suffolkUniversity: Paul second in NH!!

[GibbsFactor]

I understand Paul is an isolationist, I am just pointing out that his policies have far larger consequences then on their surface.

He's not an isolationist. You need to look up that term. He's a non-interventionist.

He does not believe in sanctions and wants free trade with every country. That is the antonym of isolationism.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 05:26 PM ----------

That can't be a real question. There are certainly some good reasons to try to influence policies of other countries.

Name one.

[SnyderShrugged]

I understand Paul is an isolationist, I am just pointing out that his policies have far larger consequences then on their surface.

You understand nothing if you believe Paul is an isolationist.

[Mad Mike]

Why would we want to influence policy of another country? Hasn't that gotten us where we are today? That's where you and I have fundamental differences.

You mean the greatest nation in the world?

So you want China and Russia to be the ones shaping the rest of the world while we shrink into the background. Brilliant. :doh:

[jpyaks3]

You understand nothing if you believe Paul is an isolationist.

See Post 61 where I already apologized for my sloppy language.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 05:28 PM ----------

He's not an isolationist. You need to look up that term. He's a non-interventionist.

He does not believe in sanctions and wants free trade with every country. That is the antonym of isolationism.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 05:26 PM ----------

Name one.

See post 61 where I already apologized for sloppy language.

[GibbsFactor]

i really don't understand why Huntsman has never even temporarily blipped up even in this uuber tumultuous primary. He is CLEARLY almost the defintion of what alot of centrist voters SAY they want (the ones that are shy on Obama, but a bit scared of the main GOP options as well....)

i think that Huntsman would actually clean up and win against Obama, Romney has an even shot, and the rest... probably not.

He doesn't have either of the following:

A. Rush and Fox News support.

B. The grassroots libertarian movement of Paul.

I really like Huntsman.

[jpyaks3]

Name one.

Alright a great reason is making sure your neighbors are stable and not committing atrocities and creating a situation where refugee flows will cause major problems in your country.

[GibbsFactor]

Thank God!

But I think we'd be heading in a great direction if we were to implement pieces of his agenda, or even pieces and ideas of PARTS of his agenda.

I think that's where people get all messed up over themselves.

What president has ever implemented his entire agenda much less one as controversial as Paul's?

It's not even remote enough of a chance to consider it.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 05:33 PM ----------

One more thing about this because it reminds me very much of the "repeal obamacare" crowd that all thought that Obamacare would be repealed as soon as the republicans got a majority in the house...

We still have a divided government. If Ron Paul gets elected president in 2012, he won't be able to end all foreign aid, or get rid of any of these agencies that he thinks are so awful. There is this thing called the Senate. And this other thing called the House of Represenatives. That is the "legislative branch" of government.

The President runs the "executive branch" of government, and as any constitutional scholar will tell you, the President's duty is to execute the laws in place.

So, if Paul got elected, you'd simply not have anything get done for 4 years. Unless you also elected a majority of representatives who agree with Paul and 60 senators who all agree with Paul.

This is a good point. However, you elect a Ron Paul with the intentions of shaping Congress in the coming years. Ron Paul is not stupid. The government would operate. He would, however, be working very diligently with the full power of his office to implement as many things as he can and to be a much more powerful voice for his message.

He could make significant moves within the branches and agencies already in operation such as the DoD, DEd, EPA, SEC, etc...

Most importantly, you are going to have a much more sound budget.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 05:38 PM ----------

You mean the greatest nation in the world?

So you want China and Russia to be the ones shaping the rest of the world while we shrink into the background. Brilliant. :doh:

I wouldn't mind them taking on some of our burdens.

Look, I get it. You are scared. You are scared of the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power. You are scared of America losing it's omnipresent power. You are scared of the decline of the American Empire.

I'm scared of losing my country. The way we are heading, Soviet Union, English Empire, Rome, Egypt. Yeah, add America to that list.

[SnyderShrugged]

See Post 61 where I already apologized for my sloppy language.

apologies, hadnt read far enough and I stand corrected.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Name one.

You don't think there's any good reasons to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

[sacase]

Yeah massive foreign aid that accounts for all of one percent of the budget. It would be awesome to give up all the soft power that foreign aid brings the United States so that we can shave one percent of the US Budget.

That is the problem with Ron Paul a lot of his stuff sounds plausible until you actually look at what the results of his policies would be. Now I agree with him on some things (ending the wars (drug and foreign wars)) but a lot of his plans would be absolutely disastrous if they were ever implemented.

I NEVER agree with jpyaks3, EVER, but it seems that RP brings us together. The little amount of money that we spend on foreign aid brings us so much in return, cutting it would be a huge mistake. That power that we get helps out far more than we think. For instance, we need to take military action in X country and to get there we need to fly over Y country to bomb them or to insert a SF team. We tell country Y, remember all that money you owe us, well we will knock off 15% if you let us fly over. It helps us, alot.

