Your account of his positions on social issues is short sighted. He is staunchly against drug use, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. - all the standard conservative positions. He simply sees that prohibition really boosts those problems. Enforcement against ongoing activity breeds corruption. It takes money to monitor illegal activity, which means there is money to be scammed from the system and favors to be bought and sold. So, state enforcement is better than fed. closer to voters, is best
You are entitled to your views but I think your are not well informed. Thats why Dr. Paul says that we need to understand what Freedom is. What Liberty is. Not everyone is going to share your views and vise versa. NIce Hat.
You have been listening to the main stream media again. Ron Paul is not an isolationist (neither are Libertarians). But we are not the police of the world. We need to follow our rules set by the constitution and declare war when there is a REAL threat, and have a plan to get in and back out. Not to hang around for decades like we are now.
IF someone wants our assistance with a war... They should ask for our help (not forced to accept our help) and help with the cost.
@jaymz711 "can we not look to evolve past expensive wars" short answer no. As long as everything is not infinite there will be war. As long as people are individuals and not same thinking clones with no self interest there will be war. As to the expensive part that is subjective. We could make war far cheaper as long as we are willing to kill a whole lot more of the our own population by arming our military poorly.
@Hunterkirk "can we not look to evolve past expensive wars" short answer no. Wars are not started because they simply disagree. U.S. starts undeclared wars on false pretenses because they refuse our policies, installment of a world bank and to let corporations privatize their natural resources. Ron Paul only wants to stop blowing up other countries and then paying no bid contractors to rebuild them. He will use some of the savings to increase defense and secure our boarders.
Youhave to research the business cycle.And then you have to explain it to your grandparents and the elderly around you. After every boom there is a depression, it has to, it prevents inflation. Think like a flower, it blooms, then wilts. Everyone wants to talk jobs, but our grandparents and my parents where able to make money work off one income, one worked and one stayed home, cooked, educated, cleaned.We don't need more jobs, we need better money. With the Fed reserve out of control....idk
Dude, You probably are the best qualified to explain the different factions of the conservative or Libertarian parties. You called the 'Fiscal Conservatives', "Economic Conservatives". I know the meanings are essentially the same but technically you got your term wrong. Then you said that Ron Paul is the total Libertarian. Not so. The Libertarians have traditionally and mostly are today Pro-Choice. Ron Paul has been in the minority in the Libertarian movement in that sense.
In regards of us testing nuclear weapons, we can't because of treaties so what we do is a lot of computer simulations etc. the nuclear abilities are essential irrelevant because once the hit orbit they really can't be stopped. So we place the new scram jet missiles around China and Russia to shoot them down before they hit orbit thats why Russia and China are annoyed with us. We really are not threatened by anyone we are actually the aggressors. The problem is global Banks run our government.
@RefractableMe Well if you goal is the have a effect Nuclear deterrent we must test to see if these really old nuclear weapons still work... Our missile defense system is not as advanced as you claim. Scram jets are still 100's of billions of spending before they would be effective... I thought Ron Paul was about cutting the military and not sinking 100's of billions in to new nuclear defense systems.
@WVMADMAN1 Again I will vote for Ron Paul if it is between him and Obama. I just have some disagreements. I have no problem with the Ron Paul supporter if they are willing to also say they will vote for anyone other then Obama also. I think some of their expectations are exaggerated and what they think Ron Paul can do as President is unrealistic. Also I am taken back with the aggressiveness of Ron Paul's supporters.
Foreign policy isn't just limited to military power. If our economy crashes, the nation-building, our presence overseas, and such will end. (Besides charity begins at home.) If we start getting our economic power back and we start trading more with other nations, this will also have a positive effect on how other nations will view us. Right now, most nations do not have a positive view of America. Even the countries' governments we supposedly helped like Iraq and Afghanistan have dissed us.
Probably not accurate to describe Iran (the 26th largest economy) and Venezuela (the 35th largest economy as "Big Players". I don't think Paul's policy is for the U.S to mind it's own business in every aspect. Just military intervention. I think foreign trade would thrive under Ron Paul. Might be a nice change to kill less people, promote less hate and have more money.
@amul83 True Iran and so on are not large economies but they don't need to be to be a threat. For example they are actively building a nuclear missile launch site in Venezuela with the help of North Korea and are starting the build process of the nuclear weapon in Iran. As for the rest I simply disagree.
