Yet many here cant seem to figure out why many democrats say they would vote for him :eek: .You're not to bright but at least you were able to figure that one out
Yes,and rightfully so.Its not our business or responsibility to spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of US lives playing world police .The founding fathers made it clear they wanted the US to stay out of other countries affairs
Our interventionist policy has been a colossal failure, the U.S. is universally hated abroad, and we have blown trillions trying to police the world, and help people out. We have bankrupted ourselves policing the world, and all we are doing is creating more animosity toward ourselves, and more hatred geared towards our country. I fully agree with Ron Pauls isolationist policy. I also agree with that clown Donald trump on this one. If people want to use our army then let them pay for it, we have bankrupted ourselves, and aconsiderable portion of our debt was blown trying to police the world, and all we have done is create more animosity towards ourselves, we are the number 1 target of almost every 3rd world shithole on planet earth, even though we contribute the most to them. We will not be able to stop everyone from developing nukes, so what will inevitably happen is a bunch of these third world countries will develop nukes, and we will be at the top of their list of targets. An interesting book i read a few years ago on this subject was "Empire of Debt" by William Bonner. I honestly think we should just mind our own business, and i think Ron Paul is right. We cant afford to control the entire world, and it is an excercise in futility in my opinion. Aside from world war 2 how have we benefited from any of the wars we have gotten ourselves into in the last 70 years?
I agree we should get out of the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they aren't accomplishing anything and the government cannot even state what the objective is. The Libyan fiasco is another, we have no business messing around there. I was trying to make the point that there are some events that call for our intervention on behalf of humanity or our own security. Sometimes it is appropriate for us to go somewhere and kill badguys. Total isolationism is what I don't agree with and Ron Paul clearly advocates for it. But then we don't need to stay for 40-50 years like in Germany and Korea.
In terms of humanitarian aid, im not opposed to it in times like the 90's when we are flush with cash, but it makes zero sense to me to hand over money to foreign countries when our debt just got downgraded, and we have people hurting at home, and we are running 1.5 trillon dollar deficits. We need to take care of our own first. Like you said i dont want 100% isolationism, there are certain very specific situations we should intervene, i just wish the country was smarter about it. For example, if we hear about a nuclear program in a country like Iraq, (even though it was inaccurate) instead of pissing away trillions of dollars, and thousands of american lives, we should havejust lobbed a bunch of cruise missiles, done some airstrikes, and taken the nuclear site out. Problem solved for a couple billion. However if i was forced to makea choice between total isolationism, and continuing our current foreign policy i would choose isolationism in a heartbeat, our current foreign policy is a complete disaster in my opinion, and it has been that way for 50 years.
Ron Paul's ideas are ahead of his time. Make no mistake, eventually (who knows how far down the line, but not as far as many of us think) we will be putting all of them in place. We'll have no choice. The REAL problem with Ron Paul is that his brilliance is just that - brilliant, and beyond the comprehension of mainstream folk. Add to that his biggest issue in that he simply cannot communicate his ideas in a fashion that will inspire folks. He skips around, stutters and trips over his words, and throws out complex ideas like "The Fed can just cancel the bonds it holds to allow us to not pay interest on them" without going into details on what - exactly - that will do. Sure, I get it, and many who have been learning all about Ron Paul and the economy get it, but millions watching the debate go..."what the heck is this guy talking about??" He comes off like a crazy ol' coot. His sound bites are far too complex for 30 second debates. His ideas are groundbreaking, but he can't explain them in a simplistic fashion that makes folks go "oh, i get it - yeah, that would be a smart move!" Eventually, some day, he will be looked upon as a person we should have listened to. But for now, he'll never be President because not enough Americans have woken up. However, his movement grows by the day and has given birth to things like the Tea Party, and the effects of these creations are earth shattering.
Ah, the misunderstood genius.The REAL problem with Ron Paul is that his brilliance is just that - brilliant, and beyond the comprehension of mainstream folk. I know the feeling all too well. But seriously, I think you're onto something, to a certain degree. He just doesn't do well in the sound bite era we live in. His ideas do require some thought and we just can't have that, now can we?
Agreed. I'm not as extremist as Paul on foreign policy. However, I think we could easily take 1-200 billion a year out of the budget. I'd also gladly trade military presence in remote corners of South Asia to be able to militarize the southern border.
You and I, and those who read/frequent economic blogs can get much of what Ron Paul is saying in a sound byte. But people who spend most of their free time plugging facebook holes and watching Dancing With The Stars require a much more elongated form of communication. For that simple (minded) majority, Dr. Paul falls short.