What do you think would hold Dr. Paul back most from the GOP nom?

[JS80]

Being Pro-Israel hurts Israel. Our aid hurts them as we force them to buy lousy American weapons with the aid we give them. If we didn't give them aid, then they could build up their arms industry more than they already have.

Also, it comes with more strings attached. They could nuke their neighbors if we didn't give them aid.

The only thing I don't get is why they accept our so-called aid.

The Federal Reserve is an antithesis to freedom, because it is a monopoly on currency. The Fed is going to be destroyed from the bottom (at the state level) anyway as Utah is no longer going to accept FRNs for state debts. The Constitution prohibits states from accepting anything other than gold and silver for debts. Not that I'm fond of the illegal statist Constitution, but at least it gives states the ability to crash the Fed.

Amoeba, what do you think the alternative is to the Federal Reserve? Metal backed currency? That would cripple the economy and the entity who controls the supply of metals would have a monopoly on the currency. Give the power to the government? So the corporatists and the unions who own the politicians can have a monopoly on the currency?

 

[airdata]

People who are anti-Ron Paul are so used to being lied to and taken advantage of that they think he's crazy for speaking the truth.

I see people all over the internet calling Ron Paul a nut job... and yet he's clearly the best candidate out there. How dare he do things like return 100k+ of his offices budget back to the treasury... how dare he do such things. How dare he talk about things that we'd rather pretend didn't exist.

It would be nice to pretend the economy was fine and that our system isn't horribly broken, wouldn't it?

And yet people think Ron Paul is crazy for pointing out obvious facts. Sarah Palin could likely get more votes than Ron Paul simply because there are that many stupid people that think Sarah Palin was chosen for reasons other than her gender.

 

[Craig234]

People who are anti-Ron Paul are so used to being lied to and taken advantage of that they think he's crazy for speaking the truth.

I see people all over the internet calling Ron Paul a nut job... and yet he's clearly the best candidate out there. How dare he do things like return 100k+ of his offices budget back to the treasury... how dare he do such things. How dare he talk about things that we'd rather pretend didn't exist.

It would be nice to pretend the economy was fine and that our system isn't horribly broken, wouldn't it?

And yet people think Ron Paul is crazy for pointing out obvious facts. Sarah Palin could likely get more votes than Ron Paul simply because there are that many stupid people that think Sarah Palin was chosen for reasons other than her gender.

Your attempted defense of Paul really only serves to support his attackers.

It's filled with baseless assertion and straw men. Yes, 'clearly' he's the best candidate, you say, not based on any actual policies - but an anecdote like returning 100K.

In fact, you ignore his actual policies, and the disastrous consequences of them, suggesting that you 'clearly' don't understand the policies.

His policies have been discussed many times, so I won't repeat the same thing, but about your points:

So, he returned 100K. Sorry, IMO, Congressmen should have the resources to serve their constituents - the nation's issues are many and complex as are the voted of the representatives, requiring a lot of staff, and they serve the needs of over 500,000 citizens in interfacing with the federal government.

Is it more likely the 100K is some egregious 'excess' of wasted taxpayer money that Paul is the only one to correctly call out, or that it's his PR stunt - at best, his pursuing a wrongful ideology in a trivial example that would hurt the services of other Congressmen if they did it, at worst his intentionally hurting his own constituents in order to help him politically by dishonestly implying the money is a 'waste'?

Your next point is a straw man - that everyone but him 'pretend the economy is fine and that the system isn't horribly broken'.

Of course, anyone who wants to try to change things for bad or good has a harder time if they say 'things are great'.

The thing is, how do they say they're broken, which changes are they pushing?

It's widely agreed the national debt is a problem - but how much of that is the 'starve the beast' policies of the right as an alternative way to try to deny the middle class spending, as they have said previously? Take a look at the debt during our country's history, and you find the only peacetime skyrocketing of it to be under Republicans since Reagan - in contradiction to their rhetoric for small debt - and Obama who is spending to recover from the 'Great Recession' as economists widely support.

