progressive standards, the area in which Paul most improves on Obama is in foreign policy (well, also war on drugs and things like NDAA), which happens to coincide with the area in which the president can get the most done independently of congress. This fact is at least a noteworthy one for progressives.
edit: Though I have to admit that Paul-fanatics really make it hard to even make a pragmatic argument in his favor, as this thread readily attests. Hard to find a goofier group of people more enamored with horribly produced youtube videos...
|
On January 16 2012 08:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:more proof that Ron Paul is not a racist: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_sSqU0G-k These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him
Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters.
cool
|
On January 16 2012 08:57 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:41 Zalithian wrote:
I don't understand how anyone can call Ron Paul an isolationist. Because dropping out of NATO makes you one? Avoiding 'entangling alliances' is pretty much what isolationism is, a policy of free world trade does not make you any less of an isolationist. Unless we redefine what the word actually means that is.
No, actually that isn't what isolationalism is. Using this very scholarly website known as wikipedia (lol)
"Isolationism is the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Two other terms often confused with Isolationism are:
Non-interventionism – Says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.
Protectionism – Relates more often to economics, there should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states."
Ron Paul believes in Non-interventionism, not isolationism.
|
On January 16 2012 07:13 bOneSeven wrote:
Listen about the racist thing in general, I don't mind if people are white power or communists or whatever . If I walk near a store where it says " no black people allowed in " , I'll simply say ... Wow , what a terrible mindset , I would never buy anything from that so I won't support their business because they are really messed up . But saying to make it illegal to have that mindset ? What's up with that ?
Hmm, let's see there is only one pharmacy/doctor in the city, you need a drug to save your life, well, they just decided they do not like to provide their service to you. Now you are dead, but at least everyone is free, well except you are not as you are dead.
|
On January 16 2012 08:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:more proof that Ron Paul is not a racist: + Show Spoiler +These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters. cool
out of 255 newsletters only 9 of them were racist. Written by Jampes powell who was a contributor to fox...
I'd say Ron Paul was pretty negligent letting this happen. If that's the worst they can find on Ron Paul then this election would be cake. Also, Paul is better at the macro level than at the micro...
|
|
|
On January 16 2012 09:07 gold_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:58 Mindcrime wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:more proof that Ron Paul is not a racist: + Show Spoiler +These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters. cool Yea he's rolling in the dough he made from them. Ron Paul such a horrible person for the one time he trusted other people to run his newsletter, what a bad person he is! http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/homes-of-the-gop-candidates.htmlYou'll notice his house and net worth are the lowest of all the candidates. Cool.
I don't agree that Ron Paul is an racist but please stop using counter arguments that doesn't make any sense. How you take the word "profited" and turned it into him saying Ron is rolling in dough just make your argument worse.
|
On January 16 2012 09:10 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:07 gold_ wrote:On January 16 2012 08:58 Mindcrime wrote:On January 16 2012 08:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:more proof that Ron Paul is not a racist: + Show Spoiler +These vids are for the people who keep calling slandering him Oh, so Ron Paul "only" published and profited off of racist newsletters. cool Yea he's rolling in the dough he made from them. Ron Paul such a horrible person for the one time he trusted other people to run his newsletter, what a bad person he is! http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/homes-of-the-gop-candidates.htmlYou'll notice his house and net worth are the lowest of all the candidates. Cool. I don't agree that Ron Paul is an racist but please stop using counter arguments that doesn't make any sense. How you take the word "profited" and turned it into him saying Ron is rolling in dough just make your argument worse.
WTF... I was being sarcastic?
EDIT: Nope also doesn't make my argument worse, sorry.
|
If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine.
|
On January 16 2012 08:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
"He might be" You're calling him one by saying that. Is English your 2nd language or something?
I am really from the country that my profile says, so you can guess if English is my second language. It is actually my fourth language  But I am starting to doubt that English is your first if you do not see the difference between "is" and "might be". If I say he might be a racist I mean by that that since people lie and pretend he might do so also and there is some amount of doubt about his truthfulness.
|
On January 16 2012 09:13 SerpentFlame wrote:If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine.