Jpyaks3 is right, his policies sound good but would be disasterous. He is preaching isolationism in a time where things are becoming global, either we can be in the lead in this or we can fall to the wayside and become italy.

[SnyderShrugged]

You don't think there's any good reasons to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

Not many, considering the actual state of their military.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30277432/DoD-Unclassified-Report-on-Military-Power-of-Iran

"At present Iran's forces are sufficient to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran's weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran's boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel."

-US Dept. of Defense

somehow we survived wackos like NK and Pakistan getting Nukes, we dealt with the USSR without warfare, and all other nuclear programs, Maybe we need to thinl through options other than war and sanctions that only hurt their people, many of whom are not that antagonistic to us.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 06:01 PM ----------

I NEVER agree with jpyaks3, EVER, but it seems that RP brings us together. The little amount of money that we spend on foreign aid brings us so much in return, cutting it would be a huge mistake. That power that we get helps out far more than we think. For instance, we need to take military action in X country and to get there we need to fly over Y country to bomb them or to insert a SF team. We tell country Y, remember all that money you owe us, well we will knock off 15% if you let us fly over. It helps us, alot.

Jpyaks3 is right, his policies sound good but would be disasterous. He is preaching isolationism in a time where things are becoming global, either we can be in the lead in this or we can fall to the wayside and become italy.

LOL, There's your vaunted conservatism again!

I never realized how in tune you were with Obama policies

[Mad Mike]

Alright a great reason is making sure your neighbors are stable and not committing atrocities and creating a situation where refugee flows will cause major problems in your country.

#2 Keeping trade routs open and ensuring peace and stability in regions that are economically important.

#3 The moral imperative to support the friends you ask to support you.

[No Excuses]

somehow we survived wackos like NK and Pakistan getting Nukes,

We get the Pakistani ISI to cooperate with us largely in part due to the aid we send to the Pakistani government. You cut off that aid, and they have no reason to supply our counter terrorism programs with intel. Pakistan is a highly unstable region with a lot of civil unrest. Our aid to the Pakistani government allows us to moderate them.

[GibbsFactor]

#2 Keeping trade routs open and ensuring peace and stability in regions that are economically important.

#3 The moral imperative to support the friends you ask to support you.

Why wouldnt our trade routes be available? We would have free trade with all nations.

I don't think we'd have the enemies we have today. That's how that works.

---------- Post added December-19th-2011 at 06:34 PM ----------

We get the Pakistani ISI to cooperate with us largely in part due to the aid we send to the Pakistani government. You cut off that aid, and they have no reason to supply our counter terrorism programs with intel. Pakistan is a highly unstable region with a lot of civil unrest. Our aid to the Pakistani government allows us to moderate them.

That relationship has been peachy. They gave us OBL and everything. I bet we are the butt of their jokes from the inside.

[No Excuses]

That relationship has been peachy. They gave us OBL and everything. I bet we are the butt of their jokes from the inside.

That's a really simplistic way of looking at Pakistan. The situation is much more complex. The Pakistani government is a large dysfunctional bunch. They answer to us, along with their extremist side. We cut off our aide, and we leave them completely vulnerable to extremists. If you cut off aid to Pakistan, how do you plan on acquiring counter terrorism intel while managing to keep Taliban and other extremist influence away from their government?

[isle-hawg]

What a shame the R's will do anything to ruin the one guy who is fiscally conservative. The dumb $#@*ing ****s on the Fox News and R old Republic are sure to guarantee the re-election of Obama in the process. Which they probably secretly want since the R party has 0 answers for the economy. This way they can just blame Obama more without having to actually produce a plan of their own (not that Obama or the D's do either). I can't see Romney or Newt winning it. Neither are conservatives (though Newt claims to be) and they each have negatives that will not win them over with enough I's or D's to win IMO.

[Mad Mike]

That's a really simplistic way of looking at Pakistan. The situation is much more complex. The Pakistani government is a large dysfunctional bunch. They answer to us, along with their extremist side. We cut off our aide, and we leave them completely vulnerable to extremists. If you cut off aid to Pakistan, how do you plan on acquiring counter terrorism intel while managing to keep Taliban and other extremist influence away from their government?

Everything in Ron Pauls ideology is simplistic and naive. That's why he is so popular. It all sounds so good in the sound bites. It's the details that make his idiotic ideas so unworkable. And if you don't agree, people like SS will call you a war monger who doesn't believe in liberty.

[visionary]

I had a feeling he would be on the upswing after the last debate.

It will be very interesting if he wins Iowa.

It probably would end Newt.