In fact, he's spending TOO LITTLE in the short term according to credible economists IMO. In the longer term, we need to fight debt.

But there are plenty who are happy to 'fight debt' by cuts that are minor to help with debt but will greatly hurt people, in the name of 'making the rich richer'.

We could protect the people's interests while balancing the budget, by a few simple measures from defense cuts to repealing the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax.

So, this whole 'everyone but Paul says the economy is great' is not honest, and not helpful to discussing the issues, highly simplistic.

While Paul has some things that are better than Palin, the bottom line is the policies, and it's not clear his are any better than hers - both terrible.

Someone as radical as Paul as likely to shoot so many bullets wildly, that they will hit all kinds of targets, some good some bad.

He'll get some rabid support from people who are thrilled at some things he says, but don't seem to care about his bad policies.

I think a good example of his issues is represented by his son, who on the one hand adopted an immoral, ideological policy to oppose the law against segregation of public facilities that was to fight the racism telling blacks they couldn't eat at tables or stay at hotels - while he tried to hide this for political reasons in his rhetoric, answering questions carefully that he 'supported the legislation against government discrimination', without any mention of the support for private segregation legality.

If you haven't understood the major problems with Paul's policies from the reading you have apparently done, I don't see how going over it again it likely to change that.

But Americans are allowed in the interest of their being in charge to vote for harmful policies; it's too bad how many abuse that right not to get better informed.

And so demagogues like Paul are able to get too much support.

It's not that he's 'all bad', he's not. But he's a mix that includes terrible policies. Many, many Americans would be greatly harmed by his backwards ideology.

The best defense of Paul might be the one that says our system is so badly corrupted by powerful interests that some radical change might be helpful, but his radical changes aren't the ones that would help, rather they would simply destroy democracy and the rights of the people and give the private powers far more power.

We might get the pleasure of seeing him - like Greenspan - say later how he was wrong, but that'd be pretty small comfort.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What aren't you following? Someone said if wouldn't matter of RP won PotUS b/c a president is powerless if opposed by Congress. I pointed out PotUS is incredibly powerful even when opposed by Congress. Do you have a point?

Can you point out where RP has abused authority?

 

[jonks]

Can you point out where RP has abused authority?

Why should I point out something I never claimed? You have serious mental problems.

Is anyone else following what this guy is after? I'm honestly confused, I have no idea what he wants.

 

[Anarchist420]

Amoeba, what do you think the alternative is to the Federal Reserve? Metal backed currency? That would cripple the economy and the entity who controls the supply of metals would have a monopoly on the currency. Give the power to the government? So the corporatists and the unions who own the politicians can have a monopoly on the currency?

I support competing currencies and 100% reserve banking.

People who are anti-Ron Paul are so used to being lied to and taken advantage of that they think he's crazy for speaking the truth.

I see people all over the internet calling Ron Paul a nut job... and yet he's clearly the best candidate out there. How dare he do things like return 100k+ of his offices budget back to the treasury... how dare he do such things. How dare he talk about things that we'd rather pretend didn't exist.

It would be nice to pretend the economy was fine and that our system isn't horribly broken, wouldn't it?

And yet people think Ron Paul is crazy for pointing out obvious facts. Sarah Palin could likely get more votes than Ron Paul simply because there are that many stupid people that think Sarah Palin was chosen for reasons other than her gender.

:thumbsup:
His virtues alone, which no else has, should be enough to get him elected.

Your attempted defense of Paul really only serves to support his attackers.

It's filled with baseless assertion and straw men. Yes, 'clearly' he's the best candidate, you say, not based on any actual policies - but an anecdote like returning 100K.

In fact, you ignore his actual policies, and the disastrous consequences of them, suggesting that you 'clearly' don't understand the policies.

