Say it aint so Ron Paul?

[RoyalShock]

Even though I do think that Dr. Paul's foreign policy is dangerous, it doesn't matter. He may do well in Iowa, but won't in NH, SC, and Florida. His strongest base is in Iowa and some other midwestern states but I don't think he will be a major player for the nomination. He will stay around because he has solid, consistent support, especially from younger people but he won't be the nominee.

Another thing about Paul supporters, why are they so mean (not you Royal)? Ron Paul seems like a good enough guy, but his supporters on social media sites, like Facebook, constantly belittle and attack others. It isn't helpful to Dr. Paul, and undermines his message.

As with any large group of people there are surely varying reasons. But I am confident in saying that a majority is probably due to two factors: 1. being exasperated by the treatment they and Paul have received from others over the years, and 2. passion. And to be sure there are some who just aren't very nice.

The thing I think people should take away from Paul's supporters (not just the loud ones) is that they are a diverse bunch. I have spent the past four years observing and conversing with Paul supporters at ronpaulforums.com. The biggest thing I noticed is the unlikely unity among people with very different backgrounds and religious views. I've perused other political forums and have never seen that type of coming together.

[Maggie]

I'll reopen the discussion ...





I believe you may have exposed yourself somewhat to being subject to group think.

To call Ron Paul "naive" and a "fool" comes across ... well .. naive. Who is more learned in this circus than Ron Paul? Who has spent more time actually thinking and discussing their talking points for election after election than Ron Paul? No really, include Hillary and Obama in the mix too. Who? He has spent more time thinking through his beliefs, arguing them, and honing them than Obama HAS BEEN ALIVE. He doesn't change his policy to suit the crowd like Romney and Gingrich. He doesn't argue topics without knowing the core fundamentals like Bachmann and Cain.

That's not the definition of a naive man or a fool. It may be the definition of a poor politician. His ideas may not be mainstream enough for your liking. But I'll tell you this much ... I'd rather err on the side of freedom than err on the side of what we have now.

When it comes down to it, tell me this. Are ANY of his ideas more dangerous than the ideas of the man we have in office now? Foreign policy included?

I choose my words with care. I didn't say Paul was inconsistent, relative to the average pol. I actually get annoyed when people hammer him. That said: The answer to your last question is, yes, as it concerns Rep. Paul. Paul and those who follow him and Obama are fools. Paul, at least out of office, is equal to or worse than Obama (although not Obama post-inaugaration). I am writing with regard to foriegn policy.

Ron Paul is fool - I have watched the man for 30 years. And his foreign policy is dangerous, isolationist, and, if I must say, anti-freedom. Just take a second and look, really look at what he writes and says - the world is not Ron Paul's utopia and it will never will be.


P.S. his foreign policy, again, doesn't equal freedom. And it is sure not libertarian.

[Kung Wu]

And his foreign policy is dangerous, isolationist, and, if I must say, anti-freedom.

There's the group-think term I was looking for: "isolationist".

Just take a second and look, really look at what he writes and says - the world is not Ron Paul's utopia and it will never will be.

I agree, I need to read up more. Can you shoot me something current (within the last decade) that you find "dangerous"? It would help me tremendously, because I honestly don't know cr@p about his foreign policy other than he believes to build up a strong national defense and to stay out of other country's affairs, for the most part.

P.S. his foreign policy, again, doesn't equal freedom. And it is sure not libertarian.

Sorry, I switched topics on you without being clear. I was referring to his overarching intent to hyperfocus on personal freedoms. Although if you snap out of group-think I think you will find that having an awesome national defense IS a key ingredient in sustaining personal freedoms, but that's not what I was thinking when I wrote that.

[SB Shock]

Here is negative article on Ron Paul foreign policy

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/ron_pauls_foreign_policy_exposed.html

Here is a positive article on his foreign policy

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/on-foreign-policy-ron-paul-is-more-mainstream-than-his-opponents/249081/

Here is article on what Ron Paul says his foriegn policy is

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Foreign_Policy.htm

[Maggie]

There's the group-think term I was looking for: "isolationist".



I agree, I need to read up more. Can you shoot me something current (within the last decade) that you find "dangerous"? It would help me tremendously, because I honestly don't know cr@p about his foreign policy other than he believes to build up a strong national defense and to stay out of other country's affairs, for the most part.



Sorry, I switched topics on you without being clear. I was referring to his overarching intent to hyperfocus on personal freedoms. Although if you snap out of group-think I think you will find that having an awesome national defense IS a key ingredient in sustaining personal freedoms, but that's not what I was thinking when I wrote that.

Try Paul's answers to debate questions. Paul evisions a world where America stands idle. Your insinuation that I subscribe to group think is --- frankly if my opinion lies with talking heads (and mags) so be it doesn't mean i am wrong or right. It just is. This is too great a topic to waste on me.

