Why Ron Paul Can’t Be President of the United States

Three Fingers of Politics ^ | April 15, 2010 | JDubb7

[Superstu321]

Yesterday on the Drudge Report, Matt Drudge had posted a link to a Rasmussen Poll showing if a race were held today between Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and President Barack Obama, it would be a dead heat. Traditionally, Rasmussen tends to be a Republican-leaning poll, but it’s still interesting nonetheless to see Paul in the same ballpark as an incumbent Obama.

OK, maybe you’re thinking he’s not an ideal candidate, but he would be much more tolerable than what we got and that’s a point I’m willing to concede. However, if you look at Ron Paul’s voting record, you’d see a lot of ‘nay’ and ‘no votes.’ And that’s pretty much par for the course for Ron Paul in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The problem – it took the United States over 200 years to get to the bloated point we’re at today. Our military presence overseas, the huge bureaucracies, etc. – those are all problems. But if you’re Ron Paul and you’re president, you’d want to want to try to solve these problems one week after inauguration and that’s not possible, as Glenn Beck explained on his radio show about a year ago.

...more w/Video after the jump

[TheBigIf]

No. Try Paul’s crazy ideas such as…

America is to blame for terrorism
We should not support any of our allies but should become isolationists
We should not protect American business interests overseas
We should not stop Iran from getting nukes

Basically we should not defend this country or our allies at all according to Ron Paul

[Constitutions Grandchild]

“I have faith that some of Paul’s crazier ideas would be stopped in the house and senate, while most of his saner stuff would get passed.”

What in our recent history would lead you to believe THAT???

[ChrisInAR]

Basically we should not defend this country or our allies at all according to Ron Paul

IF that's the case (which it isn't), or if he is a blame-America-firster or an "isplationist",then why did Ronald Reagan PRAISE Paul & say something to the effect of needing more people like him to fight for our country? HMMMMMMMMMM?

Do you think that he, as being POTUS, would stop Israel for taking the lead on bombing the stone age out of Iran? Of course he wouldn't. He knows that the survival of the Jewish nation is at stake, & wouldn't lift a finger to stop them...& I think it's safe to say that he would quietly do something to help them in the background.

[TheBigIf]

I am sure that Reagan was NOT referring to Paul’s views on foreign policy at all. You are making a very specious argument. There are some good things about Paul but in regards to foreign policy he is a kook. There is also nothing in your argument refuting the fact that Paul would leave Israel out in the cold and isolated though if they needed our support. Ron Paul would not defend America and would let our enemies build up all around us. Ron Paul is a disgrace in regards to foreign policy. Paul’s anti-American statements are sickening as well.

[ChrisInAR]

Look on my Profile page & read what Reagan said about Paul, would you please? Tell me what you think afterwards. :-)

[TheBigIf]

Why dont you post it. I looked at your page and did not see any quote from Reagan about Paul. Your page is a mile long though with nasty rants about neo-cons and what seems to be some sort of worship of Ron Paul.

[ChrisInAR]

Whatever.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy will invite large scale domestic opposition on a Presidential run. Being for America first is not ‘in’.

Or rather, Ron Paul's version of "non-interventionist foreigh policy" doesn;t really qualify as being "America first."

[TheBigIf]

Well tell me what is a neo-con in your point of view?

Do you agree with Ron Paul that America is the cause of terrorism?

Do you think that if we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world that it would somehow make us safer? Or a more moral nation?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Being the most PRO-LIFE Pres we’ve ever had, & possibly evem nore so than Ronald Reagan?

LOL, this, about the guy who voted against both the interstate trafficking of children, and transportation of minors across state lines to help them obtain illegal abortions (both of which, btw, were bills that actually met a constitutional use of the Interstate Commerce Clause).

Pro-life my foot.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

about the guy who voted against both the interstate trafficking of children, and transportation of minors across state lines to help them obtain illegal abortions

I should say, voted against bills that would STOP....

[ex-snook]

"Or rather, Ron Paul's version of "non-interventionist foreigh policy" doesn;t really qualify as being "America first." "

Perhaps, but we spent the first half of the last century fighting in Europe, the second half fighting in the Pacific and starting this century fighting in the ME with others wanting involvement in South America and Africa. We are broke from intervention and fighting among ourselves. I agree with Paul that we have to reconsider being the world's policeman [or enforcing UN resolutions].

[ChrisInAR]

Well tell me what is a neo-con in your point of view?

They are spelled out in this book:

Neo-conservatism
The Autobiography of an Idea

Feel free to click on the above link.

Do you agree with Ron Paul that America is the cause of terrorism?

Neither one of us do...but our arming the Taliban (or Mujahadeen or whatever they're called) back in the '80s to help them in their fight against the Ruskies has come back to bite us.

Do you think that if we isolated ourselves from the rest of the world that it would somehow make us safer? Or a more moral nation?

Neither one of us believe that. Just because we get out of the UN, stop funding them, & kick them out of the US doesn't mean that we are "isolating" ourselves. We ARE the bright city shining on a hill that the rest of the world should emulate, but we have no right to be involved in the internal affairs of other nations, or do their fighting for them.

