RON PAUL 2008: The only candidate who speaks the TRUTH!

[firemoth12]

Some of you may have heard about Ron Paul...hes been generally ignored by the mainstream media (although they cant/wont ignore him much anymore). According to text message polls after each Republican debate, he wins. He has generated more internet buzz and grassroots support than any other candidate. Watch this video of the last debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ZXM3h4jig


He's NOT just another republican puppet - he's smart. Common Sense. The only candidate I would vote for. Search Youtube, facebook, myspace, and a bunch of other sites for more information...theres a ton of internet support for him.

F*ck guliani and the rest of the neo-conservatives.

[Akira]

What a bad thread.

[Eliminator]

okay.

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

what a god awful thread

[firemoth12]

well i guess i can't really delete it now....so you'll have to put up with it

[Scuba_Steve]

I like him, but I agree this is a baaad thread

[Krabsworth]

kay.

[John Paul Harrison]

ron paul's only asset is a rational foreign policy.

god forbid if central intelligence is run by the private sector.

[Reaganista]

wikipedia informs me that ron paul supports piracy as a defense against terrorism http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm

[CameoRole]

He's a slut.

[Independent_CA]

Interesting vid and in fact the first time in a while any Republican has said anything that remotely interested me. I went to votesmart.org and checked out his NPAT (which most of the main candidates other than McCain and Kucinich haven't even taken). It's from one he did in 1996, so some of the questions are kind of outdated but you still get a good idea of where he stands.

He has some issues that I really, really like, espeically on foreign policy, 2nd Ammendment, taxes and other issues. However, he also backs some things that I am very opposed to. I'll keep on eye on him though.

[clairvoyant]

He's pretty good. I don't like his "everything gold and silver" idea, but he seems to speak the truth.

[Danger Bird]

I love his foreign policy but he's pretty retarded when it comes to immigration and stem cells and whatnot.

[griftadan]

yeah i don't think we should go to the gold standard or abolish the IRS but i like him over all

[Reaganista]

I love his foreign policy
he wants to fight terrorism with pirates

[italic zero]

he wants to fight terrorism with pirates
and people wonder why he's so popular on the internet

[lunchforthesky]

Lol Gold standard is a bad idea for America right now.

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

I don't think merely speaking the truth is any sign of being a good political candidate. A lot of it is not about telling the truth, but about what your opinions are and what policies you would enact if elected. Like, i could tell the truth about the world, but have terrible policies.

He is a right wing libertarian type bloke, right?

[beso negro]

I like how he doesn't put up with FDA's bullshit too.

http://www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday425.php
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

**** yes Ron Paul **** yes

[Ollie The Drumming Legend]

Compulsory vaccination is a good idea, as it prevents epidemics, protects people from dying from horrible diseases and passing them on to other people. Why would you oppose that, when the government spends money on much worse things, like rediculous law enforcement and heavy sentencing, contracting private companies to soak up taxes via the military budget, etc.??

Also, with the FDA, it is not its existence which is a problem, but the current way in which it is run. Why is that hard to grasp? A govt. organisation needs improvement so improve it rather than scrap it; that is the equivalent of saying that because some private companies go bankrupt, private business is not a good thing :\

[beso negro]

Compulsory vaccination is a good idea, as it prevents epidemics, protects people from dying from horrible diseases and passing them on to other people.

there are currently no epidemics we need mandatory vaccinations for. And there will probably never be, unless its man made or something.

The point is it shouldn't be mandatory. I don't want some unnatural chemical in my body. I don't want the irreversible side effects. Such as death. Take Gardasil for example. I read an article a while ago about all the side effects and deaths. There are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility. I'm not surprised, the same company that made Gardasil made Vioxx.

And people think Gardasil should be mandatory. I'm glad i'm moving to mexico in 4 years. Don't want my daughters subjected to that.

Also, with the FDA, it is not its existence which is a problem, but the current way in which it is run. Why is that hard to grasp?

where did i say its existence is a problem?