I think it would give NH to Romney.

On the other hand, if Paul wins NH too....

I can't even imagine what things will be like after that.

Both the tea party and the mainstream Republicans would be freaking out.

Heck, even the Democrats might start worrying.

This has certainly been one of the weirdest primaries yet and it's still pretty early.

[SnyderShrugged]

Everything in Ron Pauls ideology is simplistic and naive. That's why he is so popular. It all sounds so good in the sound bites. It's the details that make his idiotic ideas so unworkable. And if you don't agree, people like SS will call you a war monger who doesn't believe in liberty.

Nice to see you too Mike! Always a treat to see oneself referenced in a post one had nothing to do with! I feel special

[nonniey]

Strictly from a fscination standpoint, I think Paul vs Obama would be a fantastic story.

The reality though is that it would bring in a 3rd party right wing zealot who would essentially make the election a forgone conclusion.

A Paul vs Obama choice would already be a foregone conclusion.

[SnyderShrugged]

A Paul vs Obama choice would already be a foregone conclusion.

I dont know, I think that the mix of their views provide a pretty cool dynamic for a Presidential race.

In this corner, we have the incumbent democratic president with a penchant for both liberalism and for adhering to the hated GW Bush foreign policy and executive power trip.

In the opposite corner, we have a 12 term member of the house as a Republican with a core belief of small government, expansion of civil liberties (even the dreaded scourge of mary jane!) and even smaller spending, yet with a foreign policy that is the polar opposite of the Obama/Bush policy of Today.

I think that race would be epic personally and a total shakeup of the current, and disastrous political groundhog day that we have experienced for decades.

[NavyDave]

Yeah massive foreign aid that accounts for all of one percent of the budget. It would be awesome to give up all the soft power that foreign aid brings the United States so that we can shave one percent of the US Budget.

Yeah its sooo miniscule that those nations getting it should not miss it (right?) especially nations that have money making resources like oil, or are neighbors of rich nations that have the same radical ideology.

Why help out ungrateful bastiges that are doing things that are not in our best interests?

[hokie4redskins]

Everything in Ron Pauls ideology is simplistic and naive. That's why he is so popular. It all sounds so good in the sound bites. It's the details that make his idiotic ideas so unworkable. And if you don't agree' date=' people like SS will call you a war monger who doesn't believe in liberty.[/quote']

Nah, he's popular because the establishment whores from both parties have led us to the brink of economic collapse and ruin. That, and when we hear people like you say he's a moron, we believe Paul may be onto something.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You don't think there's any good reasons to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?

You aren't falling for this boogeyman are you?

[Hubbs]

If you don't think the aid we give foreign governments doesn't influence their policies then I really don't know what to tell you.

From a realpolitik standpoint it doesn't need to reach the people to be effective at changing another countries actions. Now I agree that many times US foreign aid doesn't benefit the people of that country but for the vast majority of our history our foreign policy has ****ed over the people of other countries. I have major problems with the way we use aid but that doesn't mean its not a useful tool for United States interest at a very low relative cost.

Look how effective the IMF has been at restructuring countries economies in a way that benefits their investors interests, now I will argue that the IMF ****s over those countries, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the ability to change policy through economic incentives. Now if you want to argue from the standpoint of an average citizen in the world I think you can argue against United States foreign aid or the IMF but from the American governments viewpoint both are very useful for influencing policy.

When you hear Paul say he would cut all of our foreign aid it sounds nice but in the long run it is a terrible idea, just like his cut Department of Energy, well yeah sounds alright until you realize that the Department of Energy is responsible for the nuclear arsenal of the country and a hell of a lot of other important things.

Yes, I would fit right in with the GOP party politicians, you nailed me. Now how about you address my argument, what do you do once the Department of Energy is eliminated, how do you deal with the fact that you just cut the agency that is in charge of our entire nuclear program and arsenal.

Really?

Let me get this straight. See, we have this giant collection of men and women who handle virtually all of our nation's weapons. This collection of men and women is called our "armed forces." They can also be referred to as our "military." They would be the people who would actually fire our nuclear weapons should that terrible day ever come. And you really think—you really think—that a legitimate question for the multiple candidates who have said they'd do away with the DoE is, "But, omigosh, whoever would maintain our nuclear weapons?"

The 1973 Oil Crisis was a pretty big deal and definitely facilitated the need for the government to prevent something like that from happening again.

Holy crap, the Department of Energy negotiates cease-fires and withdrawals in the Middle East? I may have spoken too soon. This might be the most impressive federal agency of all time.

Alright a great reason is making sure your neighbors are stable and not committing atrocities and creating a situation where refugee flows will cause major problems in your country.

And you're... you're claiming that we're doing a good job at keeping millions of people from flowing across our border?