Pretty shocking poll numbers I'd never thought I would see

[SamurAchzar]

Actually, I don't agree with him at all on many things. Several of his ideas are flat out pipe dreams. But at least unlike his fellow republicans, he is at least consistent between his message and his voting record. Not that Jesse Ventura is a bastion of wisdom, but he is spot on when he says both Dems and Republicans are rampant spenders, but at least the dems are cash and carry.

He's in a comfortable position, knowing his votes will not matter one way or another. How much of that would prevail if he gets the office? Of course he has some good, sound ideas, but what he's offering is nothing short of a revolution, and that usually doesn't work well in reality, not without army on the streets anyway.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, the point was that the relations between US and Israel are a two way street, one that benefits Israel immensely BUT with advantages for the US that by far outweigh the cost.

Now, I'm not talking about the direct monetary aid as this is not the issue, Netanyahu looked to eliminate that dependency in his last term (you can imagine how joyful Lockheed and co. were at this possibility). That money, for the US, is chump change considering the strategic reach an ally like Israel provides it in the ME region (intelligence and strike capability). Unlike many other countries, not even one American soldier died over the protection of Israel, while Israel did the West some favors by taking out the nuclear capabilities in both Iraq and Syria, with no US intervention.

As Israel is the only country in the world that without an army, would be overrun in 48 hours, and surrounded by neighbours who don't think its existence is legitimate, denying Israel from arms procurement is just like announcing it has no right to exist. This, as opposed to what Ron Paul thinks, IS taking a stand, especially when you arm to teeth Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia at the same time.

Anyway I wasn't trying to make this another ME thread, my point was that only a child thinks US can do well without any regard to what goes on in the world. That vacum will be closed very quickly, and it will certainly not be in the benefit of America. Israel will do fine, probably, its the weaker countries - Japan, Taiwan, Chile, South Korea, Europe - that will have the problem.

Well, there is nothing to be gained by this anyway as you are what I would call a combatant and have a motivated point of view. I wish you well. I feel Israel is on a road to disaster and that the disaster it has created itself will have to be paid for by Americans. I don't relish the idea of America being pulled down with Israel but I can't do much about it. And while I don't much care for the fact that you would likely be fucked if we did walk away, I don't like being poked in the eye with a stick over your continued taking of Arab land. But you are human and have the same genes as all the rest of us pigs. But the Jews are the last fucking people on earth who should be making a hell for others. But we always create what we fear. Maybe someday you'll figure that out.

 

[BoberFett]

I have to admit, last election I thought he was a loon. Now I would support him. I agree 100% with his limited federal government stance, I believe thats how the Constitution was framed.

Funny how many Republicans thought like you did when you also thought McCain stood a chance.

 

[Zebo]

Rand Paul has a better chance than Ron. Ron sounds like a bitch and wimp Americans don't like wimps.

But really only guy I see in GOP with winner charisma is Marco Rubio.

 

[bamacre]

You tell me whose fault it is since I don't think that way. Is it the fault of an honest man that he can't win or is it the fault of the people? And when you decide which it is tell me then what we will do to fix that fault.

I'm personally glad that you are an idealist who will not dirty his hands to vote for the party you belong in and you have told me your aim is to fix the Republicans, but for me to cast a vote for Paul would be dangerous. I know the the Democrats are the lesser of evils than Republicans and if I voted for Paul I would waste my vote which isn't going to happen. I am, however, glad that you waste yours as you have no real idea about what is evil.

Wasted vote? You live in California.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wasted vote? You live in California.

I vote is several states.

 

[jbh545]

It's a shame he's so dangerous on foreign policy and national security issues. I also think he may be a bit of a loose cannon economically. On one hand it's refreshing to see a politician who clearly understands microeconomics, macroeconomics, and monetary policy (ie, the exact opposite of Obama). On the other hand, he often seems to take his knowledge to incorrect conclusions and this results in outlandish proposals. I don't think he'd make a very good president, but a lot of republican frontrunners are also terrible. I'd give the job to someone like Mike Pence.

 

[futfut]

While some of his ideas do make sense, others - such as nonintervention - simply aren't realistic. Would nonintervention work during WWII? What kind of world would we have then?

Ron Paul probably would have gone in WW II. Don't forget he voted to go in Afghanistan to get Ben la den even though he never wanted to go in nation building. He follows the just war theory: he's against preemptive war, like in Iraq but he would go to war against any nation that attack us or is an imminent treat. He just follows the constitution and wants wars to be declared by congress. And we stop doing that after WWII.
While he would have probably gone to WW II because of pearl harbor, he thinks that going in WW I was an error. The war was almost over, Woodrow Wilson just wanted to participate in the Versailles treaty. And this treaty punished so badly the German that it led Hitler to power and you know the rest of the story...WW II. So our participation in WW I caused WW II!
his " don't meddle in the affairs of other nations to avoid unintended consequences" stance makes a lot of sense here and is the same as the founding father on this subject.