@Hunterkirk Bigger threat is an attack on Iran and Chinese response. General Zhang Zhaozhong now a professor at China's Military Defense University has stated that a US attack on Iran would be viewed as an threat to China's national security and it would be in China's interest to counter a US attack. Even if it led to WW3. Iran is the second largest supplier of China's growing need for oil, and a disruption could criple the Chinese economy.
@cornas47 I guess our disagreement in on the behavior of other nations. You seem to think other nations act in the best interest of the world community and if you only let them alone to do what they want they will look out for your interests. I see it very much opposite that they only look out for themselves (see China and Iran) and the natural desire of all nations is to expand their influence and size. I expect a China USA conflict that is how China is building their military.
@Hunterkirk I do not prejudge any other nation as to intent either way. I judge threat by capacity. Iran does NOT have the capacity. In addition, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses the USA's aggressive rhetoric and US history in interfering in Iranian internal affairs to shore up his support and to stay in power. Really dumb policy by the USA...... After capacity I judge motivation. Does gain outweigh harm? Only if the USA weakens economically does opportunity outweigh harm.
@cornas47 Everyone Judges and Prejudges. So you are claiming if we retreated in to the borders of the USA and allow Iran a free shot to create as many Nuclear Weapons and fund as many terrorist organizations that they wish they will fall in love with us and want to do what will help the USA?
@Hunterkirk Iran has a medium range ballistic missile. Not an ICBM. The last time they tried to test it it blew up. The claims of a base being set up in Venezuela have been discredited by US intelligence sources.
@Hunterkirk I think you need to consider why these countries are seeking a greater deterrence capacity. The U.S sponsored a Venezuelan coupe in 2002 overthrowing a democratically elected government. If you look at a map you'll notice that the U.S has intervened in two countries that share a border with Iran. That along with the verbal threats the Israeli and U.S governments dish out, I'm not suprised Iran seeks some protection. Or do they arm themselves because they hate the U.S's freedom?
@amul83 Yes I no they are seeking nuclear weapons as a kind of "you can't touch me" thing but you start from the assumption that the USA is the evil bad guy and they are poor victims and that all the intervention has done was make bad guys and never had a real reason behind it. But Iran has also called for creating a Caliphate and retake all the lands the Muslims lost after their golden and and after that go for the world. They don't sound like they will ever love use unless we convert.
@DarkSkyRain Yes I find it amazing just how aggressive Ron Paul supporters are. I got most of those 67 dislikes in the first 10 minutes of posting. Along with 30 comments. I thought far leftist were bad in shout downs but when it comes to bullying it seems the Ron Paul supporters carry the 1st prize.
I agree a one world government is not a good idea, RP is the least likely to push towards one, he's even talked about leaving the UN (the US regularly breaks UN resolutions/laws anyway). I hope everyone will start demanding that politicans start representing the people, rather than lobbists.
@BigTranquil So if the UN does not get involved in conflicts between nations the only alternative is individual nations deal with the conflicts themselves (the wild west). If we engage in trade we will run in to conflicts even more so if we open complete free trade and other nations engage in protectionism. I think lobbists are unavoidable as long as advertising and getting elected costs money and that could only be avoided with socialistic government paying for elections.
@hunterkirk aggressive? I prefer passionate. How about we compromise somewhere between desperate and animated? Lol. He's doubled his support from early polls through to final tallies, and once people understand his message, they not only come round, they get their friends to come round to. I've never trusted a Republican in my lifetime before, it's weird!
@BigTranquil Trust me I have engaged in discussions with many extreme elements that reacted far less aggressively and quickly as the Ron Paul supporters have. I call such a response the "shout down" and see it as a form of bullying. Thankfully I don't generally care about the feelings of others and am more then experienced facing 10 to one odds. Also it helps that I have no problem banning those who simply insult me.
The problem with Rick Santorum is he said he won't cut one dime from our military spending while we spend 59% of our annual budget on it, which is more than the rest of the world put together. He also voted to raise the dept ceiling several times, voted for earmarks, doubled the department of education, and voted for medicare part D, the largest entitlement program in US history. How can he call himself a fiscal conservative with all this on his voting record?
