[Big Mac]

Ron Paul 2012: The Ultimate Anti-Obama & Anti-Bush. A thread for discussion and political enjoyment.

Let's get started:

Gallup claims that Paul is only 2 measly points behind President Obama right now. That's pretty amazing given how staunchly libertarian his policies are. But if he's only 2 points behind Obama with his very strong, unapologetic view that Entitlements must be phased out, Obama's really seriously in trouble.

I'm in agreement with nearly 100% of his domestic agenda - I can't think of a single thing I don't like: A return to Constitutionally limited government, balanced budget, phasing out of Entitlements, sound money, etc.. The Republican and especially truly Tea Party base of the GOP can get behind his domestic policies wholeheartedly. But his foreign policy is a different matter. Especially when it comes to Iran and his laughable assertion that Iran hasn't directly killed Americans (when they've been driving terrorism against American troops, for one example) or poses no threat to America. A lot of people miss the point that not only does Iran call for death to Israel, it also calls for death to America. And Paul is fine with them getting nuclear weapons, even empathizing with the murderous regime because he says they feel threatened? I like his non-interventionist general approach to foreign policy, but when he speaks about Iran he comes across as laughable kook. Also, there's a fine line between non-intervention and isolationism; isolationism caused us to ignore the Axis powers until the wakeup call of Pearl Harbor. I know Paul wants to be consistent to his previous positions, but if he truly wants to have a chance to oppose Obama, he needs to modify his foreign policy message so that it at least sounds sane. He's softened his rhetoric on Entitlements to a degree, not declaring openly that they're unconstitutional and need to be repealed - only that they should be phased out over time. He can do the same thing and align his rhetoric on foreign policy with the mainstream of the GOP and the country.

A Ron Paul presidency would be a stunning repudiation and reversal of course from the last two Administrations. And apparently he could actually do it. I just wonder if his candidacy is serious, or instead, if he's just running one last time as a publicity campaign for the libertarian platform that can then be capitalized upon in the near future by Senator Rand Paul to get to the White House. I'd like to hope that it's a genuine, serious campaign. Some also bring up the fact that he's even older than McCain was, and that could be a problem in the youth obsessed and biased culture we live in. But if Obama fatigue is strong enough, and if Paul makes himself nominate-able and electable, he could go the distance. That's my assessment of Paul's campaign at this point. What's yours?

[turtle777]

I don't think Ron Paul has a chance getting elected. America is not ready to say NO to all the DC bullshit.

Alas, he's the only GOP candidate I'd vote for. All others, including the Tea-Pary clowns, are not worth voting for.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't think Ron Paul has a chance getting elected.

That's the normal assumption, but look at those Gallup numbers. Within the margin of error. And it's not like people will say they support Paul and not know what he's generally about - if that were the case that number would be much lower. Is Obama fatigue so high that people may be ready to embrace his antithesis?

[ghporter]

Not only would Ron Paul be a bad choice for president, he'd also be a bad candidate. He's come out publicly against the constitutionality of paper currency... Yes, no "fiat money" for him; in stating that the Constitution only authorizes Congress to "coin money," he ignores the fact that Congress can delegate tasks, including the production of money, via statute. The Federal Reserve Act does that-Congress gives the Federal Reserve system authority under Congressional supervision to produce cash for Congress... So if the guy feels he can pick and choose what parts of the basic text of the Constitution he likes, what might he do with the first 10 Amendments? And what sort of chaos might his stands on these sorts of things cause throughout the country? Plenty, I'll bet.

[turtle777]

Fiat money is doomed anyways. In the next 20 years, there's going to be a worldwide return to "harder" money, most likely partially gold backed.

Ron Paul is just 20 years ahead of the curve, and as such, not electable in a society as dumb and corrupt as ours.

-t

[ghporter]

How can he be "ahead of the curve" when he argues against the (well established) constitutionality of fiat money, rather than the practicality and functional problems associated with it? If he said "floating currency is bad," or "a monetary basis that retains value despite variations in markets is superior and less prone to tampering or influence by mob market reactions," that would be very different. Instead, he's saying that fiat money is not legal, even though it has been firmly established to BE legal...