Let's put this on a personal level: if you arm yourself to protect YOUR family (& no one else), does that mean that you are isolating yourself & refusing to get involved in what's going on in your neighborhood?

[ChrisInAR]

So you believe that PEOPLE are “commerce”? That’s ridiculous! Besides, the States can (& should) handle that issue on their own.

[GraceG]

—Getting the US out of the UN?;
—Eliminating unconstitutional federal departments?;
—Having a Pres that will actually honor the 10th Amendment, insist that Congress pass a Declaration of War before putting our troops in harm’s way, or promote returning to sound money & the elimination of foreign aid?
—nominating prospective SCOTUS members who are SINCERE about having an Originalist view of the Constitution?
—Being the most PRO-LIFE Pres we’ve ever had, & possibly evem nore so than Ronald Reagan?

These aren’t crazy ideas, some of his isolationists policies are.

[ChrisInAR]

These aren’t crazy ideas, some of his isolationists policies are.

Please explain & read post #33 on this thread, please.

[TheBigIf]

I have no intention of buying a book if you can’t answer for yourself even. I asked for your view. Did you write the book?

Ron Paul has stated that America is to blame for terrorism. Him making these statements went way beyond just criticizing any single past alliance we may have made or support that we gave to defeat any certain enemy. Ron Paul thinks that America has no right defending our interests in the world. Ron Paul is a disgrace in regards to these type of warped anti-American views of his.

I never mentioned the United Nations. I would be glad to end the United Nations. Ron Paul though does not want us to use our military to defend allies or to defend our business interests. He also has no problem with Iran building nuclear bombs or with any of our enemies building up all around us.

Try the personal level on yourself. If you believe in Ron Paul’s vision for isolationism then stay at home and do not leave. If someone invites you to their home then tell them that you will not go unless everyone in the neighborhood is ok with it. Ron Paul seems to think that because some of enemies don’t like us around that we should stay isolated. Try it for yourself. Stay at home, grow your garden and isolate yourself from the rest of the world. It is a stupid thing to do but since you support Ron Paul then it would fit you.

[GraceG]

“Ron Paul has stated that America is to blame for terrorism. Him making these statements went way beyond just criticizing any single past alliance we may have made or support that we gave to defeat any certain enemy. Ron Paul thinks that America has no right defending our interests in the world. Ron Paul is a disgrace in regards to these type of warped anti-American views of his.

I never mentioned the United Nations. I would be glad to end the United Nations. Ron Paul though does not want us to use our military to defend allies or to defend our business interests. He also has no problem with Iran building nuclear bombs or with any of our enemies building up all around us.”

We should support our allies in Germany, Japan, etc... Though I think we should get more funding to do so from them as we are providing them a service at little to no cost and they see the benefit. Granted we get a benefit as it acts to stablize regions of the world liek Asia and Europe.

In Ron Paul’s mind it is like blaming the Nerd for getting good grades when he gets beaten up by a bully. Also most of the problems leading to our “dismal image” around the world are due to the “UN effect” in dealing with different affairs.

We have two options, meddle and prevent/slow down millitary builds ups so we don’t end up with another pre-WWII Germany or Japan, or let them build up and *HOPE* we can beat the living tar out of them and they kill us when they decide to do another Perl Harbor.

Personally I think war situations should be dealt with a declaration of war, one of the thing preventing a solid declaration of war is the U.N. get rid of the commie U.N. and we can have declararions of war.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

So you believe that PEOPLE are “commerce”? That’s ridiculous! Besides, the States can (& should) handle that issue on their own.

No, I believe that people going across state lines to conduct commerce is commerce. And hey, apparently the Founders disagreed with you, which is why they put the ICC in there in the first place. As originally intended, it was, indeed, meant to serve an arbitrative role of regulating (actual) commerce that took place between states, since they do not have jurisdiction in each others' territories. Just because Congress has vastly abused the ICC doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate federalism function.

[ChrisInAR]

It's not America's job to defend other nations of the world. We have a duty to defend OURSELVES. That is not "isolationist". Heck, I remember back in the 70's that many on the Right were upset that the US was becoming the World's Policeman, & that we should avoid that idea!

As for the book, I would say that Neoconservatism is a Progressive form of uhhhhhhh, "conservatism" that originally came from the ideas of Leon Trotsky. It is internationalist in scope, as opposed to the Founder's belief of America (& its States) being sovereign & ruled by the People. It believes in big government, & it weakens our military by stretching it so thin that we can't win & come home from the wars that we fight. Neoconservatism bypasses the powers that the Constitution has given to Congress for declaring wars, & has transferred that power to the POTUS, thus making him or her even more powerful than the Constitution allows.

To your surprise, you might notice that nowhere did I mention the word "Jew" in my remarks about Neoconservatism, 'cuz I believe that has nothing to do w/ it...regardless of what you might think. Besides, I have been a strong supporter of Israel, & am proud to say so.