@DP3mo24hofosho Again your focus and that of many of your fellow Ron Paul support seems to be only the military. It is as if you have some kind of hate for the USA military and see them as the reason for all the troubles in the world. Which is a view shared by far leftest who hate the USA and wish it to collapse. Again the biggest spending is on Social Welfare and not the military although I don't mind cutting the military it isn't the biggest problem.
@Hunterkirk I do not have a hate with our military, I am proud of our troops and have many relatives currently serving overseas, but our dept crisus needs to be addressed in all parts of our budgets and there should not be any sacred cows. That includes changing our foriegn policy which does not address our national security interests, and have no declaration of war.
@DP3mo24hofosho Oh I agree that the military along with social welfare programs and the Federal government should all be cut back. For example I am all for closing bases in countries that are stable and have effective governments like those in Europe and Japan. The area of disagreement comes in how we should interact with other nations. I get the impression that Ron Paul would allow other nations to do whatever they want. I find some nations have the desire to kill us and others.
If you choose not to believe what someone says that's your decision....but Ron Paul has ALWAYS said he would use Letters of Marque to go after threats to America. I don't think Paul has ever given anyone a reason not to trust him so your decision seems to be based on, literally, nothing.
@Hunterkirk Lots of your comments end with "I wish I could believe that"... or ... "I hope you're right".... The point about objectivity is to go on evidence. Ron Paul hasn't demonstrated that anything he has said he wouldn't do. He is the most consistent of all the candidates... so although I can understand a Neocon or Liberal not agreeing with his ideas, I can't understand the cynicism you demonstrate.
@dmg46664 It isn't his consistency that concerns me. We don't live in a dictatorship and I don't think Ron Paul plans to become a Dictator. As such his ability to live up to his stated goals is largely limited to the powers of his office and the actions of other elected persons... the large majority of which don't agree with his stated goals. Given that the best he could hope for is to create blockages unless he ignores the Constitution and becomes a dictator.
@Hunterkirk Well he would never ignore the constitution. Even changing it (to get rid of the post office) he'd submit an amendment through the proper channel. However, as Milton Friedman wrote, the greatest barrier to a growing Government is a gridlocked congress&senate. With RP as president, over 66% of legislative branch would have to disagree with him. He is the USA's best shot at stopping the growth of the State, even if he can't manage to get his cuts through.
@dmg46664 Grid lock can only go so far. For example with a super majority the congress can over rule any of President Paul's veto's. Grid lock does not reverse existing laws that he as President is required by the Constitution to enforce. Failure to do so would counter his claim of following the Constitution. He in short at best can hope to slow the expansion of Government and not to reverse it and if he says he is going shrink government he knows he is being deceptive.
@Hunterkirk Again, you make a tacit assumption that he would fail to enforce existing laws. He has no record of doing this, or demonstrating that police should not do their duty (although he has come out in favour of civil disobedience). Further only 4% of Vetoes have been overridden in US history. All your claims about the ineffectiveness of veto apply equally to foreign policy as legislated. So if u so doubt he'd be able to cut domestic, why assume that he'd be able to cut military?
@dmg46664 Well he claims to be against pork yet as I understand it his district has increase to 4 billion dollars of federal spending. Under his watch the spending in his district (as his own request) has increase four fold. If he can not keep spending in his own district down how can he be expected to do so on the national level?
@Hunterkirk "Well he claims to be against pork....". Yes, the legislation being voted on should not be passed. They are typically stuffed with all kinds of things that don't even relate to the issue in question. So RP adds something for his constituents and then votes no on them as he was going to in the first place. Only this way, when the other shmoes pass it, at least he's gotten something for the people he's representing.
@Hunterkirk No, because it is understanding the difference between allocating and pork. When legislation is passed that needs funding if it is not stipulated where the money will be spent, well then, nobody really knows what they will do with it. It's like the gas tax not being used on infrastructure and social security being used to purchase bonds that can then be spent on anything...someday the bill will come due on those bonds and where will that money come from?
@Hunterkirk I assume that you cede the point about inconsistency whether either the executive can veto military&domestic or they can do neither. Regarding your accusation about federal money to his district... tinyurl(.)com/7jg9x58 . It seems perfectly reasonable to me that although he's never voted for an increase in spending, he does bring back to his district the max amount allocated, because it would simply go to another district otherwise. U misunderstand voting for increases vs allocation.