His policies have been discussed many times, so I won't repeat the same thing, but about your points:

So, he returned 100K. Sorry, IMO, Congressmen should have the resources to serve their constituents - the nation's issues are many and complex as are the voted of the representatives, requiring a lot of staff, and they serve the needs of over 500,000 citizens in interfacing with the federal government.

Is it more likely the 100K is some egregious 'excess' of wasted taxpayer money that Paul is the only one to correctly call out, or that it's his PR stunt - at best, his pursuing a wrongful ideology in a trivial example that would hurt the services of other Congressmen if they did it, at worst his intentionally hurting his own constituents in order to help him politically by dishonestly implying the money is a 'waste'?

Your next point is a straw man - that everyone but him 'pretend the economy is fine and that the system isn't horribly broken'.

Of course, anyone who wants to try to change things for bad or good has a harder time if they say 'things are great'.

The thing is, how do they say they're broken, which changes are they pushing?

It's widely agreed the national debt is a problem - but how much of that is the 'starve the beast' policies of the right as an alternative way to try to deny the middle class spending, as they have said previously? Take a look at the debt during our country's history, and you find the only peacetime skyrocketing of it to be under Republicans since Reagan - in contradiction to their rhetoric for small debt - and Obama who is spending to recover from the 'Great Recession' as economists widely support.

In fact, he's spending TOO LITTLE in the short term according to credible economists IMO. In the longer term, we need to fight debt.

But there are plenty who are happy to 'fight debt' by cuts that are minor to help with debt but will greatly hurt people, in the name of 'making the rich richer'.

We could protect the people's interests while balancing the budget, by a few simple measures from defense cuts to repealing the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax.

So, this whole 'everyone but Paul says the economy is great' is not honest, and not helpful to discussing the issues, highly simplistic.

While Paul has some things that are better than Palin, the bottom line is the policies, and it's not clear his are any better than hers - both terrible.

Someone as radical as Paul as likely to shoot so many bullets wildly, that they will hit all kinds of targets, some good some bad.

He'll get some rabid support from people who are thrilled at some things he says, but don't seem to care about his bad policies.

I think a good example of his issues is represented by his son, who on the one hand adopted an immoral, ideological policy to oppose the law against segregation of public facilities that was to fight the racism telling blacks they couldn't eat at tables or stay at hotels - while he tried to hide this for political reasons in his rhetoric, answering questions carefully that he 'supported the legislation against government discrimination', without any mention of the support for private segregation legality.

If you haven't understood the major problems with Paul's policies from the reading you have apparently done, I don't see how going over it again it likely to change that.

But Americans are allowed in the interest of their being in charge to vote for harmful policies; it's too bad how many abuse that right not to get better informed.

And so demagogues like Paul are able to get too much support.

It's not that he's 'all bad', he's not. But he's a mix that includes terrible policies. Many, many Americans would be greatly harmed by his backwards ideology.

The best defense of Paul might be the one that says our system is so badly corrupted by powerful interests that some radical change might be helpful, but his radical changes aren't the ones that would help, rather they would simply destroy democracy and the rights of the people and give the private powers far more power.

We might get the pleasure of seeing him - like Greenspan - say later how he was wrong, but that'd be pretty small comfort.

1st things first, Greenspan was never really a libertarian. He knew he was wrong from the beginning.

2nd of all, democracy gives rights to the majority. Democracy does nothing to protect individual rights. You apparently have no idea how much power a good percentage of the private sector gets from democracy.

3rd things 3rd, Dr. Rand Paul said he was against Title II of the Civil Rights Act and that's also the only part I'm against. We believe that if it's paid for by the tax payer, then it should be open to all. What we don't support, is aggression against individuals. All government is aggressive, especially government which dictates that individuals may not serve people who they don't want to.

Finally, I fail to see how anyone could think that it would be in the best interests of business to discriminate based upon ethnicity anyway.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Why should I point out something I never claimed? You have serious mental problems.

Is anyone else following what this guy is after? I'm honestly confused, I have no idea what he wants.