[italic zero]

there will be small pox epidemics if people stop getting vaccinated

[lfantwister]

Take Gardasil for example. I read an article a while ago about all the side effects and deaths. There are even some concerns that Gardasil may cause infertility.

link?

[beso negro]

In Great Britain, the polio epidemic peaked in 1950, and declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced in 1956. Thus, at best, vaccinations can be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease related deaths this century and even this small portion is questionable, as the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced.

Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it. (In fact, both small pox and polio immunization campaigns were followed initially by significant disease incidence increases; during smallpox vaccination campaigns, other infectious diseases continued their declines in the absence of vaccines. In England and Wales, smallpox disease and vaccination rates eventually declined simultaneously over a period of several decades.

http://www.medical-library.net/content/view/319/41/

link?

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=74913
http://betterwaytowellness.com/blog/2007/03/06/politicians-drinking-the-gardasil-kool-aid/

[lfantwister]

the second one linked to this:
http://www.medicalaccountability.net/essay_gardasil.html

and it was not that damning (thank god, i dont really want to die from that of all things)

[italic zero]

http://www.medical-library.net/content/view/319/41/



http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=74913
http://betterwaytowellness.com/blog/2007/03/06/politicians-drinking-the-gardasil-kool-aid/
yeah and so the measles and mumps outbreaks in the UK have nothing to do with low vaccination rates?

[beso negro]

that's what the man says

[italic zero]

so he's a crackpot

[Joe McCarthy]

I support Ron Paul, but this is a bad thread.

[peeted]

Hes not bad for a republican....but he is pretty bad.

[BridgeToSolace]

He wont be able to do nearly half the stuff that he's building his campaign on.

The president has more power to make sure things don't happen than to actually enact change.

[Det_Nosnip]

Hmm. His truth is significantly worse than alot of the other candidates' lies. He sounds like a moron.

[pooble]

Also, with the FDA, it is not its existence which is a problem, but the current way in which it is run. Why is that hard to grasp? A govt. organisation needs improvement so improve it rather than scrap it; that is the equivalent of saying that because some private companies go bankrupt, private business is not a good thing :\

If that were true he would be arguing for the abolishment of the entire government. Rather, its the equivalent of saying that because some private companies go bankrupt, those companies were not good at doing what they did.

[Knifeboy]

he wants to fight terrorism with pirates

All he need to do now, is suggest that the police force should branch out and employ ninjas, then he'd have the support of 95% of the internets

[Rawb]

He's from Texas lol.


Seriously though he sounds like a good guy. And I'll leave on that note.

[DougJI]

Hmm. His truth is significantly worse than alot of the other candidates' lies. He sounds like a moron.

at least its the truth though.

[recklessrick]

The Democrats have had their day so have the Repubs.We need a less corrupt gov.now, no more whining kiddies vote.

[Reaganista]

voting is stupid

[Det_Nosnip]

at least its the truth though.

Might be...or it might not. Either way, the result is the same. Plenty of important politicians throughout history have lied through their teeth and gotten important **** done that improved our lives. I'd honestly (ha) rather elect a dishonest but competent politician than a fool.

[pooble]

while i support a large portion of his views, i know if he got into power most of his plans would not materialize simply because of already existing institutions not wishing for it to happen.

[Iskandar]

while i support a large portion of his views, i know if he got into power most of his plans would not materialize simply because of already existing institutions not wishing for it to happen.I think a lot of his ideas are overly ambitious and unrealistic. America is more right-wing than most Western nations, but it's not prepared for a drastic shift to libertarian policies.

[recklessrick]

So by not voting you have given up?Just maybe we can turn things around if we can't vote then what, we're no different than Cuba or N.Korea then.

[Smokey D]

Yes you are.

[pooble]

I think a lot of his ideas are overly ambitious and unrealistic. America is more right-wing than most Western nations, but it's not prepared for a drastic shift to libertarian policies.

