13 replies to this topic

[Keel]

I find that the situation in the United States and in the world is reaching a critical point. Not only economically with the Eurozone Crisis or politically with moments in the Middle East but also socially and environmentally. I find it fascinating how societies around the world find themselves divided on how to deal with the current situation. This division is clearly shown in America where there are strong disagreements between the Democrats and the Republicans over how to deal with the debt crisis. What I find even more fascinating is how there is massive disagreement within the Republican Party itself over foreign policy! Have American's started to realise that there is something wrong with thier policy? For America to police the world through sanctions, bribes and military intervention?

Here is a campaign ad of Ron Paul which I think contains the elements of honesty, pragmatism and liberalism which has certainly changed my perception of the Republican Party and I hope to start some discussion on what a future America should look like and its role in the world:

Edited by Keel, Dec 09, 2011 - 03:54.

[Award Winning Boss]

Campaign ads suck.

So many of them are just extremely biased videos and what I also find amusing that it's the republican videos that are the worst. I watched his video on china invading America (that's a twist on America in Afghanistan). Oh my it was bad simply because they're so prone to just going back on their policy.

*cough fox news shouldn't exist cough*

Anyway my views on Ron Paul is that he should vastly improves his debating skills before people take him seriously.

But he would look awesome as a president. He looks like an old yet wise guy.

[Keel]

AHiddenName, on Dec 06, 2011 - 15:37, said:

Campaign ads suck.

So many of them are just extremely biased videos and what I also find amusing that it's the republican videos that are the worst. I watched his video on china invading America (that's a twist on America in Afghanistan). Oh my it was bad simply because they're so prone to just going back on their policy.

*cough fox news shouldn't exist cough*

Anyway my views on Ron Paul is that he should vastly improves his debating skills before people take him seriously.

But he would look awesome as a president. He looks like an old yet wise guy.

I dont see anything wrong with his debating skills. I see him as intelligent, well read and pragmatic. You must excuse his 'debating skills' if they are below your standards because he isn't your typical politician who is a lawyer or business person; he trained as a physician and that source of pragmatism and reasoning is what I respect in a politician. Besides, I think there's a distortion of priorities generally assosiated with politicians. Is a good politician one who has good policies and view and who can articulate them well? Or is a good politician a master debater who debates his way through an election with lies and emotive language?

Edited by Keel, Dec 06, 2011 - 15:52.

[Award Winning Boss]

Keel, on Dec 06, 2011 - 15:49, said:

I dont see anything wrong with his debating skills. I see him as intelligent, well read and pragmatic. You must excuse his 'debating skills' if they are below your standards because he isn't your typical politician who is a lawyer or business person; he trained as a physician and that source of pragmatism and reasoning is what I respect in a politician. Besides, I think there's a distortion of priorities generally assosiated with politicians. Is a good politician one who has good policies and view and who can articulate them well? Or is a good politician a master debater who debates his way through an election with lies and emotive language.

What's to stop him from lying as soon as he gets into office then? What's to stop the realisation that his policies might not work?

His debating skills aren't that much of an issue to me. Admittedly I was being harsh. You find faults in every debate.

For example David Cameron said he's cutting the deficit and prides himself on not borrowing excessively. Yet he's borrowing quite a bit.

[Keel]

AHiddenName, on Dec 06, 2011 - 16:27, said:

What's to stop him from lying as soon as he gets into office then? What's to stop the realisation that his policies might not work?

His debating skills aren't that much of an issue to me. Admittedly I was being harsh. You find faults in every debate.

For example David Cameron said he's cutting the deficit and prides himself on not borrowing excessively. Yet he's borrowing quite a bit.

There's never a guarantee that what politicians say or propose is true or will be enacted in the future, but Ron Paul is the only politician actively campaigning against the US presence in Iraq. Does he not deserve some credit? Can he not enact such a policy when it makes him stand out so much from the others? Its his attitude towards problem solving that deserves applaud.

Quote

Question: Congressman Ron Paul, how much longer should the United States stay in Iraq?

Congressman Ron Paul: The sooner they come home, the better. If they declare there’s no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it’s a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment.

Edited by Keel, Dec 06, 2011 - 16:45.

[Award Winning Boss]

Keel, on Dec 06, 2011 - 16:44, said:

There's never a guarantee that what politicians say or propose is true or will be enacted in the future, but Ron Paul is the only politician actively campaigning against the US presence in Iraq. Does he not deserve some credit? Can he not enact such a policy when it makes him stand out so much from the others? Its his attitude towards problem solving that deserves applaud.

Quote

Question: Congressman Ron Paul, how much longer should the United States stay in Iraq?

Congressman Ron Paul: The sooner they come home, the better. If they declare there’s no progress in September, we should come home. It was a mistake to go, so it’s a mistake to stay. If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment.

