Ron Paul Debate 15 Dec 2011

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

He sounded good till about 11 min in when asked about Iran with a nuclear weapon.

IMO I think he actually needs to do a face to face with Iran president for like an hour.

**KingCracker**

I used to be a big fan of his. The problem with Ron Paul though, is hes a bit to out there for his own good. Sucks too, because I think he could do some good things to this country, some bad too but mostly good IMO

**Huffy**

KingCracker wrote:I used to be a big fan of his. The problem with Ron Paul though, is hes a bit to out there for his own good. Sucks too, because I think he could do some good things to this country, some bad too but mostly good IMO

^This, but he's too far out to ever be effectively elected

**Rented Tritium**

I disagree with like 80% of his positions, but those positions are VERY clear and haven't changed one bit.

That rules.

We never get candidates who stick to a core principle. They all level and clarify and bounce around depending on polls. Ron Paul says crazy things but he actually MEANS THEM which is great.

**CptJake**

KingCracker wrote:I used to be a big fan of his. The problem with Ron Paul though, is hes a bit to out there for his own good. Sucks too, because I think he could do some good things to this country, some bad too but mostly good IMO

Rented Tritium wrote:I disagree with like 80% of his positions, but those positions are VERY clear and haven't changed one bit.

That rules.

We never get candidates who stick to a core principle. They all level and clarify and bounce around depending on polls. Ron Paul says crazy things but he actually MEANS THEM which is great.

Assuming you agree with all his ideas and principles, what has he ever done to convince anyone he can actually lead the country or put his ideas into action?

He has been a politician since the mid-70s. He has submitted a crap ton of bills, but how many were actually made into laws?

I just don't see him as a Do-er. He is good with theory, but he has trouble even communicating those coherently a lot of the time. I just don't think he could be effective at getting anything done as president, even if I thought what he wanted to get done was right.

**SlaveToDorkness**

My neck hurts from so much nodding. Paul is my man for this!

**Rented Tritium**

CptJake wrote:
Assuming you agree with all his ideas and principles, what has he ever done to convince anyone he can actually lead the country or put his ideas into action?

He has been a politician since the mid-70s. He has submitted a crap ton of bills, but how many were actually made into laws?

I just don't see him as a Do-er. He is good with theory, but he has trouble even communicating those coherently a lot of the time. I just don't think he could be effective at getting anything done as president, even if I thought what he wanted to get done was right.

Thing is, if you DO agree with his ideas, so few other people in the race do that you might just chance it and hope he gets a good cabinet.

**SlaveToDorkness**

I see hi mas a change in the thought process in DC. Something we desperately need.

**Frazzled**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:My neck hurts from so much nodding. Paul is my man for this!

Then you must like racists. Look up in detail the near war that broke out between immigrant and native fishermen in Texas. Some of his thoughts were absolute Stromlike.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Link or you're trolling, Frazz.

**Frazzled**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Link or you're trolling, Frazz.

Look it up. You'll have to look hard, but its old Texas history.
He's a crazy wackjob who believes the government was somehow involved in 9/11. He thinks the Federal Reserve should be done away with and the gold standard reinstated. The boy is not right in the head, and I am a Libertarian so he's really crazy.
Here's some interesting quotes from him.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/09/07/10-quotes-that-make-ron-paul-sound-racist/

**SlaveToDorkness**

Seriously? The fact that race was addressed in out-of-context quotes makes him racist?

Now my eyes are hurting from so much rolling.

**Frazzled**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Seriously? The fact that race was addressed in out-of-context quotes makes him racist?

Now my eyes are hurting from so much rolling.

No he's said a lot of things, those are just some easy ones.

EDIT: I realize you don't believe me, but thats ok. He has no chance so I don't care enough to...care.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Yeah, I don't see any of us having a chance much.

**Frazzled**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Yeah, I don't see any of us having a chance much.

Well, Frazzled has yet to announce. I'm waiting for the Republican field to collapse, then I shall swoop in, the great savior. Remember, a vote for Frazzled is a vote for Freedom.

**ShumaGorath**

He doesn't need the racism, he's economically incompetent, doesn't understand the barest basics of foreign policy, and seems to lack an understanding of the functions of the government in which he is a member at a very basic level.

He's an idiot and many of his supporters are as ignorant as he is.

**Albatross**

He sounded pretty sensible on Iran, I think. Much more so than the prom-queen standing next to him, in any case.

**reds8n**

let's as least try and maintain a level of decorum please.

Thanks.

**ShumaGorath**

reds8n wrote: let's as least try and maintain a level of decorum please.

Thanks.

You deleted my are! I demand my are back.

**malfred**

Albatross wrote:He sounded pretty sensible on Iran, I think. Much more so than the prom-queen standing next to him, in any case.

I don't think it's possible to score points against Bachman.

I'm incompetent at both debate and politics, and even I could probably school her.

Provided I actually read some news first.

**reds8n**

ShumaGorath wrote:
reds8n wrote: let's as least try and maintain a level of decorum please.

Thanks.

You deleted my are! I demand my are back.

Apologies.

