The official Ron Paul thread

[easyrider]

Again, I would cite the earlier dismissal of the US's (and possibly the world's) foremost political dissident as strong evidence of this

Didn't dismiss what he said, I actually agree with Chomsky, that a complete reversion to an 18th or 19th century America would erase any substantial progress we've made. I just disagree with his portrayal of non-interventionism.

 

[ragabr]

The only thing that is guaranteed under a Paul presidency is that banks/businesses actually do go bankrupt instead of getting bailed out, and a withdrawal of all U.S. troops internationally.

It gets right back around to the fact that neither of these are powers of the Executive Branch. US troop placements internationally are dictated by treaties subject to the approval of the Congress. The payments to all of the banks were enacted by Congress.

 

[polytrip]

polytrip...my point is that what you describe will happen...one day the "money" will disappear into thin air and the structures and institutions we know now will crumble into dust. This is inevitable.

Yes, it will ofcourse happen someday. But will this day be very soon?

When you look at the way the american political system currently functions, or the financial system for that matter, you´d be inclined to think so.

But i think that globalisation hugely affects the way we look at the world, both in a positive as in a negative way. And american politicians are being exposed to that influence as well.
At some point they will realise that america is no longer the biggest superpower in the world, and that will hugely affect their psyche. The less narcisistic bunch of them will maybe stop believing that constitution hill is the highest point on planet earth.

Maybe things will actually change over time, before the whole system collapses. That is a serious possibility.

I also think that the chinese rather want to buy parts of america that actually are worth investing in, so if it´s up to them america will not go bancrupt before they´re in the position to withstand the consequential financial crash themselves and they will opt for a controlled bancrupcy, rather than a big instant crash.

So with a bit of luck, there won´t be a total economic black-out very soon but instead, the chinese will just buy half of corporate america for a 'reasonable price'

 

[easyrider]

The only thing that is guaranteed under a Paul presidency is that banks/businesses actually do go bankrupt instead of getting bailed out, and a withdrawal of all U.S. troops internationally.

It gets right back around to the fact that neither of these are powers of the Executive Branch. US troop placements internationally are dictated by treaties subject to the approval of the Congress. The payments to all of the banks were enacted by Congress.

He would be commander-in-chief, and that grants him the authority to direct military and naval forces, as explained in Federalist No. 69:

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies -- all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

As for the status of the banking system and the matter of the national debt, well, Paul actually stated he would veto any legislation that isn't in tune with his positions. That would be an effective tactic to bringing congress towards his ideas.

 

[ChaoticMethod]

Thats really the best I can do on your questions a1pha, this is honestly how I feel about it, I'm sorry if my answers don't fit into your mold of what I 'should' think but its the truth about how I feel, it may not be 'the truth' as you see it but we are all different and I still respect you and your views.

I think you are stating yourself the main problem some people have with your views right here.

You FEEL about Ron Paul, instead of THINKING about him (and politics).

I think your right about this. I also think its the 'thinking' about the poor people of the middle east living every day of their lives wondering when a cruise missile is going to kill or main them instead of 'feeling' what that must be like is the main reason you don't vote for Ron Paul.

While you wait for a leader that fills every single requirement necessary for Americans to maintain their decadent lifestyle AND stop the wars people are dying. This is an outrage and flies in the face of everything I've learned through DMT. war is not acceptable.

The murder needs to stop as a first order of business everything else is secondary to that and if you cant understand that simple fact I'm not even going to argue with you, you don't deserve my anger or contempt , you deserve my sympathy and prayers.


you guys need to put you empathy hats on.

Who says we don't feel any empathy toward the poor people of the middle east? I'm not saying you shouldn't feel any empathy. What I am saying is that emotions have a place in politics only if it is supported by strong critical thinking.

Your emotions are easily used by people who know how to manipulate them. If you can't think about your own emotions and what they are reacting to, if you can't see how politician's rhetoric is structured to take control of people's emotions, then you are as much of a sheep as the people being fed bullshit by Fox News.

War is not acceptable, I totally agree with you. What we are all saying here, is that you shouldn't take for granted what politicians tell you as plain truth. What I was saying in the other thread, about Obama telling a lot of bullshit about Change and not bringing any real change, wasn't to compare Obama to Paul but to show you how easily people can be deceived by false hope.