Replies

I've seen a lot of FReepers say they like Paul's domestic policies, but can't stand his foreign policy.

And I've tended to agree. He's far more of an isolationist than I would otherwise think is prudent.

That said, there is no otherwise. Nobody else is advocating the kind of cuts in government Paul is, and without cuts of that magnitude, we're going to be broke sooner rather than later.

In other words, we're either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we're going to be isolationists because we're flat broke and our economy has collapsed to the point we will be impotent on the world stage.

If it's the latter, then we sure as heck aren't going to be able to change our minds after 4 or 8 years and have a more activist foreign policy.

Those are the choices as I see it. We're too far along to pretend that a few bandaids on the economy are going to turn it around. If it means 4 or 8 years of a little extra chaos in the world (and, honesly, can he do that much worse than Obama?) to get us patched up, that's a far better choice than chaos for the next 50 or 100 years because the U.S. ceases to exist as a world power.

Nobody else is advocating .....

The key here is he is 'talking', but he has shown through his three decades in office he is no more effective as the guy in the corner of a coffee shop rambling about the ills of the world. He has been a failure on the economic front as well. He has authored something like 470 bills and only a couple have even made it to the floor for a vote. The ones that did pass were minor little things like honoring a baseball pitcher in his district.

A lot of people say they like Paul on economics, but look at what he has done when he has a chance. Right now, Paul is in the best seat possible to prove he is more than words. He is the chairman of the banking and monetary policy committee. The Committee that oversees everything he claims to want to fix- even the Fed. He has the authority to put actions behind his words and you know what he has done- Jack and Squat.

No subpoenas, no investigations, no investigators. He had one meeting he ended up canceling- and the witnesses in that meeting, a guy who wrote a book on Southern succession and a blogger.

Phil Gramm put it well a long time ago when he said that Paul could never get a bill passed because they couldn't even get out of committee because they were so poorly written and lacked any detail as to 'how'. Just big pronouncements.

Let's take it one step further. What is the Constitutional role of President? Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. Budget and taxes start in Congress. If Paul is so great on economics but poor on foreign policy, why would you take him out of the role where he is great and put him in the role where is is piss poor?

We're too far along to pretend that a few bandaids on the economy are going to turn it around. If it means 4 or 8 years of a little extra chaos in the world (and, honesly, can he do that much worse than Obama?) to get us patched up, that's a far better choice than chaos for the next 50 or 100 years because the U.S. ceases to exist as a world power.

That's it in a nutshell. Right now, the biggest threat to our nation is from within. If we cannot get our economy straightened out, the rest will be a moot--a disaster which will likely last for far longer than 4 years.

Securing the border just might be a good idea as well (how can you have 'National Security' if the nation, itself, isn't secure?

It can't be much worse than an interventionist policy which has delivered the arsenals of North African Dictatorships into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaida.

Sadly, he appears the only one who appears to want anything but more of the same ol' same ol' in DC.

That said, there is no otherwise. Nobody else is advocating the kind of cuts in government Paul is, and without cuts of that magnitude, we're going to be broke sooner rather than later.

In other words, we're either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we're going to be isolationists because we're flat broke and our economy has collapsed to the point we will be impotent on the world stage.

Precisely. It's nail meet head. We've got two choices -- regroup an reorganize, or collapse -- and Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth on that one.

What none of the strategic thinkers around here have figured out yet is that there would actually be a great advantage for Conservatives to a Ron Paul presidency with Ron Paul as a libertarian: When Ron Paul goes after government departments and entitlement benefits with a chainsaw -- and the Democrats are screaming in pain -- hardcore Conservatives would actually look like compassionate Moderates for a change -- and Liberals would look like the communists they are. A Ron Paul presidency would be an entire paradigm shift for American politics that would define the lines again and forever obliterate the Republicrat mindset.