**Jihadin**

Well its showing he has third place after the debate. Bachmann...well....I guess since she's going down she's taking all kinds of shots. Gingrich though way back in the day...way way back...when he still had some color in his hair did lobby once for Medicaid I think. Fox news dropped that one this morning. Perry actually debated a bit...

**Grakmar**

I'm buying most of what Ron Paul is selling. However, there's 4 big reasons I won't support him:

1) He seems to have no grasp of foreign policy. Returning the US to a pre-WWI isolationist stance won't be good for anybody.

2) He has no ability to compromise, so as president he won't be able to get anything done.

3) He wants to dissolve many of the most important part of the US Government (Department of Education for one)

4) He would be by far the oldest president, and would be 81 at the end of his first term. Physical and mental health over those 4 years would be a BIG concern.

**Lint**

The racist tag is out of line. I've read the arguments for him being a racist and with an understanding of his postitions about personal freedom and free-markets none of those accusations hold up.

As far as his "crazy" ideas about a gold standard and economics I'll say this: He has been right about everything so far thats happened to the world economy, and has been accurately predicting this recession for the last decade at least. His crazier ideas about what he would do as president are not things that the president has the authority to accomplish by himself, they're simply goals that he'd like to see the Federal government work towards. And while a return to the gold standard would be devastating to the economy, a move in that direction and away from the debt-laden fiat currency we currently have could certainly be a good thing.

On foreign policy, neither party likes him. The left wants to homgenize and placate the entire world and destroy America's autonomy. The right is full of warmongers who would like to shove "democracy" (how's that working out in Pakistan btw?) down the world's throat and get rich in the process.

He has never claimed that 9/11 was an inside job so please don't misrepresent him. He has however said that 9/11 was a direct result of our forieng policy in the middle east over the course of the last 5 decades or so.

** for the record I'm a huge Ron Paul honk **

**Ouze**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Link or you're trolling, Frazz.

I wouldn't hold your breath for a source.

**Joey**

Never seen why this guy is so popular with Americans on the internet (presumably not irl or he'd be presidant).
Seems like a right-wing nutjob to me. Abolishing government? No...no.

**ShumaGorath**

As far as his "crazy" ideas about a gold standard and economics I'll say this: He has been right about everything so far thats happened to the world economy, and has been accurately predicting this recession for the last decade at least.

Please, cite an example where he was "Right about the global economy".

On foreign policy, neither party likes him. The left wants to homgenize and placate the entire world and destroy America's autonomy. The right is full of warmongers who would like to shove "democracy" (how's that working out in Pakistan btw?) down the world's throat and get rich in the process.

wait, scratch that. It'll be a soap box rant if you try.

**Lint**

1) He seems to have no grasp of foreign policy. Returning the US to a pre-WWI isolationist stance won't be good for anybody.

How is the current policy any better, or making Americans any safer? Why on earth do we need military bases in 60 other countries? How is the policy of "pre-emptive strikes" and undeclared military actions improving the USA's reputation, or helping to keep any of us safe?

2) He has no ability to compromise, so as president he won't be able to get anything done.

Perhaps, but he understands the limits of the office and won't backdoor a bunch of crap into law either. Also, I'd say that none of those guys in congress know how to compromise, rather they are really good in a circle jerk. Ron Paul get's ostracized for being a malcontent when he simply refuses to play by the rules and stands firmly for what he believes.

3) He wants to dissolve many of the most important part of the US Government (Department of Education for one)

Read the statistics. The bloated amount of beurocracy has completely derailed and hamstrung education in this country. Everything has progressively gotten worse since the Fed has taken control.

4) He would be by far the oldest president, and would be 81 at the end of his first term. Physical and mental health over those 4 years would be a BIG concern.

I don't know how to respond to this except by saying that it won't stop me from voting for him.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Please, cite an example where he was "Right about the global economy".

http://www.dailypaul.com/188866/economists-who-predicted-the-current-recession-pick-ron-paul-to-lead-us-out-of-the-crisis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8XYF0LLrk&feature=related

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=393&Itemid=60

**ShumaGorath**

You do realize that half of the things you just posted never happened, and that his predictions were wrong? Two thirds of what he discussed was an inflation driven dollar crises. That never happened.

A good number of the things have the same buzzwords that we're encountering now, but most of it, like the dollar crises, isn't what actually occurred. Rons a doomsayer. Those were the obvious dooms to say. He wasn't the only one claiming that these were direct repercussions back then, half of our generals and a significant portion of the standard intelligentsia were saying similar things.

Rons the one who focused it all through his push for the gold standard though.

**Jihadin**

How is the current policy any better, or making Americans any safer? Why on earth do we need military bases in 60 other countries? How is the policy of "pre-emptive strikes" and undeclared military actions improving the USA's reputation, or helping to keep any of us safe?

Well we can go back to Isolationalism...but figure two years we back out in the world. Who would the UN look to for a major power to lead a action? Republicans candidates already stated they're willing ease the Heck away from the UN. I'm sure Isreal won't be left swinging though if Obama one terms but what country would pick up the slack if Iran close Hormuz. Of course pulling out all our troops and equipemnt in Europe and Asa would go really well with that country economy for a bit