His attitude. Really? Every politician with half a brain cell will fight for sympathy saying that the troops should come home. He most likely supported the war when it was declared.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44990594/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/obama-all-us-troops-out-iraq-end-year/

Plus they are already leaving. It's not always viable for them to just leave. Also he's given no time frame. He's a politician, fantastic at avoiding questions he cannot answer. What's to say he'll say they will come out within the next 5 years? or 10?

Unless you meant Afghanistan not Iraq, but my point still stands.

[Sandwich]

AHiddenName, on Dec 06, 2011 - 16:27, said:

For example David Cameron said he's cutting the deficit and prides himself on not borrowing excessively. Yet he's borrowing quite a bit.

He's borrowing a great deal less than we would be otherwise though, and he is cutting down the deficit. You can't really criticise Cameron for that - if we didn't borrow at all, we'd be totally screwed. I don't think he's doing the right thing myself, but I don't think you could accuse him of lying in this particular instance.

Keel, on Dec 06, 2011 - 16:44, said:

There's never a guarantee that what politicians say or propose is true or will be enacted in the future, but Ron Paul is the only politician actively campaigning against the US presence in Iraq. Does he not deserve some credit? Can he not enact such a policy when it makes him stand out so much from the others? Its his attitude towards problem solving that deserves applaud.

I am pleasantly surprised by the views he is putting forward, which are extremely progressive for an American (in fact, more progressive than a lot of European foreign policy too!) although I don't know how well they'll go down with a Republican audience. I can see how the self-centred edge to the argument puts an appealing spin on it, but other than that he's effectively appealing to a group of people who are unlikely to agree with losing military intervention and more likely to be wary and suspicious of things like Iran having nuclear capacity.

Personally I would also refrain from singing his praises too highly for exactly that reason. I completely agree with him that we shouldn't sanction and oppose countries which wish to arm themselves, but at the same time the Iranian government is a mysterious fundamentalist affair and giving nuclear capacity to such people (despite the presence of many reasonable people at the same time, it only takes one to set off a nuclear bomb...) does make me anxious. Certainly you would need a LOT of transparency and safe-guards put in place, and if Iran didn't agree to that then you'd just be back where you started - only without the option of sanctions because you've already binned that, unless you want to be hypocritical.

I can only assume that the reason this guy is running for the Republican party, despite progressive foreign policy aims, must mean he's got some more traditional Republican views on other subjects. On the whole I would say that in the US (and in many countries, to be honest) many people are more concerned with domestic affairs and have poor understanding of foreign affairs, so it wouldn't form the basis of a campaign.

Is he CG-d in the video? That's just weird. I find political advertising vaguely nauseating, to be honest!

I also don't find much wrong with his debating skills. At least he's backing up his arguments. It's actually rather refreshing to listen to somebody who doesn't use every second sentence to announce some idiotic patriotic true-ism to the sound of rapturous applause, which I believe is the main format of political campaigning in the US!

[Grr]

Keel, on Dec 06, 2011 - 15:49, said:

I dont see anything wrong with his debating skills. I see him as intelligent, well read and pragmatic. You must excuse his 'debating skills' if they are below your standards because he isn't your typical politician who is a lawyer or business person; he trained as a physician and that source of pragmatism and reasoning is what I respect in a politician. Besides, I think there's a distortion of priorities generally assosiated with politicians. Is a good politician one who has good policies and view and who can articulate them well? Or is a good politician a master debater who debates his way through an election with lies and emotive language?

I can trust a physician to give me accurate, sound advice, but I would not trust a physician to run a country. Personally, there are a couple of worse Republican candidates than Ron Paul and I like his pragmatic position, but I simply don't believe that this is the right time for it.

[Sandwich]

Grr, on Dec 06, 2011 - 18:03, said:

I can trust a physician to give me accurate, sound advice, but I would not trust a physician to run a country. Personally, there are a couple of worse Republican candidates than Ron Paul and I like his pragmatic position, but I simply don't believe that this is the right time for it.

Don't really see how being a Physician is different from being a Businessman (Bush), Lawyer (Obama) or in the armed forces (McCain). At least, I certainly don't see why it would disqualify you. Skills such as decision making, communication, leadership, operating under pressure and general intelligence are all present. Arguably you may be more qualified relative to other jobs in certain key areas.

[Keel]

Grr, on Dec 06, 2011 - 18:03, said:

I can trust a physician to give me accurate, sound advice, but I would not trust a physician to run a country. Personally, there are a couple of worse Republican candidates than Ron Paul and I like his pragmatic position, but I simply don't believe that this is the right time for it.

He has over 40 years of political experience, he knows his history and his economics. I just referred to his medical past because its nice to have professionals from different career paths other than law entering politics.

[Award Winning Boss]

Grr, on Dec 06, 2011 - 18:03, said:

I can trust a physician to give me accurate, sound advice, but I would not trust a physician to run a country. Personally, there are a couple of worse Republican candidates than Ron Paul and I like his pragmatic position, but I simply don't believe that this is the right time for it.