America's right wingism is certainly the far-from-libertarianism kind. But thats essentially my point.

Actually, I dont remember where I recently heard this, but some survey showed that in terms of numbers, Americans are much more libertarian than the election results would show.

[Reaganista]

So by not voting you have given up?
i havent given anything up ive just recognized that voting is stupid

[Iskandar]

America's right wingism is certainly the far-from-libertarianism kind. But thats essentially my point.

Actually, I dont remember where I recently heard this, but some survey showed that in terms of numbers, Americans are much more libertarian than the election results would show.Ron Paul is libertarian and very right-wing. It's just a different kind of right-wing from neoconservatism.

[pooble]

hes more socially conservative than most libertarians, probably one of the most conservative around. that causes a lot of tension among libertarians.

[Iskandar]

hes more socially conservative than most libertarians, probably one of the most conservative around. that causes a lot of tension among libertarians.Economics is more important in libertarianism, i.e. their attempt to return to an extremely privatized economy.

I would advise a group as marginalized as libertarians to take what they can get. Ron Paul is their only option.

[guitrguy]

Economics is more important in libertarianism, i.e. their attempt to return to an extremely privatized economy.

I would advise a group as marginalized as libertarians to take what they can get. Ron Paul is their only option.

Granted he has 1% support... I consider myself libertarian, but his social conservatism really prevents me from supporting him.

[Iskandar]

Granted he has 1% support... I consider myself libertarian, but his social conservatism really prevents me from supporting him.Exactly what I mean though. Libertarians will never find a federal candidate who corresponds exactly to their beliefs, because they're so outside of the mainstream. Libertarians have to take what they can get, which in this case is Ron Paul. He might be more conservative than you'd like, but he's a lot closer to you than Hilary or Mitt Romney or whomever.

[CameoRole]

Some people value civil rights and social justice more than economics, though.

[guitrguy]

Exactly what I mean though. Libertarians will never find a federal candidate who corresponds exactly to their beliefs, because they're so outside of the mainstream. Libertarians have to take what they can get, which in this case is Ron Paul. He might be more conservative than you'd like, but he's a lot closer to you than Hilary or Mitt Romney or whomever.
Very true. I really need to research who is running for the libertarian party.

[Iskandar]

Some people value civil rights and social justice more than economics, though.Libertarianism places economics first, in my opinion, although civil liberties are also important to them.

(And social justice is a byword for statist intervention or something, I'm assuming.)

[guitrguy]

Libertarianism places economics first, in my opinion, although civil liberties are also important to them.

(And social justice is a byword for statist intervention or something, I'm assuming.)

Timing also come into play I personally see civil liberties in general facing much more of threat especially with how Bush has been trying to make the supreme court ultra-conservative. Even Guilliani would nominate a justice who would tip the vote just enough to overthrow Roe v. Wade, and possibly make gay marriage unconstitutional.

[Iskandar]

Timing also come into play I personally see civil liberties in general facing much more of threat especially with how Bush has been trying to make the supreme court ultra-conservative. Even Guilliani would nominate a justice who would tip the vote just enough to overthrow Roe v. Wade, and possibly make gay marriage unconstitutional.So you might actually be better off voting for left-leaning candidates who would oppose such things, even if you don't agree with their economic agenda.

[guitrguy]

So you might actually be better off voting for left-leaning candidates who would oppose such things, even if you don't agree with their economic agenda.
Yep... I may vary well be voting democrat this election, and they are more likely to pull troops, yet I find them to be mostly talk on that issue.

[recklessrick]

Whites are Republicans, Minorities are the Democrats .

[StrangeVision]

Whites are Republicans, Minorities are the Democrats .

Just shut up. It'll be better for everyone.

[recklessrick]

you can't handle the truth

[recklessrick]

What else do you have for an alternative for the problems that are sure to come? a third party has been a longtime coming. don't be afraid show some huevos. Or just bitch like little girlymen.