Are we in a twilight world here? I do believe he and his campaign already stated that he wasn't running the newsletter publication at the time of the racist material. When Bill Gates stepped down from Microsoft did they change the name of Microsoft because he wasn't running it anymore?
|
On January 16 2012 09:13 SerpentFlame wrote:If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine.
It wasn't even a magazine...It was NEWSLETTERS which some were made by him. I'd say only the economics one talking about monetary policies etc. All the rest were created from free lance writers who Lee Rockwell hired. So, 246/255 isn't bad when it comes to management. I'd say he did a good job of managing it if he fired those people afterwards.
|
On January 16 2012 09:13 SerpentFlame wrote:If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine.
I think it is a more important question: Is his politics racist? Whether or not he wrote some racist papers 20 years ago is unimportant. His policies seems to be the least racist out of all the candidates.
|
On January 16 2012 09:15 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
"He might be" You're calling him one by saying that. Is English your 2nd language or something?
I am really from the country that my profile says, so you can guess if English is my second language. It is actually my fourth language But I am starting to doubt that English is your first if you do not see the difference between "is" and "might be". If I say he might be a racist I mean by that that since people lie and pretend he might do so also and there is some amount of doubt about his truthfulness.
English is my 5th Language actually. As you can see my real country at the top of my name. Why you hating on me for speaking the truth?
|
On January 16 2012 08:58 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:51 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:50 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:47 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:42 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:36 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:24 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:17 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:11 gold_ wrote:[quote] Funny, Rick Santorum said the exact same thing. There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say. A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way. He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says. This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya. He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress. Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans. What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster. And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit. I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then. Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works. I think you're vastly underestimating how much of an effect the president can have. On domestic policy? His only power is the bully pulpit, and that doesn't really work too well if a president doesn't control his Congress. I'm curious, what exactly are you thinking about...? Oh, I guess this is where the confusion is coming from. I'm not mostly talking about domestic policy. My main point is a simple one. By progressive standards, the area in which Paul most improves on Obama is in foreign policy (well, also war on drugs and things like NDAA), which happens to coincide with the area in which the president can get the most done independently of congress. This fact is at least a noteworthy one for progressives. edit: Though I have to admit that Paul-fanatics really make it hard to even make a pragmatic argument in his favor, as this thread readily attests. Hard to find a goofier group of people more enamored with horribly produced youtube videos...
Does he improve when it comes to foreign policy though? I mean, he is rather isolationist and his opinions on Iran for example aren't motivated by fact so much as speculation. Neither you, myself, or Mr. Paul really have complete information. Obama, Netanyahu, the House Intelligence Committee, members of intelligence agencies etc. all do however, so their views may be motivated by some necessity that we simply don't know about.
I don't claim to know who's right on most foreign policy issues, but it's pretty hard to make the case that Ron Paul is an improvement over Obama on foreign policy. Now if Obama starts some major, unprovoked wars in the next few months, I'd quickly change my opinion.
|
On January 16 2012 09:20 Undrass wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 09:13 SerpentFlame wrote:If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine. I think it is a more important question: Is his politics racist? Whether or not he wrote some racist papers 20 years ago is unimportant. His policies seems to be the least racist out of all the candidates.
I don't really know if any of the Republican nominees are really motivated by racism to be completely honest. Sure, some of them support policies that would disproportionately hurt blacks over whites for example, but for them to be racist they have to support these policies because of race. I highly doubt that's the case.
Regardless, all these accusations of racism are just silly. There are actual issues to discuss and this is just a distraction.
On January 16 2012 09:13 SerpentFlame wrote:If Ron Paul can't even manage his own newsletter to prevent the publication of easily detectable racist material, how can we trust him to manage the country? Management has to be held accountable. I'd love to see a better or more detailed explanation from Ron Paul about his relationship with the magazine.
Oh come on. The whole racism fiasco garbage aside, the candidates' house values don't and shouldn't matter. Just because his house is the cheapest doesn't mean he's the poorest by any means nor does it imply he's poor in any way. They're all millionaires and even if they weren't, they all could easily become millionaires now. Let's at least be honest here.