The point is simple and you know it. You cannot point out that he abused power or that he is dishonest. I'm forcing you to explain your reasons and in turn exposing the fallacy of your argument. This unnerves you to the point of aggravation. To derail any further inquisition an attempt at discrediting the inquisitor seems to be the best defense.

 

[jonks]

The point is simple and you know it. You cannot point out that he abused power or that he is dishonest. I'm forcing you to explain your reasons and in turn exposing the fallacy of your argument. This unnerves you to the point of aggravation. To derail any further inquisition an attempt at discrediting the inquisitor seems to be the best defense.

With all sincere due respect, you have the reading comprehension of a toilet brush. Excepting my joke about people liking roads, let's review the entirety of my posts in this thread, starting with the one I responded to.

****
soulcougher73: And since we all know the POTUS doesnt have the real power he would be left high and dry with any ideas he tried to push forth

jonks: ? The executive is ascendant at the moment and has been for about a decade {Nothing about RP here, just a statement rebutting the assertion that a POTUS doesn't have any 'real power'}

****

PC Surgeon: Your point?

Jonks: That claiming the President of the United States "can't do anything" is, to put it extraordinarily mildly, not a fully accurate statement. {Again, nothing about RP}

****

PC Surgeon: How does this pertain to Ron Paul?

Jonks: What aren't you following? Someone said if wouldn't matter of RP won PotUS b/c a president is powerless if opposed by Congress. I pointed out PotUS is incredibly powerful even when opposed by Congress. Do you have a point? {Once again I made no assertions about RP. I am speaking solely about the office of the President.}

****

Soulcougher73: How is he powerful if he is oppossed by all the other power players?
He is not a Dem for sure and he is an outside in the GOP party. So he would get no real support for his ideas from either side.

Jonks: I think you are underestimating the PotUS. He could promise to veto everything congress passes until they accede to some of his wishes. He can issue executive orders. He can appoint like-minded heads of the various federal agencies. He can recall our deployed military from the 4 corners of the earth....now I think RP is honest but his ideas reflect 5% of the country. My point wasn't about RP so much as everyone thinking the Pres somehow has no power if congress doesn't like him or his policies.

{So I reiterated, again, I'm talking about the office of the president. I've made zero judgments about RP and even said I think he's honest. My entire line of posts has to do with SC's assertion that a Potus facing an opposition congress is powerless. RP is tengential to this discussion. Do you see that yet??}

****

PC Surgeon: Can you point out where RP has abused authority?

Jonks: {now I'm really confused} Where did I say that? WTF are you talking about? Anyone know wtf he is talking about?

PC Surgeon: You're deflecting!

Jonks: You're fucking insane and can't read.


I hope that settles this.

 

[NoStateofMind]

With all sincere due respect, you have the reading comprehension of a toilet brush. Excepting my joke about people liking roads, let's review the entirety of my posts in this thread, starting with the one I responded to.

****
soulcougher73: And since we all know the POTUS doesnt have the real power he would be left high and dry with any ideas he tried to push forth

jonks: ? The executive is ascendant at the moment and has been for about a decade {Nothing about RP here, just a statement rebutting the assertion that a POTUS doesn't have any 'real power'}

****

PC Surgeon: Your point?

Jonks: That claiming the President of the United States "can't do anything" is, to put it extraordinarily mildly, not a fully accurate statement. {Again, nothing about RP}

****

PC Surgeon: How does this pertain to Ron Paul?

Jonks: What aren't you following? Someone said if wouldn't matter of RP won PotUS b/c a president is powerless if opposed by Congress. I pointed out PotUS is incredibly powerful even when opposed by Congress. Do you have a point? {Once again I made no assertions about RP. I am speaking solely about the office of the President.}

****

Soulcougher73: How is he powerful if he is oppossed by all the other power players?
He is not a Dem for sure and he is an outside in the GOP party. So he would get no real support for his ideas from either side.