@Hunterkirk No it doesn't. Because once the bill is passed, the theft has already taken place. If I steal 30% of your income and also from 10 of your friends, and I put it in a pot. Now I say, I'm not giving you back what I took, but all of you can rush to the pot and what you take is yours. We want to get back to the original position, but are you helping to do that by refusing to take money when all your friends are rushing? No. It's a bad situation, but we get closest by everybody grabbing.
Ron Paul can shut down alot of the social programs because their illegal under the constitution. So he wouldn't really have to get along... On vacuum of power. they are called nuclear missiles and China has never attacked a foreign country. And Ron Paul has said he will use the military given to him under the constitution and follow the law. unlike Bush, Obama and Romney. Santorum can't win he would get no liberals and he doesn't have the money and can't run in Virgina
@RefractableMe Is Ron Paul willing to increase spending on Nuclear Weapons to keep them up and run and cutting edge? I didn't get the impression he was.
@RefractableMe Our Nuclear Weapons program has been cut for a while now and maintenance of the Nuclear delivery systems has largely been ignored. In fact we have not tested if our nuclear weapons work in the last 50 years. Also a missile defense system would be needed to negate the counter effect of another nations Nuclear weapons and defenses... big spending would be required.
in 2010 RP's bill to audit the Fed was only voted down by 229 to 198. Do you think he'd be able to make up the differance as presedent? How much difference would that make?
@hunterkirk You honestly beleive a "wild west" aproach to foreign policy would be good for America? Not the best form of deplomacy really.
BTW many RP supporters are pressing voters to also vote in congressmen that would back RP's possition, pushing for real change. I agree with you that a "reboot" (debt default?) is a 99% certainty, but it'll be an almighty blood bath! RP's solution is a down hill slope, rather than a cliff dive!
@BigTranquil I do believe in the wild west foreign policy as the alternative is a one world government foreign policy. As for electing people similar to Ron Paul truthfully the supporters of Ron Paul number only at best 20% of the population and while I admit you are by far the most aggressive political group I have every run into this hardly means that Ron Paul clones are going to take over all of congress and the be put in all the seats of the the Supreme Court.
Some comments - Ron Paul's budget only reduces defense spending a small fraction - to 500 billion dollars/yr (2006 level). He cuts no personnel, relocates foreign-stationed troops home, and uses the Navy to patrol international seas of strategic interest. Importantly, this balances the budget without borrowing or printing, and enables a more efficient redeployment when Paul's term is done - if needed. Very reasonable, despite his opponents' rhetoric.
@mclapper333 That is nice to hear, but the main budget problem isn't the military it is to Social Welfare programs and I would be more impress to hear about cuts in that then cuts in the military. A balance budget will not save the country... we need to be have a 10% excess that we put aside for paying off our national debt. Congress can not even balance the budget much less put money aside to pay off the debt.
@Hunterkirk the military is part of the budget problem. we spend tens of billions of dollars a year just on the air conditioning for those mobile bases in iraq and afghanistan. that is just flushing money down the toilet. RP also is for ending the war on drugs, again throwing money down the toilet. we also overspend on prisons, RP wants to purge federal prisons from people that commit drug crime(not violent crime, just criminal drug charges)
@iconoclasm12345 And we spent trillions on social welfare programs. That is like complaining about a 10 dollars in spending while spending 1000's on other things. Your focus seems to be ONLY the military it makes me wonder if hate for the military plays a role in this as you seem to completely ignore the far more massive spending on social welfare programs.
@Hunterkirk "And we spent trillions on social welfare programs." Sorry but this is just incorrect. Obama spent 707Billion on the military in 2011. No social welfare program came close to that,even combined. I like that we have the biggest military. We can cut military spending by 700 billion dollars and still have the biggest military. defense spending was over 900B. welfare was 440B. pensions/(social security) is close to 900B. health care 800b usgovernmentspending. com/budget_gs.php
@iconoclasm12345 I am sorry you are wrong. $734 Billion to support the deployment on Welfare he spent 431 Billion, Education 121 Billion, Health Care 866 Billion, Pensions 805 Billion, Transportation 104 Billion, So the Social Welfare programs cost the government 2Trillion 327 Billion that is almost three times the military spending.