[Smokey D]

The political system is geared towards 2 parties. That's very difficult to overcome in the US. But I think his comment was criticising how you divided the support for Dems and Republicans. It's no where near that simple.

[StrangeVision]

The political system is geared towards 2 parties. That's very difficult to overcome in the US. But I think his comment was criticising how you divided the support for Dems and Republicans. It's no where near that simple.

Thank you.

Personally I hate the two party system and would welcome a third party. I was pointing out how painfully ignorant you post was.

[recklessrick]

The political system is geared towards 2 parties. That's very difficult to overcome in the US. But I think his comment was criticising how you divided the support for Dems and Republicans. It's no where near that simple.

Just trying to provoke a response thats all, find out how they feel, and learn about their hatred for each other like theres the liberals and the Neo-cons.Like a civil war brewing but they won't admit it.The republicans are good at directing all thats wrong on those wimp democrats and the people swallow the whole enchilada about that fact.

My holiday is boring it's raining cats and dogs and liberals right now how is your weather?

[Reaganista]

Just trying to provoke a response thats all, find out how they feel, and learn about their hatred for each other like theres the liberals and the Neo-cons.Like a civil war brewing but they won't admit it.The republicans are good at directing all thats wrong on those wimp democrats and the people swallow the whole enchilada about that fact.
what

[recklessrick]

What.... what do you mean?

[Reaganista]

everything you said was really stupid

[guitrguy]

I think most of us who post on here would love to see more than two parties in the political system.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'd rather see no parties and candidates get elected on the issues rather then some pre-concieved notion of a belief system that no longer applies.

[guitrguy]

I'd rather see no parties and candidates get elected on the issues rather then some pre-concieved notion of a belief system that no longer applies.

I would too, but a plural party system would be a great step in that direction.

[dei]

I'd rather see no parties and candidates get elected on the issues rather then some pre-concieved notion of a belief system that no longer applies.

Yes.

[CameoRole]

Libertarianism places economics first, in my opinion, although civil liberties are also important to them.

(And social justice is a byword for statist intervention or something, I'm assuming.)

Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just sayin', that's all. (relating to yr first point)

As for the byword for intervention: I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Our government should promote equality and leaving gay marriage etc up to the states doesn't do this. I can't believe that people think this is a good idea and that Paul is on the money.

[guitrguy]

Yeah, I'm aware. I'm just sayin', that's all. (relating to yr first point)

As for the byword for intervention: I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Our government should promote equality and leaving gay marriage etc up to the states doesn't do this. I can't believe that people think this is a good idea and that Paul is on the money.
As I said before thats why I don't support Paul.

[Iskandar]

Leaving same-sex marriage up to the states, however, might mean more homosexual Americans could marry sooner because it's unlikely to be passed on a federal level any time soon.

[Reaganista]

unless the president wanted it to be or something

[Iskandar]

unless the president wanted it to be or somethingyeah except there's no way he would

[guitrguy]

unless the president wanted it to be or something

Except for the fact the president can't create laws. The president can only suggest, sign in, or veto laws.

[Reaganista]

yeah except there's no way he would
....
if ron paul was the president
it would be entirely up to him to decide what the president wants

Except for the fact the president can't create laws. The president can only suggest, sign in, or veto laws.
thanks for the tip 3rd grade social studies book

[guitrguy]

....
if ron paul was the president
it would be entirely up to him to decide what the president wants


thanks for the tip 3rd grade social studies book
I have no problem teaching people who need the help.

[Iskandar]

....
if ron paul was the president
it would be entirely up to him to decide what the president wants
he's not going to be president and he apparently wants to "leave marriage up to the states" in any case

[Danish]

The two parties you have are basically the same anyway.

[recklessrick]

everything you said was really stupid

Your so ****in' perfect, you suck.

[Iskandar]

Knock it off, you two.

[Liberi Fatali]

Economics is more important in libertarianism, i.e. their attempt to return to an extremely privatized economy.