[BadKosh]

Paul is an idiot. he has no idea about foreign affairs. He will end up being an isolationist.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How can he be "ahead of the curve" when he argues against the (well established) constitutionality of fiat money, rather than the practicality and functional problems associated with it? If he said "floating currency is bad," or "a monetary basis that retains value despite variations in markets is superior and less prone to tampering or influence by mob market reactions," that would be very different. Instead, he's saying that fiat money is not legal, even though it has been firmly established to BE legal...

If fiat currency is constitutional there is strong evidence that it very narrowly is so or wasn't supposed to be. The current global crisis is as a result of fiat money being abused by sovereigns. Massive indebtedness wouldn't be possible if politicians couldn't just decide to fabricate currency endlessly. But fiat currency's problem is only made critical because governments have trouble restraining their unlimited spending appetites. The fiat dollar did excellently under Clinton and PM did nothing at that time, but once the printing presses were fired up. . . Now many commentators are speculating that because of the sheer size of our debt and unfunded mandates, the US will eventually have to default on its debt. I don't want to hold fiat currency on that day. But like Ron Paul says we've been defaulting for some time by failing to reign in enormous government - hence the runaway trajectory of gold.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's the normal assumption, but look at those Gallup numbers. Within the margin of error. And it's not like people will say they support Paul and not know what he's generally about - if that were the case that number would be much lower. Is Obama fatigue so high that people may be ready to embrace his antithesis?

Romney is over Obama by two points according to this same poll. I think people are ready for just about anyone over Obama. This is the vote of the Independents being heard. Ron Paul is unelectable for many of the reasons you cite in your analysis including the fact that the protectionist fiscal measures he supports are all, but negated by a woefully naive and destructive foreign policy position. He's always done well in straw-polling etc because of an excitable base..., but when it comes to the gravitas of leading the country, he's just too difficult to stand behind. Evidenced best by his own difficulty in standing behind his positions in debate.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How can he be "ahead of the curve" when he argues against the (well established) constitutionality of fiat money, rather than the practicality and functional problems associated with it?

As far as I understand, the "constitutional fiat money" was created at a time when USD was still Gold backed. So in a sense, it wasn't really fiat, but just a representation of the Gold at Fort Knox.

When the US left the Gold standard, they were in violation of that Constitution already, since the Constitution did NOT give the right to print money w/o *any* backing.

Of course, nowadays, everyone calls this FULL fiat money system "established", because looking at it as 80 years of violating the Constitution seems to be something nobody wants to admit to.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Romney is over Obama by two points according to this same poll. I think people are ready for just about anyone over Obama. This is the vote of the Independents being heard. Ron Paul is unelectable for many of the reasons you cite in your analysis including the fact that the protectionist fiscal measures he supports are all, but negated by a woefully naive and destructive foreign policy position. He's always done well in straw-polling etc because of an excitable base..., but when it comes to the gravitas of leading the country, he's just too difficult to stand behind. Evidenced best by his own difficulty in standing behind his positions in debate.

Agreed. This polling is not so much about the strength of Ron Paul ... but about the relative weakness of President Obama given the state of the economy. This same polling shows that while Obama still has high favorability ratings by a sizable majority of the electorate ... and his favorability ratings dwarfs that of Congress ... he is still the most identifiable politician on the national stage as President. Consequently, he gets left holding the bag for the current economic doldrums because the attention span of the electorate is woefully short ... and the fact that his policies staved off an even deeper economic collapse just 2 years ago is old news at this stage in the game.

That being said, Ron Paul is totally unelectable. For every moment he has where he takes a position that actually makes sense ... he has three moments where he takes a position that is completely out of the mainstream because he is such a rigid adherent to his ideology. But at the end of the day Libertarians are simply Republicans who want to be able to smoke weed and visit prostitutes legally. He'll never even win the GOP nomination let alone a general election for the Presidency. But I certainly respect him for his consistency.