@koromaseraph Yes but both Bush and Obama had support from the elites of their respective parties. I generally get the idea that Ron Paul is not supported by his fellow elected Republicans and will clearly not be supported by the Democrats. Without either camp his ability to change laws simply does not exist.
@koromaseraph Again as president he will not have that power. You need to show that the majority of congress will work with him to over turn that law. Can you show me a majority of congress agreeing with Ron Paul?
Even if the US draws it's troops back any country with nuclear weapons will always have a pretty strong say in foreign affairs. (That includes the US).
If they don't, the US goes broke, and goes from a "weakened" power. To a nearly non existent one. And thats better for influence somehow? You'd rather take the path of Rome (now non-existant), or Russia? (Scale back, now a re-emerging world player) US would be much stronger and return much faster than Russia.
@sirellyn The USA will go broke no matter what we do with the military as the largest spending in the USA is on Social Welfare programs and even if we purge our military altogether we would still go bankrupt. I am for cuts in the military but also in every other field of spending and in the size of the Federal Government. Yet since I see no evidence people share the willingness to suffer I expect the USA will "reboot" as a new nation at some point in my life.
@Hunterkirk Well you are right, without cuts across the board the US would still go down. Thats why a lot of people appreciate RP for his 1 trillion plan. He will transition out the social programs as well.
It's a harder sell to cut social programs immediately w/o transition, vs the years it would even take for other countries to "ramp up" with a given military change. (Again no defense against a nuclear option) + Congress can still declare war.
@sirellyn I have no problem with pulling troops out of Europe, Japan, and other areas that are not hot spots and have stable allied governments that should be taking care of their own defense. I still think that pulling out of the middle east and letting it go will simply create a Islamic Extremist Supper State that will go to war with its neighbors.
Social Programs will need transitioning but I see no evidence the nation is prepared to do that as Bush suggested such a thing.
your understanding of ron paul's foreign policy is poor and should spend more time looking into it. ron paul does not want to make the militry smaller. and have you ever heard of blowback. and like you said santorum will use the big gov to enforce his social views on people thats why he has no chance of beating obama. if you don't want obama you better do some more research and come to trems with ron paul because he is the only one that can beat obama
@hunterkirk Do you agree with Santorum's statement condoning the illegal assasination of the Iranian scientist? It was my understanding America respects the rule of law? Do you agree with Santorum's big government voting record especially in this time of dept crisis?
Yes I do. You see I generally reject the idea of "international law" when it comes to nation vs nation conflict I believe it is largely more like the wild west then it is like a "Global Community" I think some laws have been create that should be done away with as their intention and results have cause a reduction in freedom and a enlargement of the government. As for the spending I don't believe anyone will stop it including Ron Paul as they would have to control Congress.
Hey good video and valid points. Ron Paul is about member states making their own rules and less federal government. Localized government would decide things like prostitution, gay marriage etc. As far as power struggles does it really bother you what the world thinks about you? I think u need to live overseas for a couple of years dude get used to see some other cultures. Sovereignity is the best thing for the world not one world order
On the issue of legalizing now illegal drugs there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization for medical reasons and have advocate Dr get drug prescriptions for any reason. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to keep these drugs illegal but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
@Hunterkirk Huh? We need to legalize. We need to do it now. Innocent people are dying because of these laws. The black market enriches douche bags and victimizes the weak.
The entire country of Mexico and much of Central and South America are completely under the thumb of drug cartels.
Prohibition is the cause.
To save a person from themselves, you victimize a hundred.
@ParrhesiaJoe So you are saying ALL illegal drugs should be made legal and that is why you support Ron Paul because you feel he will make that possible through his "States decide" position. My point what that people like yourself support him because you want the drugs legalized and that the claim of "States Rights" is simply a deception as you would not approve of a State NOT legalizing them.
Again, this misses the point. The point of state regulation isn't because all states will make the right decision. This is the very essence of the "great experiment of democracy." Inevitably some will get it wrong and other's will get it right. The one's that get it wrong will learn from the others and that is how we improve and innovate. The problem with the Federal government is that there is one decision so that when it's wrong, it's wrong for everyone.
@seanthemedicjudoman I am for States Right and I truly believe that a lot of the powers that should belong to the States have been taken from them or have been given up for bribe money from the Federal Government. My concern is on the "right decision" part of your comment. That indicates that your real goal may not be States Rights at all but something else that you are not saying. I find such wording deceptive.