I would advise a group as marginalized as libertarians to take what they can get. Ron Paul is their only option.
But over and above that their focus is on the individual and the negative liberty it possesses.

hes more socially conservative than most libertarians, probably one of the most conservative around. that causes a lot of tension among libertarians.
Just after a brief browse of his wiki page, his social positions seem to be very much libertarian. Perhaps you could reference some particular policies that define him as conservative.

ron paul's only asset is a rational foreign policy.
It is all well and good that he favours non-intervention when it comes to war, but do you favour as he does exiting the United Nations? Such an action in mind would be significantly detrimental to inter-state relations and a step backwards when what is needed is cooperation to improve upon the international organisations that currently exist. But then again I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to IR.

[lfantwister]

It is all well and good that he favours non-intervention when it comes to war, but do you favour as he does exiting the United Nations? Such an action in mind would be significantly detrimental to inter-state relations and a step backwards when what is needed is cooperation to improve upon the international organisations that currently exist. But then again I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to IR.
as much as he might want to leave the un, he would never be albe to (if elected) because of those pesky congressmen and such

[RIP Ian Curtis]

US leaving the UN = the end of the UN. Seeing as you guys pay for it. I'm all in favour of bailing, it's not like it does anything usefull anymore.

[griftadan]

my problems with him:

his bitching about declarations of war and authorization of force which are effectively the same thing. also he decided that a declaration wasn't necessary for afghanistan, so i don't get wtf he's talking about

he wants the gold standard. enough said.

his view of international organizations is somewhat unrealistic, sure we wouldn't need to be apart of him if everyone in the world shared our same international outlook, but that's simply not the case.

these would probably be non-issues though if he actualyl one so i would still probably vote for him

[John Paul Harrison]

It is all well and good that he favours non-intervention when it comes to war, but do you favour as he does exiting the United Nations? Such an action in mind would be significantly detrimental to inter-state relations and a step backwards when what is needed is cooperation to improve upon the international organisations that currently exist. But then again I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to IR.

yeah, i looked over my statement a while back and realized i just praised a virtual isolationist.

what i meant to say was that ron paul has a rational grasp of intrusive american policy in middle east relations, and that's the only real fuel behind his "im fresh! new! smart!" image.

[YDload]

he's a Libertarian trying to get into a major party and everyone who supports him is a colloidal silver-chugging crackpot

[Smokey D]

US leaving the UN = the end of the UN. Seeing as you guys pay for it. I'm all in favour of bailing, it's not like it does anything usefull anymore.

You'd only say that if you knew nothing about the UN -- UNESCO, UNICEF etc are all extremely important organisations under the auspices of the UN.

And there is a lot of non-interventionist community building stuff that goes on at the UN that has played a major role in IR since 1945.

[Reaganista]

he's not going to be president and he apparently wants to "leave marriage up to the states" in any case
my point
is that his argument for why it should be left up to the states
only makes sense if the president doesn't want it to be legal everywhere

But then again I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to IR.
um nothing could be less realist than wanting to leave the UN we have veto power
I have no problem teaching people who need the help.
the executive is by far the most important policy making institution in the us government

[RIP Ian Curtis]

You'd only say that if you knew nothing about the UN -- UNESCO, UNICEF etc are all extremely important organisations under the auspices of the UN.

And there is a lot of non-interventionist community building stuff that goes on at the UN that has played a major role in IR since 1945.

The only useful purpose I can fathom the UN serving is all the really simple, behind-the-scenes "unimportant" things. Like the treaties on international communications (i.e. you can't burn mail going to other countries, cut other countries telephone lines). All of the big-time ideology stuff is at best useless.

[Iskandar]

But over and above that their focus is on the individual and the negative liberty it possesses. That's the ideological part. In reality, libertarians just want to be really, really capitalist.

[GorgeousGabe]

And so the south will rise again...