[Kung Wu]

Try Paul's answers to debate questions. Paul evisions a world where America stands idle. Your insinuation that I subscribe to group think is --- frankly if my opinion lies with talking heads (and mags) so be it doesn't mean i am wrong or right. It just is. This is too great a topic to waste on me.

Ok, I'll read up SB's third link (it's the only one I care about -- what the man himself says) and see if my jaw drops in disbelief.

[SB Shock]

Ok, I'll read up SB's third link (it's the only one I care about -- what the man himself says) and see if my jaw drops in disbelief.

Problem is not what he says on paper that is the problem - it is what he says on live TV that causes issues with some.

[Kung Wu]

Problem is not what he says on paper that is the problem - it is what he says on live TV that causes issues with some.

Does he contradict what he says on paper?

[SB Shock]

Does he contradict what he says on paper?

You need to go a do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

[Kung Wu]

You need to go a do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

I have been.

[shoxlax]

His foreign policy and things like the LA riots story make him unelectable.

[Wu du Nord]

Funny thing about extremists... they tend to hold extreme views.

Oh, the humanity, er, uh, the tautology!

[RoyalShock]

Ron Paul is not a sound-bite politician and never will be. Televised debate answers are glorified sound-bites. To fully understand his positions and the logic behind them requires one to read them or listen to his speeches. And in almost every case I've seen, you can find reputable experts who agree.


The Iran stuff is a perfect example. When you delve past the media and political rhetoric, you can find out things like what mid-East leaders really mean when they talk about "Israel" and "eliminating it from the pages of time". There are centuries of history behind it that can't be communicated in a Fox News interview or debate answer.


Take the recent debate exchange between Paul and Bachmann over Iran being "just months away from obtaining a nuclear weapon". Bachmann took an IAEA report and applied her own time frame and conclusion. Paul pointed out that the report did not say anything to that effect. PolitiFact, as well as other sources have already fact-checked it and found Paul to be correct. In fact, Bachmann was found to be wrong or leaning toward false 73% of the time when making statements in debates. Newt wasn't too far behind at 59%. But because of how the media and politicians have spun the report, everyone is aghast that Paul would dare refute Bachmann's statement.


The more I've been exposed to these things the past four years, the more I realized that much of what gets to our ears through the media or politicians - as it relates to complex political issues - has been spun or misunderstood to the point its reliability is at best, questionable.

[Maggie]

Ron Paul is not a sound-bite politician and never will be. Televised debate answers are glorified sound-bites. To fully understand his positions and the logic behind them requires one to read them or listen to his speeches. And in almost every case I've seen, you can find reputable experts who agree.


The Iran stuff is a perfect example. When you delve past the media and political rhetoric, you can find out things like what mid-East leaders really mean when they talk about "Israel" and "eliminating it from the pages of time". There are centuries of history behind it that can't be communicated in a Fox News interview or debate answer.


Take the recent debate exchange between Paul and Bachmann over Iran being "just months away from obtaining a nuclear weapon". Bachmann took an IAEA report and applied her own time frame and conclusion. Paul pointed out that the report did not say anything to that effect. PolitiFact, as well as other sources have already fact-checked it and found Paul to be correct. In fact, Bachmann was found to be wrong or leaning toward false 73% of the time when making statements in debates. Newt wasn't too far behind at 59%. But because of how the media and politicians have spun the report, everyone is aghast that Paul would dare refute Bachmann's statement.


The more I've been exposed to these things the past four years, the more I realized that much of what gets to our ears through the media or politicians - as it relates to complex political issues - has been spun or misunderstood to the point its reliability is at best, questionable.

Royal, I want to support Paul. But I can't. You cannot wish away his answers in a debate - they are what they are and they are foolish. And is is not just one debate, lord knows the GOP has had many. Would I want Paul to take an cleaver to government - I think that would be fun to watch. Do I want my uncle President - no.! So in the basment he remains. You know I am prone to libertarian ideology - but not how it is represented by Paul. Not that strain.

[Kung Wu]

OK I have read up on his foreign policy. He does have a couple of eyebrow raisers -- but not as many as it seems at first glance. And Maggie's laying it on a _little_ thick (but I do get it). The single most troubling issue of concern to me, is to what extent he would shut down our bases over seas. God forbid it ever occur, we should always be in a position to strike quickly. We may be FAR overreaching in terms of number of bases (700 throughout the world in 130 countries). He may convince me that we need to close 90% of them (for example) -- but I keep seeing "close ALL" the bases. That isn't something I am in alignment with.

Close 90% of them and _substantially_ beef up the last 10% -- that would sound a lot better to the right. Instead I keep reading a more eccentric "all".

Maggie: In order to have a reasonable discussion it would be helpful to stop calling him a fool and start pointing out specific policies that concern you. Otherwise we ain't learnin' nuffin'.