@Hunterkirk I have so many problems with your position. There are a few drugs I would ACTUALLY like to control... like that date rape drug. I want to make it VERY hard to get, which we could do, in the absense of a significant black market.
Once you get enough money into a black market, it always grows. The mechanism used to subvert justice for smuggling is the same one that gets used for weapons, human trafficking and contract killing.
@ParrhesiaJoe If you are for the legalizing all these drugs fine promote that and so on. I have no problem with your position or your expressing of it. What I am against is deception. Don't claim that you support Ron Paul because he is for States Rights when your real position is "I want all these drugs legalized". Be honest and that is all I am asking. I disagree with your desire but that will be hashed out in elections and such.
While that may be a very small minority of RP's support, to label anyone above this small minority as drug seekers is missing the point entirely and is dishonest. It's about freedom of choice and accepting responsibility for yourself - good or bad. There are no examples to be had if bad choices are subsidized by good ones, which also eliminates the incentive for good choices. RP is more than a politician. He is an incorruptible prophet so stop hiding behind talking points.
True but to ignore this element and to assume that all those who yell "States Rights" are doing so because they really believe States should have the right to illegalize any drug they want is to blind oneself to a truth & buy in to a deception. If you are really for States Right then you should be just as happy with a State that keeps or makes a drug illegal as you would with a state that legalizes the drug. If you can show this then you are being honest and can be trusted.
First of all he is an non interventionist and not an isolationist ... I think you are watching too much of main stream and listening less to dr paul speeches ...or don't know the diffrence between them. And second you think other country don't have rights to think whats best for their interest and be a slave to America by acting towards their interest...you call middle east country's aggressive ...but don't see it's you who are the aggressors ... pt 1
@vinay00420 You in your second comment showed that you lied in your first. The second comment indicates to me that you want the USA not to intervene in anything outside of the USA. This first comment claimed that some how being non interventionist is not the same as being a isolationist. I see no difference in practice between the two. If you don't intervene then you are isolating yourself.
@Hunterkirk if you are isolated it means no trade, no talk, involment with others at all. noninterventionalist don't send militry to try to enforce their belifes on others, you don't get involed in civil wars that we have no rights to be involed in. you don't get blowback. ron paul has never called for a small or weak military. he says if we need to go to war you go to the congress get it declared, then you get in win it and get out.
@jamesd750 I disagree. You miss the basic fact that trade it's self is interventional. You are directly effecting the economy of the other country. In fact you desire the population of another country to over throw their oppressive government and promote this behavior by "showing them freedom" or "by example" you are intervening. All interactions influence others and thus are interventional. As for my self I am more concerned about the self interest of the USA then otherwise.
@Hunterkirk you are right trade is his the byproduct of influencing others, that is unless you don't worry about the internals of a country and only base your trading with them on the interest of the USA. you shoould educate yourself on what words mean and not get caught up in how they sound. and just out of interest what is worng with promoting civil disobedience exhibiting freedom. you know the whole shining light upon the hill thing
@jamesd750 Are you claiming that Ron Paul would promote subversive covert actions (CIA) to destabilize nations with oppressive governments? If so don't you think the other nations would figure that out and respond either directly with military force or indirectly with trade wars and so on? How would Ron Paul deal with a trade war? Would he just let our nation suffer in the name of not intervening?
A map of china's air bases ausairpower [] net/APA-PLA-AFBs.html#mozTocId762020
What's you perception of China's safety as a nation. Do you think they would be able to fend off an attack on their soil, or do we think that they'd be over run. Aside from the US, they're probably safe.
China a policy of non-alignment and non-interference in international affairs of other countries, which they trade with countries they don't agree with. That how they exert influence.
@j0rd If you actually think China has been "non-alignment and non-interference in international affairs" you are grossly mistaken. They have been very active including taking Tibet and threatening to take Taiwan. They are also building a Air Craft Carrier Task Force so they can project power even further. Not only that they have been buying up natural resources all around the world, with a focus on Africa and the Middle East.
@Hunterkirk China with regards to Taiwan & Tibet are "internal affairs" as far as China is concerned. They're like the US and Guam or Puerto Rico.
