Face the Nation 11/11/07
God I love this guy. I know he comes off a little wacky to some, and he probably – I’m being generous – doesn’t stand a chance in hell of being elected. But I don’t care what your political philosophy is, you’ve got to respect someone in national politics
who isn’t afraid to be honest and blunt when voicing his policy positions/ opinions (as opposed to a whole lot of doublespeak) – especially positions that aren’t exactly towing the party line. If he’s still around by the time my state has it’s primary I’ll be voting for him.
He’s catching on…and getting better at interviewing.
I just wish he people would understand that he doesn’t have the intention of just eliminating everything in one fell swoop. He still has to work with congress for much of what he wants to get done. If he were to get elected it would be the best educational experience the country could possibly have.
Good point. People tend to forget we have a mixed constitution, that the president isn’t all powerful.
Regardless, national politics would suddenly become much more fun if this guy wins (which he wont). Everyone’s always lamenting the divisive nature of national politics, that members of one party can’t works with members of the other. Well, elect Ron Paul, and watch how fast the majority of both parties work together against him. At the very least, we’d have national grid lock for four years…I’d rather have the fucks doing nothing than making things worse. (Which, it seems to me anyways, are the only two things our government is capable of.)
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
Regardless, national politics would suddenly become much more fun if this guy wins (which he wont).
[/quote]
Why do you insist on being negative? Who cares what his chances are? Express yourself with your vote and don’t worry about the small stuff. A positive attitude is what is driving his campaign.
Besides this you don’t really know (and no one does) what the outcome will be.
He has a refreshing take on things. He’s better than hillary. Well, so is dog shit, but I digress.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Regardless, national politics would suddenly become much more fun if this guy wins (which he wont).
Why do you insist on being negative? Who cares what his chances are? Express yourself with your vote and don’t worry about the small stuff. A positive attitude is what is driving his campaign.
Besides this you don’t really know (and no one does) what the outcome will be.
[/quote]
You’re right, it’s a hard trap to avoid, though. I’m just very pessimistic by nature, and we’ve been on a course the last hundred years that has conditioned most people to think in a certain way with regards to national government, and most of the positions Ron Paul holds strike the modern American ear as ass backwards. But you’re right, I don’t really know and I hope I’m pleasantly surprised.
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
… At the very least, we’d have national grid lock for four years…I’d rather have the fucks doing nothing than making things worse. (Which, it seems to me anyways, are the only two things our government is capable of.)
[/quote]
Good point.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Fortunately, we will never have to make that choice because as a republican Paul is a non entity. Unless of course he runs a third party candidacy as a libertarian, in which case he would guarantee a Clinton Presidency as 2 or 3 million nuts would vote for him.
[/quote]
I agree with your “non entity” point, but if you don’t mind me asking, why should those hypothetical 2 to 3 million voters be classified as “nuts?” Is it the underlying political philosophy? or is it that they would just be “throwing away” their votes? or is it something else entirely?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Regardless of his beliefs I want you to look square into the eyes of Ron Paul and tell me you’d feel comfortable with him as being the leader of the free world and controlling the entire nuclear arsenal of the USA.
All political ideology aside…the man is not up to it.
[/quote]
Mick, does the president of the US need superpowers or something? I think Paul is smart enough to pick the right people for the job and that is all the president really has to do. You seem to forget the idiot that currently thinks he rules over the entire world. We need to fix this mess. GWB created an environment that has made a man like Ron Paul possible. Thank you Georgie!
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Fortunately, we will never have to make that choice because as a republican Paul is a non entity. Unless of course he runs a third party candidacy as a libertarian, in which case he would guarantee a Clinton Presidency as 2 or 3 million nuts would vote for him.
I agree with your “non entity” point, but if you don’t mind me asking, why should those hypothetical 2 to 3 million voters be classified as “nuts?” Is it the underlying political philosophy? or is it that they would just be “throwing away” their votes? or is it something else entirely?
Regardless of his beliefs I want you to look square into the eyes of Ron Paul and tell me you’d feel comfortable with him as being the leader of the free world and controlling the entire nuclear arsenal of the USA.
All political ideology aside…the man is not up to it.
[/quote]
Fair enough – I disagree, but that seems a reasonable position.
Personally, I don’t think he is the type of person who could be the “leader of the free world;” he also knows that’s not his job as laid out in the Constitution, and that’s the type of person I want as president. But, at the same time, he’s not an isolationist, he believes in free trade and in being a force in international politics – he just disagrees with the assumption that the US needs a military presence everywhere. He feels both as an international and national power our federal government has overstepped its bounds. I agree. The only type of person needed to effect change in that regard is someone who is honest and unafraid to do something about it – two qualities I think Paul has in spades. (Hopefully, that doesn’t make me a nut!)
Besides, I’m eager just to get someone into office who will shake things up a little. The two parties we have right now – I think you’ll agree? – are a fucking joke. I watch the presidential debates and rallies and press-conferences, and you can just tell no one is being straight forward; when they aren’t reciting stock answers, they are all doing mental calculations, no doubt recalling some focus group study done by campaign staff, trying to find the answer that will offend the least number of people. What comes out is usually a bunch of meaningless doublespeak…
They’re full of shit, all of 'em.
I know this means I’m not being practical, but the last time I decided to do the practical thing, I voted for Bush…ain’t making that mistake again!