Jonks: I think you are underestimating the PotUS. He could promise to veto everything congress passes until they accede to some of his wishes. He can issue executive orders. He can appoint like-minded heads of the various federal agencies. He can recall our deployed military from the 4 corners of the earth....now I think RP is honest but his ideas reflect 5% of the country. My point wasn't about RP so much as everyone thinking the Pres somehow has no power if congress doesn't like him or his policies.

{So I reiterated, again, I'm talking about the office of the president. I've made zero judgments about RP and even said I think he's honest. My entire line of posts has to do with SC's assertion that a Potus facing an opposition congress is powerless. RP is tengential to this discussion. Do you see that yet??}

****

PC Surgeon: Can you point out where RP has abused authority?

Jonks: {now I'm really confused} Where did I say that? WTF are you talking about? Anyone know wtf he is talking about?

PC Surgeon: You're deflecting!

Jonks: You're fucking insane and can't read.


I hope that settles this.

Ron Paul IS the discussion here. I know you want to make it seem like it isn't and even posted as such in this thread. However, we aren't talking about just anyone being POTUS, we are specifically talking about Ron Paul and what would happen if he were President. Presidential powers and the other baffoons you have voted for are the ones usurping this new found control. You admit he is the most honest, that he would stay within the boundries of the Constitution yet "I like roads". Sure, to you I may be insane, but those who vote for the same piece of shit expecting a different smell is the very definition of insane.

 

[jonks]

Ron Paul IS the discussion here. I know you want to make it seem like it isn't and even posted as such in this thread. However, we aren't talking about just anyone being POTUS, we are specifically talking about Ron Paul and what would happen if he were President. Presidential powers and the other baffoons you have voted for are the ones usurping this new found control. You admit he is the most honest, that he would stay within the boundries of the Constitution yet "I like roads". Sure, to you I may be insane, but those who vote for the same piece of shit expecting a different smell is the very definition of insane.

Do you know what a tangent is? I don't think you do.

 

[Craig234]

Do you know what a tangent is? I don't think you do.

John Boehner is a tan gent.

 

[BoberFett]

Now I think RP is honest but his ideas reflect 5% of the country. My point wasn't about RP so much as everyone thinking the Pres somehow has no power if congress doesn't like him or his policies.

Perhaps the fact that his ideas are shared by only 5% (that's generous, it's probably less than that) of the population may have something to do with why this country is fucked.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why should I point out something I never claimed? You have serious mental problems.

Is anyone else following what this guy is after? I'm honestly confused, I have no idea what he wants.

Im not really sure either and im part of this weird 3 way quoting lol

 

[jonks]

Perhaps the fact that his ideas are shared by only 5% (that's generous, it's probably less than that) of the population may have something to do with why this country is fucked.

If he stuck to articulating the perils of oversized govt, he might gain a little more traction. But he throws in too much change all at once. Dismantling the entire federal govt alphabet soup of agencies makes people wonder how all that gets replaced. Since it's too much to process they tune him out. He should work incrementally. And drop the gold standard bit, it makes people roll their eyes.

Focus on the things that appeals to responsible members of both parties. Like stopping the fracking drug war we spend untold billions on. Reduce but not necessarily eliminate our military presence overseas and reduce military expenditures over time so we can transition personnel into the private sector instead of dumping them on unemployment.

If you tell people you want to dismantle the dept of education, homeland security, IRS, EPA, etc, you scare folks who might vote for you, esp conservatives who are resistant to big changes. Rand has similar positions but doesn't seem quite as married to them, maybe he'll have a better shot.

 

[Anarchist420]

Why am I not shocked that you view prevention of thermonuclear war as a negative?

I'm a non-interventionist and I wish that all the people of Israel would be at peace with their neighbors, intermarrying and reproducing with each other, all while forgetting their past conflicts.

However, it is not Confederational for one nation to intervene in the affairs of other nations, which is what I was alluding to when I said the Federal government's aid prevents Israel from nuking their neighbors.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Do you know what a tangent is? I don't think you do.

