Ron Paul lost my vote (maybe)

reply to post by daniel_g

I am not technologically inclined, but I believe NPR podcasts are recordings of broadcasts that have been aired and are available for re-listening. Here's a link to their podcast directory: NPR podcasts

Originally posted by DankKing420
reply to post by daniel_g

 

i might be a little crazy but i prefer a politician who doesn't flip flop on his policies especially when it comes to economic and foreign policy

Exactly, I'm trying to find out if Paul = Newt, but no one seems to get that.

As far as economic policy I like what all republican candidates offer, so no deal breaker there.

Immigration, all but Paul offer to secure the border and waste our money with some sort of fence as opposed to enforcing the laws we already have, which should be enough. That lead me to support Ron Paul in the first place.

Foreign policy was out of discussion until Ron started to get media attention. I heard him say something today and you guys want to downplay it by telling me what he said 30 years ago.

And now someone points me to a site where I must pay money to a biased radio show (It was during The Diane Rehm show, tell me that's not biased) in order to obtain a quote from the interview I want to find. I turned to ATS because I know Ron Paul has plenty of supporters here, I thought they might be current with whatever he has to say. Obviusly they care more about what he said 30 years ago.

reply to post by daniel_g


Oh Danial...stop throwing a hissy fit because none of the people who came to your thread actually heard, and can quote to you the specific NPR program, you aren't even sure about.

You been directed to transcripts, and now even pod casts....what more do you want....someone to hold your hand and walk into the voting booth with you...

reply to post by daniel_g


lets start off with this then and hopefully we can turn this thread into a positive one.

1. ron pauls economic policy is nowhere near any other republicans so dont trick yourself into making a vote for a canidate whos policy you might not support. but thats another can of worms.

2. ron paul has been consistent for 30 years even the msm admits that. his policies are still the same and his consistency is probably what draws people to him the most. i for one wouldnt support him as much as i do if he wasnt consistent.

3. to understand a foreign policy like ron pauls you have to understand the reasoning behind those statements. He argues that 9/11 happened because the USA likes to throw its military weight around all over the world and the people we affect by doing that in turn come to resent us. thus 9/11.
He argues that we should follow what the constitution says and only use our military after a strong debate in congress to decide whether its worthy. he would be totally fine with helping an ally if at first congress was consulted and they decided it was right.

4. he argues that we should bring all of our troops home and close down all our military bases around the world because we cause more harm than good. and the blowback will come eventually because of our continued presence.
I personally feel that our borders would be alot safer guarded by a couple thousand military troops instead of the border patrol. not to mention all the money that could be saved from nation building and needless waste that could be put back into infrastructure education and the economy for the betterment of our country

Originally posted by DankKing420
reply to post by daniel_g

 

lets start off with this then and hopefully we can turn this thread into a positive one.

1. ron pauls economic policy is nowhere near any other republicans so dont trick yourself into making a vote for a canidate whos policy you might not support. but thats another can of worms.

Thank you for understanding, Also you're right they are different. I should have said "in my view they weight about the same" as opposed to "they are the same".

3. to understand a foreign policy like ron pauls you have to understand the reasoning behind those statements. He argues that 9/11 happened because the USA likes to throw its military weight around all over the world and the people we affect by doing that in turn come to resent us. thus 9/11.
He argues that we should follow what the constitution says and only use our military after a strong debate in congress to decide whether its worthy. he would be totally fine with helping an ally if at first congress was consulted and they decided it was right.

I do understand and I support this, but what I heard today made me feel sick because it basically meant destroying all that, hence this thread.

I will try and figure out how those podcasts work (at least they seem to be free), but I'd still appreciate if someone knows where exactly that quote came from.

reply to post by daniel_g

I was half listening to NPR

That's where I stopped...the rest is irrelevent. Good luck my friend.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by daniel_g

 

Which nations are our friends? Why?

Would you not consider Australia, the UK or Canada as a friend? Remember that Australia has been involved in every single conflict with the US since WW2. I would wager that Australia is a highly important ally

You can't save any country when you can't save your own and you can't mend a broken world with a country as divided as yours. Retaliation is sometimes required but it's different when that country is enforcing embargoes and suffocating countries that are unwilling to bend to its will, then when those countries decide to attack they use that as their excuse. The US is already at war with many countries, they're like a virus spreading their seed of corruption all over the world.

Ron Paul seems to make more sense, he realizes that it isn't up to the US to police the world. Certainly not play judge or jury. How would you feel if some other country invaded the US and blew # up just because they didn't agree with you... oh yeah, they already did that, remember?