Now obviously, the fact that Paul allowed these newsletters to continue under his name and the fact that he profited off them is questionable at best, but he's not racist. Either way, this shouldn't even be an issue of contention.
|
I think you guys really need to stop confusing Non-interventionism with isolationism.
|
On January 16 2012 09:25 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 08:58 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:51 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:50 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:47 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:42 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:36 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:29 frogrubdown wrote:On January 16 2012 08:24 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 08:17 frogrubdown wrote:[quote] There are a decent number who agree but draw the exact opposite conclusion: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/It certainly would take a lot of good domestic progressive policies from Obama (which we haven't been seeing much of so far) to outweigh the numerous murders we are committing across the world right now. Wonder how much damage Paul could actually do in other matters, though. Hard to say. A Paul presidency would simply be beholden to Congress. If he was the president over a Republican legislature, only his "conservative" policies would pass. The same goes the other way. He wouldn't really be a president so much as a facilitator for whichever party controls Congress. They would just ignore everything else he says. This is true to an extent, but you fail to note two important points. First, far more than any other president in history, Paul would be willing to use vetoes. This will require a non-partisan consensus to overrule him. Such a consensus likely doesn't exist for some of the more troubling, anti-liberty pieces of conservative legislation. Second, as noted by OsoVega and the article I cited, the president has far more discretion when it comes to international matters than domestic ones. I mean, Obama went completely around the traditional congressional paths in Libya. He would have some discretion as president yes, but he could never enact any policy change (which is really what matters seeing as it's the thing that will have long-term effects). And his veto power wouldn't go against anything I said. If the GOP controls Congress, they would pass a bill Paul agrees with and he would sign it. In other words, they'd just shove everything they wanted through and it would all become law so long as Paul agrees. The same applies to a Democratic-controlled Congress. Consensus always exists within the parties when the party leaders want it to -- especially with Republicans. What types of bills are you talking about? If crazy enough I'm sure the democrats would have enough to filibuster. And maybe the foreign policy changes wouldn't be permanent, but it might be worth settling for a significantly reduced foreign military presence and no war with Iran. These could have lasting effects on future presidencies with or without it being made explicit. I never said the bills would be crazy, I'm just saying RP would be completely beholden to whoever controls Congress. RP stands for a lot of things -- half of them the Dems would support and half the GOP would support. Realistically if Paul won, he'd only be able to pass half of his bills then. Of course this has the effect of whoever winning Congress winning the presidency. RP, while largely independent of both parties, would just end up being a puppet (through no fault of his own). That's just how politics works. I think you're vastly underestimating how much of an effect the president can have. On domestic policy? His only power is the bully pulpit, and that doesn't really work too well if a president doesn't control his Congress. I'm curious, what exactly are you thinking about...? Oh, I guess this is where the confusion is coming from. I'm not mostly talking about domestic policy. My main point is a simple one. By progressive standards, the area in which Paul most improves on Obama is in foreign policy (well, also war on drugs and things like NDAA), which happens to coincide with the area in which the president can get the most done independently of congress. This fact is at least a noteworthy one for progressives. edit: Though I have to admit that Paul-fanatics really make it hard to even make a pragmatic argument in his favor, as this thread readily attests. Hard to find a goofier group of people more enamored with horribly produced youtube videos... Does he improve when it comes to foreign policy though? I mean, he is rather isolationist and his opinions on Iran for example aren't motivated by fact so much as speculation. Neither you, myself, or Mr. Paul really have complete information. Obama, Netanyahu, the House Intelligence Committee, members of intelligence agencies etc. all do however, so their views may be motivated by some necessity that we simply don't know about. I don't claim to know who's right on most foreign policy issues, but it's pretty hard to make the case that Ron Paul is an improvement over Obama on foreign policy. Now if Obama starts some major, unprovoked wars in the next few months, I'd quickly change my opinion.
I really didn't mean to create a debate about what the correct foreign policy is. I was just taking as a starting point the fact that most progressives are very unhappy with how much of an interventionist Obama has turned out to be and with how much he has been willing to curtail civil liberties in doing so. My only point is that people who think like this ought to at least consider the possibility that the typical powers of a president make Paul a better one by their lights than Obama rather than thinking: "Pro-life libertarian? Fuck that."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