Do you know what insinuation means? I think you do.

 

[jonks]

Do you know what insinuation means? I think you do.

You've got a derangement syndrome of some sort.

I was speaking solely and entirely to the point about a Potus being powerless. It could have been another thread titled 'what can a potus do if all congress disagrees with him' and my post would have read the same. It was a tangential discussion about political power. The fact that I find Paul a refreshing voice of honesty should contradict any thoughts you had that I was insinuating some sort of abuse of power, but you, as I said, are deranged. The fact that I routinely and vehemently criticize various political figures and would not hesitate for a second to do so to Paul if I found something worth attacking should also point out that I have nothing to hide here. You are projecting because your mind is warped. I understand Dr. Paul is a doctor. Write to him, perhaps he can recommend something for you. Helping you is beyond my power.

 

[NoStateofMind]

How does this pertain to Ron Paul?

What aren't you following? Someone said if wouldn't matter of RP won PotUS b/c a president is powerless if opposed by Congress. I pointed out PotUS is incredibly powerful even when opposed by Congress. Do you have a point?

You admit he is the most honest, that he would stay within the boundries of the Constitution yet "I like roads".

Do you know what insinuation means? I think you do.

You've got a derangement syndrome of some sort.

You are insinuating that RP would take advantage of these new expanded powers. Is that not right? Do you think he would?

Please save the name calling for the schoolyard.

 

[jonks]

You are insinuating that RP would take advantage of these new expanded powers. Is that not right? Do you think he would?

What new expanded powers? The veto, appointment power and executive orders have been around for a while I hear. It is not abuse to employ them. A president faced with a congress which opposed his every move should use his leverage to enact his agenda. He'd be stupid not to. I still have absolutely no idea what bug is up your ass about this.

 

[theeedude]

What do you think would hold Dr. Paul back most from the GOP nom?

Having an IQ above room temperature Even though he is generally wrong, it does appear like he actually puts some thought into what he's talking about, which makes him too cool for GOP school. He's what they would call an "elitist."

 

[BoberFett]

If he stuck to articulating the perils of oversized govt, he might gain a little more traction. But he throws in too much change all at once. Dismantling the entire federal govt alphabet soup of agencies makes people wonder how all that gets replaced. Since it's too much to process they tune him out. He should work incrementally. And drop the gold standard bit, it makes people roll their eyes.

Focus on the things that appeals to responsible members of both parties. Like stopping the fracking drug war we spend untold billions on. Reduce but not necessarily eliminate our military presence overseas and reduce military expenditures over time so we can transition personnel into the private sector instead of dumping them on unemployment.

If you tell people you want to dismantle the dept of education, homeland security, IRS, EPA, etc, you scare folks who might vote for you, esp conservatives who are resistant to big changes. Rand has similar positions but doesn't seem quite as married to them, maybe he'll have a better shot.

You make too much sense. You'll never make it in politics.

God, now I'm depressed.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Being Pro-Israel hurts Israel. Our aid hurts them as we force them to buy lousy American weapons with the aid we give them. If we didn't give them aid, then they could build up their arms industry more than they already have.

Also, it comes with more strings attached. They could nuke their neighbors if we didn't give them aid.

The only thing I don't get is why they accept our so-called aid.

Excuse me sir, could you repeat that? I believe I had something crazy in my ear.

 

[mizzou]

people like paul are needed in government, they help balance and stabilize central opinions

 

[Craig234]

people like paul are needed in government, they help balance and stabilize central opinions

Yes, like Charles Mansons are needed in society to balance the law-abiding.

We NEED people who call for hugely harmful policies, to balance the good policies.

 

[Anarchist420]

Excuse me sir, could you repeat that? I believe I had something crazy in my ear.

http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/45864

http://www.indynewsisrael.com/us-aid-hurting-israels-economy

http://www.jims-israel.org/pdf/PRUSAidEnglish.pdf

You didn't have anything crazy in your ear.