Here's what I'll say about Ron Paul.
Do tell me if this has all already been covered- I didn't feel like reading through five pages of your collective immature banter (no offense- I'm sure I would've taken part, had I been here sooner)

but here's what I'll say.
I think he is an incredibly interesting candidate, and everyone should know who he is

The reason I say so is because he, unlike pretty much every major candidate running, doesn't seem to be on a corporate leash, or have some sort of paid-for agenda

That being said... I think that his own agenda may turn out to be rather nefarious.

His states right crap goes too far
I might go for it anyway though- socializing education is a shitty idea, but considering the government that we have today... putting faith in the public school system is about equally shitty.
He also happens to be quite a bit of a hypocrite- for individual rights, but against gay marriage and abortions?

I think that Ron Paul would try to turn America into a free for all- The states rights bullshit was just a veil for slavery pre-civil war... what disgusting agendas could it be used to promote today?

See... my problem is that I have no faith in the federal government to work for my interest right now. They're all owned by oil companies or defense contractors or by somebody else whose agenda I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
People who are Pro-Bush either don't watch the news enough, or watch it way too much.
People who are against Bush say that he's incompetent and stupid.....
...which is very stupid. He's accomplished almost everything he could have wanted to accomplish. It's just that, his goals don't line up with the well-being of the American citizen. To underestimate such a man is ludicrous.

But I'm going off on a tangent
My real issue is this: in order to be elected, in order to have power and make decisions that affect my life, you have to have a LOT of money. And all the people who have a LOT of money... seem to be total dickholes. Worse- the people who have money, AND some sort of political agenda? They are pure evil, and consequentially, they have the most power.
I don't trust anyone whose campaign was paid for by media companies, oil companies, defense contractors, or worse- dirty ****ing hippies.

So do I trust Ron Paul?
Yeah, I trust him
It's just that... I trust that he will be a ****up, probably a racist, maybe even a fascist.

[Tyrant21]

People who are against Bush say that he's incompetent and stupid.....
...which is very stupid. He's accomplished almost everything he could have wanted to accomplish. It's just that, his goals don't line up with the well-being of the American citizen. To underestimate such a man is ludicrous.

.

he has gotten to where he is not on his own accord, but on that of the people around him who have helped him. he has become essentially a puppet.

[Reaganista]

only in the sense that every president is a puppet

[Danish]

That's the ideological part. In reality, libertarians just want to be really, really capitalist.

Exactly. As if civil and political rights require market fundamentalism -- the exact opposite is true.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Whoah whoah whoah. I can understand argueing against Ron Paul on lots of stuff. But a fascist? That's kinda pushing it man. I mean it's hard to get less fascist than he is.

[YDload]

"states' rights" has always been an excuse for the South to give some segment of the population less rights than the rest of the country.

[sexymuffin]

i think he'd be a fun president to have. i don't think half of his policies will go into effect, but he's against the war on drugs, for tax cuts and less spending, for unregulated internet, a supporter of keeping out of other countries business and human rights.

his anti abortion and gay stance is just his 'morality' talking, these laws will go into effect eventually no matter what president gets in tbh

i mean if anything it'd be entertaining to have him as a president for a few years, at least it'd be interesting to see how many changes he can actually produce.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Hasn't he explictitly stated that he won't make abortion and gay laws? I thought he said he'd leave it to the states to work it out, he just didn't like em much himself.

[sexymuffin]

leaving it up to the states isn't good enough

kucinich 2008

[Liberi Fatali]

um nothing could be less realist than wanting to leave the UN we have veto power
His reasoning from what I can remember was not related to the their veto power. I never said the U.S should stay in the UN and keep their veto power, just that they should stay in the UN. The veto power of the UN security council permanent members should be removed imo, but thats another issue.