George Bush was Governor of Texas and Texas Air national guard.

Surely he'd be more trusted than Ron Paul?

[bobE]

RP is the only candidate that has consistent values. He doesn't fli flop around in his debates like the other candidates do just to gain support. He genuinely cares about being consistent and because of this, he is finally getting a good amount of support.

[Keel]

Sandwich, on Dec 06, 2011 - 17:55, said:

Personally I would also refrain from singing his praises too highly for exactly that reason. I completely agree with him that we shouldn't sanction and oppose countries which wish to arm themselves, but at the same time the Iranian government is a mysterious fundamentalist affair and giving nuclear capacity to such people (despite the presence of many reasonable people at the same time, it only takes one to set off a nuclear bomb...) does make me anxious. Certainly you would need a LOT of transparency and safe-guards put in place, and if Iran didn't agree to that then you'd just be back where you started - only without the option of sanctions because you've already binned that, unless you want to be hypocritical.

I think there are two questions that need answering before any progressive judgements can be made: (a) Does Iran have the right to possess nuclear weapons? and (b) How should the US respond to Iran’s possible desire to develop nuclear weapons?

I think from your response you are still quite unsure of whether the answer to (a) is a firm yes or no. And that is understandable because on one hand you have the ideas of principle and equality and on the other your have those of uncertainty and potential harm. However, it is the answer to (b) which I strongly agree with Ron Paul. Even if Iran doesn’t have the right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, even if they were developing a nuclear program, it does not justify aggressive interventionist policies which the US has followed for the past 50 years starting with the American sponsered coup in 1953. All this talk of intervention and even bombing other countries is just so typical of an American government and I’m tired of it; I’m sure many people in the world are let alone the Iranians who's dissatisfaction might be understandable.

With regards to sanctions, sanctions create disutility, they create tension and they are a step further to war. Whatever ‘political message’ is sent by these sanctions can never compensate for the loss in welfare. That’s just my take on it.

Sandwich, on Dec 06, 2011 - 17:55, said:

I can only assume that the reason this guy is running for the Republican party, despite progressive foreign policy aims, must mean he's got some more traditional Republican views on other subjects. On the whole I would say that in the US (and in many countries, to be honest) many people are more concerned with domestic affairs and have poor understanding of foreign affairs, so it wouldn't form the basis of a campaign.

This is an interesting one and I’m not sure whether I’ve got all the facts right. In 1988 Ron Paul actually ran for the presidential elections as the Libertarian Party candidate. Obviously this wasn’t a great success because as in most elections, if you’re not part of a larger party you basically get nowhere. Coming from Texas, the Republican Party was the obvious choice. But as I stated earlier on, America is in a situation now where you have politicians within parties who hold all sorts of views which are inconsistent with the conventional ideology. To be honest I’ve always imagined the Republican Party to be a bunch of racist rednecks but Ron Paul has definitely proven me wrong.

His domestic policies are based around his own ideology – he’s a constitutionalist, liberal conservative and a non-interventionist. So his domestic policies can be summarised as (a) cut taxes, (b) reduce the size of government, © slash overseas spending which is used to maintain the ‘American Empire’ and (d) follow the constitution to the letter. This I think appeals to a lot of people, especially when it comes to economic policies if you believe in the free market and understand how the credit and real estate bubbles were caused.

Edited by Keel, Dec 09, 2011 - 03:04.

[Prince Hamlet]

I admire Ron Paul for being consistent over his years as a politician. I might not agree with all his views, but he's definitely a dose of fresh air compared to the other candidates.

I like how Herman Cain's in the middle while Santorum and Paul are arguing about foreign policy. I can imagine how Cain feels - holy crap don't ask me about foreign policy ... thank God Santorum decided to open his big mouth and interrupt a question directed at me ... .

Keel, on Dec 06, 2011 - 15:49, said:

AHiddenName, on Dec 06, 2011 - 15:37, said:

Campaign ads suck.

So many of them are just extremely biased videos and what I also find amusing that it's the republican videos that are the worst. I watched his video on china invading America (that's a twist on America in Afghanistan). Oh my it was bad simply because they're so prone to just going back on their policy.

*cough fox news shouldn't exist cough*

Anyway my views on Ron Paul is that he should vastly improves his debating skills before people take him seriously.

But he would look awesome as a president. He looks like an old yet wise guy.

I dont see anything wrong with his debating skills. I see him as intelligent, well read and pragmatic. You must excuse his 'debating skills' if they are below your standards because he isn't your typical politician who is a lawyer or business person; he trained as a physician and that source of pragmatism and reasoning is what I respect in a politician. Besides, I think there's a distortion of priorities generally assosiated with politicians. Is a good politician one who has good policies and view and who can articulate them well? Or is a good politician a master debater who debates his way through an election with lies and emotive language?