 

[nageov3t]

Ron Paul probably would have gone in WW II. Don't forget he voted to go in Afghanistan to get Ben la den even though he never wanted to go in nation building. He follows the just war theory: he's against preemptive war, like in Iraq but he would go to war against any nation that attack us or is an imminent treat. He just follows the constitution and want wars to be declared by congress. And we stop doing that after WWII.
While he would have probably gone to WW II cause of pearl harbor, he thinks that going in WW I was an error. The war was almost over, Woodrow Wilson just wanted to participate in the Versailles treaty. And this treaty punish so badly the German that it leads Hitler to power and you know the rest of the story...WW II. So our participation in WW I cause WW II!
his " don't meddle in the affair of other nations to avoid unintended consequence" stance make a lot of sense here and was the same as the founding father on this subject.

without the treaty of versailles, germany would have invented the a-bomb.

so Ron Paul is in favor of the kaiser nuking London and Paris?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Ron Paul probably would have gone in WW II. Don't forget he voted to go in Afghanistan to get Ben la den even though he never wanted to go in nation building. He follows the just war theory: he's against preemptive war, like in Iraq but he would go to war against any nation that attack us or is an imminent treat. He just follows the constitution and wants wars to be declared by congress. And we stop doing that after WWII.
While he would have probably gone to WW II because of pearl harbor, he thinks that going in WW I was an error. The war was almost over, Woodrow Wilson just wanted to participate in the Versailles treaty. And this treaty punished so badly the German that it led Hitler to power and you know the rest of the story...WW II. So our participation in WW I caused WW II!
his " don't meddle in the affairs of other nations to avoid unintended consequences" stance makes a lot of sense here and is the same as the founding father on this subject.

Even if you are correct, a policy of nonintervention isn't very fit when American imports more than exports (50% more), with the main sector being services (76%). America today is more dependent on the world - be it in resources or manufacturing - than it has ever been. It's not a bad thing, it's just the way a globalized world works.
I only believe democracy works up to a nation level, beyond that you need a governing force that's perhaps not "fair" or "just" but manages things the way it sees fit. Think of the failed UN, which is the closest thing you'll have to international democracy, and how bad it would be if it was running things like US does.

There are many forces that are rubbing their hands, waiting for America to step down from dominance, just to fill in the void. Ron Paul's policies aren't going to benefit anyone, American tax payer included - nor are they going to make America any more likable by the countries that are sheltered by it today (Canada, Europe, UK, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, etc. etc.).
What's going to happen the day after, as Ron Paul suggests, American pulls out of NATO? A massive proliferation race by EU countries?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

without the treaty of versailles, germany would have invented the a-bomb.

so Ron Paul is in favor of the kaiser nuking London and Paris?

Without the Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no WWII and no Nazi party.

 

[Mani]

He's in a comfortable position, knowing his votes will not matter one way or another. How much of that would prevail if he gets the office? Of course he has some good, sound ideas, but what he's offering is nothing short of a revolution, and that usually doesn't work well in reality, not without army on the streets anyway.

Agreed - which is why I believe much of his beliefs are pipe dreams. It would be interesting to see how he would legislate were he to win office. I have to think the guy is just crazy enough to follow through on what he preaches, which in many respects, yes, would essentially be a revolution. That was his campaign slogan...

 

[Cogman]

I agree with most of pauls Fiscal policies and wish that more congressmen would take a similar fiscal stance. As for his social standpoints, I'm not too excited about them, but whatever, my wallet comes first when voting.

Our current "Spend now, screw tomorrow" policy is damaging on multiple levels. Politicians are too short-sighted, caring only about their re-election and not about how they are screwing over everyone under 30.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

He'd be the only Republican Candidate worth voting for if you actually wanted a change, the rest of them are sock puppets.

Pretty much, bud.

 

[Jaskalas]

Interesting for sure. People are finally waking up to Obummer's socialist agenda, November is going to be the month of the Tea Party Hammer.

Actually, the Tea Party would first have to crush the Republican Party and salvage those remains before it can win anything. Are you willing to see Obama re-elected in 2012 to ensure a pure conservative movement?

No. I suspect the Tea Party dies to a Republican this election, or the next.

 

[IGBT]

lots of buyer remorse. Even the guilty white liberals are coming out of their self induced obama stupor.

 

[Thump553]

I have grave doubts that 41% of Americans even know who Ron Paul is.

Personally I admire his consistency but frankly he is as electable as Ralph Nader, give or take a few percentage points.

 

[nageov3t]

Without the Treaty of Versailles, there would have been no WWII and no Nazi party.

exactly.

without the Nazi party, there never would have been a mass-exodus of german physicists to the US.