[Reaganista]

His reasoning from what I can remember was not related to the their veto power.
that has nothing to do with anything
I never said the U.S should stay in the UN and keep their veto power, just that they should stay in the UN. The veto power of the UN security council permanent members should be removed imo, but thats another issue.
ok that's kind of unrelated too
the point is anyone who wants the US to leave for any reason is motivated by some sort of idealism because all realists would stay and continuing having vetos

[griftadan]

"states' rights" has always been an excuse for the South to give some segment of the population less rights than the rest of the country.

yeah not really

[GorgeousGabe]

"states' rights" has always been an excuse for the South to give some segment of the population less rights than the rest of the country.

This. This this this

[Reaganista]

yeah not really
other than the part where he's right

[RNR]

To me, the party that elects George ****ing W. Bush to be its leader should sit the next term out. Give them dems a chance.

[guitrguy]

I really would like to what see a dem would do in office.

[beso negro]

i think he'd be a fun president to have. i don't think half of his policies will go into effect, but he's against the war on drugs, for tax cuts and less spending, for unregulated internet, a supporter of keeping out of other countries business and human rights.

his anti abortion and gay stance is just his 'morality' talking, these laws will go into effect eventually no matter what president gets in tbh

i mean if anything it'd be entertaining to have him as a president for a few years, at least it'd be interesting to see how many changes he can actually produce.

this is true


he wants the gold standard. enough said.

whats so bad about that?

[griftadan]

whats so bad about that?

people think gold is some sort of hallmark of value stability, and really properly managed currencies consistently outperform gold in this area.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

To me, the party that elects George ****ing W. Bush to be its leader should sit the next term out. Give them dems a chance.

Which one? They're all fairly abysmal.

[Liberi Fatali]

the point is anyone who wants the US to leave for any reason is motivated by some sort of idealism because all realists would stay and continuing having vetosYes idealists would oppose veto power for sure. But idealism looks at what can be more so than what is. Thus an idealist would look at the optimal outcome as sticking with the UN, and abolishing veto power.

And remember four other states have veto power, which realists would see as encroaching on their relative power. So I wouldn't say the decision of realists is as clear cut as you make it out to be.

[RNR]

Which one? They're all fairly abysmal.

It's true that none of them stand out as a powerful and deserving leader. I wish more emphasis was put on the party as a whole rather than just on the President.

It's also silly of yous Amerikans to not allow somebody to be president twice. Bill Clinton is the man. In Canada, when we have a good politican, we keep him.

[Reaganista]

Yes idealists would oppose veto power for sure. But idealism looks at what can be more so than what is. Thus an idealist would look at the optimal outcome as sticking with the UN, and abolishing veto power.

unless their ideal was
like ron paul's
one that didn't include the UN


And remember four other states have veto power, which realists would see as encroaching on their relative power.
no they dont

So I wouldn't say the decision of realists is as clear cut as you make it out to be.
yes it is

[Liberi Fatali]

unless their ideal was
like ron paul's
one that didn't include the UN
Ron Paul doesn't want the UN or any other form of cooperation encroaching on the sovereignty of the US. Not idealism.
no they dontThe four other permanent members of the UN security council do, and a realist would oppose others having such power relative to what the US has.


yes it isNot really.

[Smokey D]

unless their ideal was
like ron paul's
one that didn't include the UN

The commonly understood meaning of idealism in IR is the opposite of realism. It's true that you can have realist ideals, but that's not what you're going to get across by talking about idealism.

[Reaganista]

Ron Paul doesn't want the UN or any other form of cooperation encroaching on the sovereignty of the US. Not idealism.
are you retarded
the un can never encroach on the sovereignty of the us because the the us can always veto any un action

The four other permanent members of the UN security council do, and a realist would oppose others having such power relative to what the US has.

no they wouldn't
im a realist
leaving the un is the stupidest thing the us could possibly do in regards to the un because the un can never make the us do anything they dont want to do

Not really.
no it really is one of the easiest decisions there's no drawback whatsoever to remaining

The commonly understood meaning of idealism in IR is the opposite of realism. It's true that you can have realist ideals, but that's not what you're going to get across by talking about idealism.
:confused:
giving up veto power for no reason whatsoever weakens the power of the us and that's the opposite of realism