Aside from that, can you clarify the “nuclear arsenal” point? Do you think Paul is more apt to use it?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.[/quote]
You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Regardless of his beliefs I want you to look square into the eyes of Ron Paul and tell me you’d feel comfortable with him as being the leader of the free world and controlling the entire nuclear arsenal of the USA.
All political ideology aside…the man is not up to it.
Mick, does the president of the US need superpowers or something? I think Paul is smart enough to pick the right people for the job and that is all the president really has to do. You seem to forget the idiot that currently thinks he rules over the entire world. We need to fix this mess. GWB created an environment that has made a man like Ron Paul possible. Thank you Georgie!
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.[/quote]
moRon,
Who would he “pick” in his cabinet?
Who would ally with this guy?
He’s alienated his entire party with his holier-than-thou crap.
Usually, a candidate has allies to fill out his cabinet.
This is what is so sad about your fanaticism. You aren’t thinking of the ramifications if the guy wins.
He won’t be able to do anything within the democracy. He’d have no one to ally with.
This guy couldn’t hash out a compromise with his heavy handed “I know better than you” approach.
Successful Presidential candidates bring their party’s best and brightest to the cabinet.
paul would have no one.
JeffR
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.
You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.[/quote]
Well, define “better.” If he means better suited to correct the mistakes that have done much to undermine the foundation of this country, than I think he has a point. The only reason being Paul recognizes and is willing to do something about the problem. He certainly isn’t the most intelligent or well-spoken, nor is he the best military tactician or…well, any number of other qualities past presidents have had; just, perhaps, the most honest in the last hundred years or so. Which is what we need right now, in my opinion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.[/quote]
OH MY GOD!!!
moRon, if you aren’t ron paul, you need to get help, IMMEDIATELY.
If you are ron paul, get help IMMEDIATELY.
Are YOU SERIOUSLY trying to maintain that this guy has more smarts and political acumen, than say THEODORE ROOSEVELT?
If he is so fantastic, why in the name of GOD is he a mere Representative?
You need to be banished for that one sentence.
JeffR
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.
You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Well, define “better.” If he means better suited to correct the mistakes that have done much to undermine the foundation of this country, than I think he has a point. The only reason being Paul recognizes and is willing to do something about the problem. He certainly isn’t the most intelligent or well-spoken, nor is he the best military tactician or…well, any number of other qualities past presidents have had; just, perhaps, the most honest in the last hundred years or so. Which is what we need right now, in my opinion.[/quote]
I agree that we need change. I have a libertarian streak tempered with a realistic streak. I disagree with Paul’s stance on the war. I think he has a real naive belief that if we pull out of everywhere things will fix themselves to our benefit. We have learned that isn’t very likely and with the world the way it is today the other side of the planet is mere hours away. It cannot be ignored as it could be in the age of wooden ships.
The more I learn about him the less I like some of his positions. If he was elected president I think it would be a step back for our country.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
IvanDmitritch wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…
I would say without hesitation Ron Paul is better than any person who has EVER run for this position.
You need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Well, define “better.” If he means better suited to correct the mistakes that have done much to undermine the foundation of this country, than I think he has a point. The only reason being Paul recognizes and is willing to do something about the problem. He certainly isn’t the most intelligent or well-spoken, nor is he the best military tactician or…well, any number of other qualities past presidents have had; just, perhaps, the most honest in the last hundred years or so. Which is what we need right now, in my opinion.
I agree that we need change. I have a libertarian streak tempered with a realistic streak. I disagree with Paul’s stance on the war. I think he has a real naive belief that if we pull out of everywhere things will fix themselves to our benefit. We have learned that isn’t very likely and with the world the way it is today the other side of the planet is mere hours away. It cannot be ignored as it could be in the age of wooden ships.
The more I learn about him the less I like some of his positions. If he was elected president I think it would be a step back for our country.
[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I see your point and I understand it. But come on! When have we “learned that isn’t very likely?” When was the last time we pulled outta anywhere? I’m not just talking about Iraq here…Germany!? I mean really, why?
I could be totally wrong – there’s a shit load I don’t know compared with what I do – but I can’t help but feel that a number of the problems we are faced with are a product of our sticking our nose in everyone’s business for the last hundred or so years. It’s just like what I often hear conservatives say about socialist-like policies in this country, “more of the thing that got us here in the first place isn’t going to make the situation better.” I’m not saying everything is going to be peaches and cream if we elect Ron Paul, we have too sufficiently dug ourselves into a deep hole to think we can get out of it without getting dirty, but I’d rather not keep digging. In my opinion, we are essentially living out Ben Franklin’s definition of insanity.
[quote]IvanDmitritch wrote:
…
Don’t get me wrong, I see your point and I understand it. But come on! When have we “learned that isn’t very likely?” When was the last time we pulled outta anywhere? I’m not just talking about Iraq here…Germany!? I mean really, why?
[/quote]
Think about Afghanistan. If we would have kept our nose in it after the Soviets pulled out we would probably be in better shape. We ignored it, it turned to shit and then we were attacked.
Why are we in Germany? That is a better question. I would say if we didn’t need the base to operate out of then close the suckers. I favor keeping bases all over the world. I favor the US being the strongest nation. That is just the way I am.
If we changed our policies we would lose some weaker enemies but in the long run someone else would step up and cause problems and we would be dealing from a position of weakness.
I understand what you are saying but I think Ron Paul wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need to fix a lot of things but there are good reasons those things exist in the first place.
His plan isn’t to fix things. It is to eliminate them.