I feel so bad for those who enlist and head off thinking they're off to do good in the world only to end up being despised by everyone they thought they'd help. The world doesn't want it, most Americans don't seem to want it, so why go ahead with it?

Technically an U.S. President is not obligated to help any country. Unless that particular country has signed a open and transparent defensive pact with the U.S. , either a bilateral one or in a group similiar to NATO .

reply to post by daniel_g


I like the way he says stuff like that. He's no war-monger, but in a case that x ally were attacked, and if we had a treaty, then he would have no choice but to go.

Originally posted by daaskapital

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by daniel_g

 

Which nations are our friends? Why?

Would you not consider Australia, the UK or Canada as a friend? Remember that Australia has been involved in every single conflict with the US since WW2. I would wager that Australia is a highly important ally

Sure I would. Then again, you could easily say Iraq was also our friend prior to their invasion of Kuwait (as Saddam was a useful CIA asset we propped up and sold weapons to - who only became a problem when we became afraid he was endangering our oil interesting in Saudi Arabia).

Is Germany our friend? Italy? Japan? They were the great evils of the last century. What about Vietnam? Soviet Russia under Stalin (a brutal dictator likely worse than Hitler, with a higher death count) was our friend against the first three.

Iran probably would be our friend, had we not been interfering in their internal affairs since the 50s, and historically judeo-christians have a lot to thank them for (as Persia) for their king Cyrus helping the jews and allowing the return from Babylonian captivity. They also behave somewhat less distastefully to their people than some of our more extreme allies, and have the largest jewish population of the muslim world, and second only to Israel itself in the middle east.

Do you see what I'm getting at? These are shifting sands with unclear truths & motivations, and OUR interests frequently tend to have quite a lot to do with it. And people are people - it's generally not the population of a country that leads it to war as they are living their own lives more or less as we are, but rather the political or military interests of its leaders.

And if one of our close allies started to resemble our 'enemies'? We're already close there, with Israel being as hostile to us as they are from an intelligence-gathering standpoint and having the internal policies they do with the palestinians - that otherwise have lead us to attack people with similar conditions.

It is altogether too murky, too costly, and too morally foggy for us to go interjecting ourselves into the disputes of others, especially when we have so many problems we ourselves need to deal with, and an honestly questionable track record.

Take care.

Originally posted by ararisq
reply to post by followtheevidence

 

I have been to Israel a few times. They do not want our help. It is in their constitution to not accept help. This is why American troops could not come in with the Patriot Missiles, they had to train Israeli soldiers to do it. The whole discussion of aiding Israel in war is ridiculous and anti-Biblical (which makes me puzzle at people like Bachmann). Israel will defend itself.

That said, Ron Paul is pretty clear that we won't see any "Kinetic Actions" under his Presidency. Congress (the representatives of the people) declare war and he administrates it. Without a declaration he will not illegally trump the power of Congress. Sounds absolutely rational to me.

edit on 12/30/2011 by ararisq because: (no reason given)

Seems like they don't follow their constitution huh? They accept Americas help all the time in the form of weapons and foreign aid. Not to mention all of the Americans who commit treason by going to serve in the Israeli army.

if you had time to write and participate in this thread, you had ample time to go to ronpaul2012.com and read Mr Pauls platform yourself, including his foreign policy.

Mr Paul has been consistent in his foreign policy stance, it hasn't changed in a long time. how could you ever call yourself a Paul supporter being sooo uninformed as to buy this tripe.

Paul supporters would rather you didnt support him, we dont want sleeping ignorance.

if your going to vote spend the 5 minutes it would take to read his policies, otherwise your vote is done in ignorance and a waste of time, no matter who it is cast for.

eeesh this thread got petty real quick... i think the OP just doesn't invest a whole of time and energy following politics and heard something out of context of his presumed knowledge and simply came here to run it by the veteran posters and the guys that are more in the know. it's not like he just made a thread bashing RP under the guise of 'i used to be a supporter' like all the other recent ones about all that racism bs. sadly, the tone of the title kinda sounded that way so naturally he got jumped.

reply to post by RickyVelveeta


I disagree with you. The OP wanted one of us to fetch the direct quote, he missed, on a particular night, of a particular radio program. Since it seems none of us actually heard it with our own ears, we did attempt to offer him ways to verify for himself.

That wasn't good enough for him. He got angry with what we did offer.

Have a great day!

Des