[Liberi Fatali]

are you retarded
the un can never encroach on the sovereignty of the us because the the us can always veto any un action
I didn't say it, Ron Paul did. In regards to leaving the UN:
Yes, I certainly think so, because it's part of the draining of our resources. It's not like you have to close it down in one day…. If you could immediately limit it to the participation in war, it wouldn't bother me quite so much. But I don't think our interests are well served by giving some of our sovereignty up.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561


no they wouldn't
im a realist
That's nice. I'm 18/m/New Zealand.
leaving the un is the stupidest thing the us could possibly do in regards to the un because the un can never make the us do anything they dont want to do But the other permanent security council members can veto what the US wants to do. Thus if US wants to propose something it is subject to their desire. Whereas in complete international anarchy with no UN, US is not subject to desires of other UN members with veto power. It is realist for the US to want to maintain veto power, but it is also realist to want to demolish the UN or leave it. It isn't clear cut.

[Reaganista]

I didn't say it, Ron Paul did. In regards to leaving the UN:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561

o look!
right underneath that he explains his real motivation

Some people who would like to diminish [isolationism's] value call it that. I don't call it that, because to me, it's the opposite. It conforms with what the founders advised, and that is, yes, we don't get involved in the entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations

quit being such a tool

That's nice. I'm 18/m/New Zealand.

figures that you wouldn't know wtf ur talking bout in regards to us foreign policy i guess

But the other permanent security council members can veto what the US wants to do. Thus if US wants to propose something it is subject to their desire. Whereas in complete international anarchy with no UN, US is not subject to desires of other UN members with veto power. It is realist for the US to want to maintain veto power, but it is also realist to want to demolish the UN or leave it. It isn't clear cut.
the us can act against or without the un whenever the **** they please or have you not heard about the war in iraq
the un exerts absolutely no power or influence over the us
it's obvious you havent thought this through

[Liberi Fatali]

o look!
right underneath that he explains his real motivation

Some people who would like to diminish [isolationism's] value call it that. I don't call it that, because to me, it's the opposite. It conforms with what the founders advised, and that is, yes, we don't get involved in the entangling alliances and the internal affairs of other nations=not idealism


the un exerts absolutely no power or influence over the us
Yeah it does, but lets presume the US is entirely realist, then the US can choose not to allow it to exert influence with its veto power or alternatively just ignore it. But it would also be realist to say screw it, lets get rid of the UN on the basis that:
- you could veto stuff that harms your position, or you could not be a part of it and it wouldn't have any effect on you
- If it wants to pass something through the UN, others have veto power. So may as well just do it outside the UN as you said, or it could just not be a part of the UN and do what it wants.

But my original point way back was that I'm partly an idealist for wanting them to stay in the UN. If we look at how a realist would use their veto power, then yes a realist may like to keep it (or may like to leave imo). But an idealist within the UN would not use it, or would oppose having veto power. Idealists look at what can be, and they focus on international cooperation and organisations. Thus to an idealist leaving the UN would be a detrimental move.

[McP3000]

Ron Paul is the ****.

[Reaganista]

=not idealism

yes it is he said it right in there

Yeah it does, but lets presume the US is entirely realist, then the US can choose not to allow it to exert influence with its veto power or alternatively just ignore it. But it would also be realist to say screw it, lets get rid of the UN on the basis that:
- you could veto stuff that harms your position, or you could not be a part of it and it wouldn't have any effect on you

unless the rest of it decided to take action against you
wtf are you retarded or something

[Liberi Fatali]

yes it is he said it right in there
No it isn't, nowhere was it said.

unless the rest of it decided to take action against you
If you go against them while in UN the rest could decide to take against against you as well.

Maybe you should put your stubbornness aside for a second and try reading the wikipedia articles on idealism and realism in IR, or read a better resource if you have access to it.