OAW

[el chupacabra]

Paul wont be elected because he doesn't support the corporations the way the other politicians do.
Ron Paul gets ignored by the media after nearly winning Iowa Straw Poll | Jack Hunter | Charleston City Paper
He also does crazy things like encourage all us not to drink the same cool aid. Most people would rather politician that just says the same ol talking points so it makes it easy for us to understand when they're telling what to think and believe.

And you're not going to like this.. but I think most of your opinion on Iran and foreign affairs is influenced or biased by the fact that you're Jewish. Because it makes no sense to many of us why our country spends so much time/resources meddling in the affairs of Israel and its supposed enemies

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But his foreign policy is a different matter. Especially when it comes to Iran and his laughable assertion that Iran hasn't directly killed Americans (when they've been driving terrorism against American troops, for one example) or poses no threat to America.

Iran wouldn't be killing American troops if we weren't in Iraq; where we don't belong, now would they. And lets not forget "terrorism" is a made up rhetorical word. Terrorism is something our government has participated in too when it's convenient for them... And I would argue they continue to to this day, such as with Libya.

A lot of people miss the point that not only does Iran call for death to Israel, it also calls for death to America. And Paul is fine with them getting nuclear weapons,

To be fair Paul's stance is that Iran can't really afford nukes; and it surely can't afford any kind of significant war with or without nukes. He said Iran wont attack Israel or the US because it would be suicide.... He is right. Anyone who believes otherwise is the "cook", as you put it. Iran can call for the death of America all it wants; it doesn't mean anyone is going to be stupid enough to try it.

He also makes a good point about how many crazy nations have nukes and we dont stop them...

I like his non-interventionist general approach to foreign policy, but when he speaks about Iran he comes across as laughable kook. isolationism caused us to ignore the Axis powers until the wakeup call of Pearl Harbor.

A Pearl Harbor like attack from a nation such as Iran (or any nation for that matter) would be extremely unlikely at this point in History. Our currently foreign policy in the past 10 years or 20... no matter how you look at it... has caused more American deaths (and money) than Pearl Harbor. So If Paul's stance is to play the "wait for a Pearl Harbor wakeup call" like you say.... Then I am fine with playing that lottery.

He can do the same thing and align his rhetoric on foreign policy with the mainstream of the GOP and the country.

We've been electing people with ideas "aligned" with the GOP and dems for decades now... Thats why we're in the mess we're in.

That's my assessment of Paul's campaign at this point. What's yours?

I'll vote for him but I think most people are just going to vote for the same big money billboard smiles like Perry that they've been voting for for years. Obama has a chance too; people underestimate the numbers of crazy uneducated youth out there. You'd think they wouldn't, you'd think people would realize that when each successive generation has 3-6 more kids, their kids will eventually out vote them.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

How can he be "ahead of the curve" when he argues against the (well established) constitutionality of fiat money, rather than the practicality and functional problems associated with it? If he said "floating currency is bad," or "a monetary basis that retains value despite variations in markets is superior and less prone to tampering or influence by mob market reactions," that would be very different. Instead, he's saying that fiat money is not legal, even though it has been firmly established to BE legal...

Paul has said all those things actually. The fact that it isn't legal is the least of his points; since he has said all he wants to do is allow competing currencies within the nation. That way when one gets out of hand you have a choice to switch to the other. This competition would force government and fed to tighten their belts and keep currency value in check rather than free reign.

You call it "well established' but that could be a matter of opinion. The fed reserve act was 1913; so in order for this to work congress has had to make it illegal for us to function in a way that people used to. What the Federal reserve had to do to become a monopoly (such as creating the great depression to weed out non-member banks) should be considered illegal.

There are so many problems with our current banking system; such as the fact that we allow them to charge 10% interest on all our taxes... or devalue our money as they see fit.

It's funny how much faith everyone has in all these people at the top and their polices. They're all betting against their own policies. Most my money is in stocks, silver, land, gold respectively. I've been desperately trying to get land to represent majority of my investments. But it's difficult now that I'm completing with all these wallstreet gurus, politicians, and bankers. They all seem to see the writing on the wall and are buying up commodity producing real-estate so when the crap hits the fan and everyone's starving... They'll have all the food. Oh I forgot to mention.. they're also many of the ones pushing precious metals up.