Do you think Ron Paul's views are correct?

[SubjectProphet]

Well, I would hold a poll but my stubborn computer doesn't want me too. :whistling:

 

Anyway, do you think his political views are correct, or do you think they're wrong? Before you answer, you should probably look up his "What If?" speech on youtube. It'd be worth the time.

[sukeban]

I think that aspects of his views are completely spot-on.

 

I think that he has the most honest foreign policy appraisal of anybody running for President (Obama included), though it is frequently maligned and dismissed out-of-hand. He is aware that people don't just wake up in the morning hating the US, that they aren't just born that way. Rather, he correctly identifies that much of the animus directed toward our country(ies) is a result of our actions abroad.

 

I am not advocating "apologizing for America" (loaded phrase that it is), as our country is great and we should be proud of it. But any honest assessment as to why the world is the way that it is really does need to take into account history, and to know that history has left many people in the world feeling... aggrieved. And to know that no amount of dropping bombs on these aggrieved people is going to make them feel otherwise, up to and including the fact that it will probably just anger them more, getting us nowhere. Up until the end of WWII, the US kept a low profile on the world stage, allowing its taxes to remain low and ensuring that trade relations with foreign nations were almost always good. Why is it so hard to imagine keeping our military within our own borders, and not spending massively on armaments, manpower, and power-projection capabilities?

 

It is easy to see why young people are drawn to him. Most young people disagree with our foreign policy (mis)adventures, they disagree with intrusive domestic surveillance, and they disagree with religious moral absolutism insinuating itself into public policy. However, they are also acutely aware of the mountain of debt that the previous two generations have run up and placed on our tab, in a quite bipartisan manner I might personally add. Thus, young people presently inhabit an interesting sort of left-right nexus; socially libertarian yet also perhaps increasingly fiscally conservative. This represents a more natural constituency for Democrats, as they are not burdened by certain damaging trappings of the Far Right (demonizing minorities and championing white christian identity politics is not popular with this demographic), yet they are far from wedded to them.

 

Which is why an increasingly large number of young people (as well as the population at-large) are registered independents.* They are very much sick of watching the "red team" vs "blue team" football match that comes with so much sound and fury, yet signifies (and accomplishes) basically nothing. Young people desire for our political system to actually work, because it is our lives and our futures that are presently being sabotaged by Washington's collective intransigence and acidie.

 

This, I am sure, is a thought commonly felt throughout our body politic. Americans ache for another option at the ballot box. Hopefully one day we will get one.

 

*Funny story, when I first registered to vote, I accidentally registered as an "Independent." It was not until I started getting white-supremacist mailings asking for money that I realized my tragic, tragic mistake.

Edited March 13, 2012 by sukeban

[grannywils]

I found much of what Sukeban had to say on Dr. Paul interesting and refreshing, although I must say that overall I must disagree with what I believe sounds somewhat like an endorsement.

 

Much of what you say is true, Sukeban, with respect to our young people and their disillusionment with the country in which they find themselves today and with a political environment rife with "Republicrats" from whom to choose. In fact there is little that you have said with which I disagree.

 

And Dr. Paul is an interesting and intelligent voice to whom we should pay heed. However, in my opinion his past views on a variety of topics have eliminated him from any chance of getting my vote for any public office. We need to believe that our candidates our willing to represent all of our population, and not just those with whom they can feel an affinity. His publically expressed racist and bigoted remarks and views cannot be tolerated in someone who is expected to lead a nation in these times.

 

Our leader will need to lead all of this nation and be able to garner the respect of many peoples of many nations around the world. Denying that he said what he said when he said it, will not be sufficient to start that dialogue, in my humble opinion. I wish that this were not so, as I feel he is one of the only two intellectually competent candidates running for the "other guys" at the moment. They don't happen to be my team, but, hey what the heck.... :confused:

 

 

[Moveing]

Do you think Ron Paul's views are correct

Yes, totaly. I fully agree with him.

 

His view is freedome for the individual, how could someone not agree with that?

[marharth]

Too radical.

 

Its good that he isn't completely insane like everyone else, but his economic and social views are far too extreme.

 

He has good foreign policy, but that is about it.

[Moveing]

Extreme... In his view Freedom is extreme.

[Aurielius]

Having experienced two third party candidates in presidential elections (Wallace and Perot) the main lesson that I learned is that third party candidates stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Now everyone should do something foolish and principled at least once in their life and voting for a candidate that is in reality a a protest vote fits that bill, but you are not doing anything but conceding the election to one of the other two main parties without being able to tip the balance in either's favor. As for Ron Paul's concept of Foreign Policy, it is beyond any actual implementation in the real world, his economic policies at least are somewhat sound but would never make passage through the Congress. Sorry but Ron Paul falls under the category of 'that dog won't hunt' in terms of electability or actual possible future performance in office if by a miracle he was elected.

[Moveing]

Sorry but Ron Paul falls under the category of 'that dog won't hunt'

 

Thats what you heard a thousand times on the news. "oh hes nice but hes unelectable because he can't win"

Thats a loser mentality.

[Aurielius]

Sorry but Ron Paul falls under the category of 'that dog won't hunt'

 

Thats what you heard a thousand times on the news. "oh hes nice but hes unelectable because he can't win"

Thats a loser mentality.

Idealism and open possibilities is the province of the young, realism and pragmatism comes with the experiences of life. I could care less what the news says or doesn't say but I do have experience to draw on when it comes to things such as this. As i said "One should do at least one principled and one foolish thing in your life", it will make doing the pragmatic things easier when the time comes. If you are going to go down in flames then make it a worthwhile bonfire about something you truly care about, but have been there and done that more than once so pardon me if I don't stroll down the Yellow Brick Road once again..

Edited March 13, 2012 by Aurielius

[SubjectProphet]

I'm not going to get in.. whatever... this is..... but uhhh....

 

I never said "do you think he'll be president?" I just asked if you think his views are correct. He won't become president because he has no money, and in the USA, it's ALL about the money.