Why to like the odds for a Ron Paul upset

National Review ^ | December 6, 2011

[chrisser]

FWIW, I haven’t watched the debates, so I may be missing a lot.

We don’t have cable (by choice) and I don’t watch a lot of TV. I get most of my info here, but up until now I was a Cain supporter and didn’t pay much attention to Paul.

[ModelBreaker]

“I’m curious what you find disagreeable.”

I understand he has advocated very large reductions in the US military capabilities. I don’t disagree with him that US troops could be pulled out of a lot of places. But I think reducing the military in today’s crazy world would be a mistake of gigantic proportions. He also appears to be ready, like Zero, to throw Israel to the wolves. Finally, there is a tone question—when he talks about foreign policy, he could be a member of Code Pink. He really dislikes our country in that regard.

This from a guy who likes what Paul says in domestic policy a lot.

OK, now I’m ducking for cover. Incoming . . . .

[Wissa]

I'll give 10,000 to one against Paul winning the Republican nomination for President in 2012. In order to bet me you must post a minimum bet of $ 10,000.00 in US Currency, and put it into an escrow account and I hold the escrow account key. If you are on board with this bet, send me a private message and I'll take all of your money.

And you'll put $100 million into an escrow account to cover your side of the bet?

[Hot Tabasco]

If Iowa is such a big to-do, there’s no point in the other 55 states holding an election.

[cookcounty]

Ron Paul and the one-(fat)legged stool:

He’s a National Defense weakling, not a social conservative, but makes up for it by being extra-extra economically conservative.

Definitely not a winning strategy, though he can be a very big hero to about 6% of the population (and 10% of the Republicans).

[fight_truth_decay]

I have a very hard time seeing myself doing so for Paul. I suppose I will, should he win the nomination,

I very much doubt it will come to that choice.

Coulter is pushing Romney.
I have asked on another thread with no answer..why is everyone sitting at the Throne of Donald Trump?

Rush plays golf with him and lets his audience know "they talk", Hannity says he feels honored to be one of his favorites in the media, Bachmann likes him for a VP, Newt meets with him as a media event [Hannity tags along there] plus will share an ad with Trump in Iowa. Palin had pizza with him when called before him. Huntsman had courted Trump so says his book.

I just find it odd..they place themselves in his admiration arena for political accreditation. They fall all over him

Trump does speak well of Romney, but does an ad with Newt.

I realize I Had forgotten about Perry--that's not good!

[USS Alaska]

And you'll put $100 million into an escrow account to cover your side of the bet?

Absolutely!!!

I can't wait to get started, send me your $ 10,000, I'll tell you the bank where I'm going to escrow it and I'll show you a copy of my $ 100,000,000.00 check which I will deposit into my escrow account.

[fight_truth_decay]

In order to bet me you must post a minimum bet of $ 10,000.00 in US Currency, and put it into an escrow account and I hold the escrow account key.

Are you Nigerian/Algerian?

[Wissa]

...and I'll show you a copy of my $ 100,000,000.00 check which I will deposit into my escrow account.

I've seen emails from Nigerians that were more believable.

[upchuck]

If Iowa is such a big to-do, there’s no point in the other 55 56 states holding an election.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[rob777]

"I’m indifferent about the odds, which are zero."


The article is talking about the odds of him winning in Iowa, not the nomination itself. I would say that the odds of the former are not all that remote.

[Hot Tabasco]

If Iowa is such a big to-do, there’s no point in the other 55 56 states holding an election.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Don't be sorry, it's not your fault I only got a "D" in gym........

[chrisser]

I understand he has advocated very large reductions in the US military capabilities. I don’t disagree with him that US troops could be pulled out of a lot of places. But I think reducing the military in today’s crazy world would be a mistake of gigantic proportions.

I guess a lot depends on where you make the pullouts. Seems we could pull a fair amount of troops out of Europe and possibly Japan if we gave them enough notice of our intent so they could build up their own forces. I'm less enthusiastic about Korea, but maybe it's time they shouldered their own defense too - we could fall back to an alliance situation I suppose.

He also appears to be ready, like Zero, to throw Israel to the wolves.

From the wikipedia entry (I only refer to it as it's the only summary of his positions I've found), he seems pretty pro-Israel - stop funding their neighbors, stop interferring with their procurements and defense strategies:

"Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance. We send almost twice as much aid to other countries in the Middle East, which only insures increased militarization and the drive toward war.[30] We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel's sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington. That is a bad deal for Israel, as sovereign nations must determine on their own what is a most appropriate national defense. On foreign policy as well, the U.S. steps in to prevent Israel from engaging in dialogue with nations of which the U.S. administration disapproves.[30] "

Finally, there is a tone question—when he talks about foreign policy, he could be a member of Code Pink. He really dislikes our country in that regard.

I haven't seen him speak. I'll have to dig up some video from the debates.

[Former War Criminal]

Does it bother anybody else that Ron Paul is 76 years old?

[presidio9]

Well, going from the Wikipedia summary, closing military bases in Korea, Japan and Europe and ending foreign aid to the oil-rich countries surrounding Israel are two that stand out.

OK, that's a start. Great examples, btw.

We have a treaty obligation with South Korea and NATO, dating back to the beginning of the Korean War, which is pretty much a cold war, but the North has never accepted a peaceful resolution. They continue to regard all of South Korea as sovereign territory, have the largest standing army in the world, and have recently developed nuclear weapons in defiance of world objection. They are in the process of building a missle arsenal capable of threatening the western United States. They repeatedly kidnap South Korean, Japanese, and even occasionally American citizens. They have been ruled by an insane dynasty for 50 years who declares the US as an enemy. I actually lived in Seoul for a while in the early 2000's and I can assure you that a very short time after we leave, they will take our place. Bad idea.

[presidio9]

From the wikipedia entry (I only refer to it as it's the only summary of his positions I've found),

There's your problem. Wikipedia is a notoriously biased source. Especially when it comes to topics of interest to libertarians. Here are a couple of better options for you:

On The Issues

Ron Paul 2012 (though I would caution you that Dr. Paul tends to keep things to himself wherever practical).

[editor-surveyor]

North Korea has no nukes, but they do have some questionably ‘enriched’ uranium.

[chrisser]

Thanks for the links. I will check them out.

Re Korea - see my post 34, I agree that compared to Europe, I’d be more reluctant to pullout of Korea. OTOH, I’m 45 and we’ve been there since a decade before I was born. South Korea is a prosperous country. Isn’t it about time that they take responsibility for their own security?

I don’t pretend to know the intricate details of the situation there, but it seems like the same arguments against welfare or entitlements on a personal level should apply somewhat to welfare or entitlements on the sovereign level.

I don’t think we should have a 2 year plan to just pull out or even a 5 year plan, but maybe a 20 or 30 year plan is realistic, subject to changing conditions of course. It seems like an area that we should be talking about given the economic condition we’re in.

[presidio9]

North Korea has no nukes, but they do have some questionably ‘enriched’ uranium.

"In October 2006, North Korea became the world’s eighth atomic power, conducting an underground nuclear weapons test."