I've also lived in Taiwan, and the Taiwanese are self determined and govern themselves. The youth in Taiwan are also more pro-china than the older generation, due to the economic benefits that alignment comes with.
As for buying up nat. resources / land / business, that's not military, that's trade and the proper way to do it.
@j0rd Yes and that is exactly what Germany said in the beginning of WW2. Muslim nations did not invade either they were just bring order and peace to the nations they took over. The Crusaders were just reclaiming their Christian lands. Etc.. Etc. I am certain that position goes over well with those that were conquered by China. One just has to wonder how many more future "internal affairs" are to come.
I'm from the UK too, I can't imagine you have to pay much attention to our politics, but unfortunately we HAVE to follow American politics has stunk for decades (SOPA is the latest). Paul, as I see it is the only candidate that would change anything much at all. With his strong youth and independant base, he's the only one who can take on Obama. (Romney? Obomney! no chance, Gingrich is just as slimey) Peace.
Just want to say thanks for the quick replies. You Ron Paul supporters remind me of the far leftist OWS people. You tend to be just as aggressive and intolerant. It reminds me a of old cartoon with a guy at a computer saying "I can not go to bed yet someone is wrong on the internet!"
Many people think that Ron Paul is for legalizing everything, but actually he just thinks that the _federal_ government should have no say in those issues, but the _states_ themselves should decide (as the constitution suggests it).
Would you mind to explain how you think the US will keep filling the "void" once it is even more bankrupt than now and won't be able to keep the empire up anyway?
Most empires collapsed or got destroyed because they couldn't finance themselves long-term.
@AnotherUselessNick I find on the issue of legalizing now illegal drugs there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization for medical reasons and then have advocate doctors get drug prescriptions for nearly any reason. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to keep these drugs illegal but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
ok ur saying that its dangerous if we leave from overseas because u say islamic state will then see us as weak and will start taking advantage of this and slowly conquer the world because the quran says thats what they have to do. what u fail to see is 1 islamic countries are collapsing on themselves cuz the people are revolting (look at the arab revolutions in 2011) 2 even if they try to conquer the world, since the us has 10 thousand nuclear weapons, the arabs will die tryin
@Giannantonio83 1) The countries that are revolting are revolting against dictators and are being replaced with Islamic fascism. It is a worse of two options and is to be feared not praised. 2) How much longer do you think liberals would keep our nuclear weapons much less use them? Do you think if a bomb from Iran took out one of our cities Obama or Ron Paul would strike back with nuclear weapons? I have seen no evidence of this claim.
@Hunterkirk Please tell me how an Iranian bomb could possibly take out one of your cities? They have some of the worlds largest oil reserves but lack the capacity to make enough fuel for themselves and you think they could manage to run a sortie to the states? I would like to ask also, is Great Britain, Australia, all of Europe and Russia isolationist? There is a very big difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionalist. Non need for 900 Bases across the world.
@AussieAustrian Easy for one they are active supporters of terrorist Islamic Groups. For two if that should not be useful they are actively building a nuclear launch site in Venezuela with the help of North Korea. Lastly the leaders of Iran believe that it is their job to start a war against the infidels.
You're wrong about marriage. He doesn't want to recognize all marriage, he wants the government completely out of marriage. So basically the government would NOT recognize ANY marriage.
You're COMPLETELY wrong about the radical muslims. Even if they do want to conquer the world, they can't. And we don't have to invade them do defend our country from being conquered.
@fopown I find on the issue of legalizing all marriages there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization of homosexual marriages. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to restrict Marriage but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
The concept is that we lead by example. We give our own people liberty, we become prosperous, we trade with other countries so they can see how well off we are. The people of other countries will want to follow.
@hodoprime I have seldom seen the "lead by example" work in inter national affairs. If you can site a example it would be nice. What I have seen are money deals, economic back scratching, and military posturing if not out right force. You seem to think that nations act out of a interest to help other nations. History shows nations act out of helping themselves.
@Hunterkirk When east germany left Russian control, did they stay communist? Did west germany want to be communist? It's not in human nature to stay oppressed when they actually see freedom work. When people see a free country, they want to emulate them. Spreading democracy through bombs, economic sanctions or peeing on dead corpses doesn't spread goodwill with the people of other countries. Communism fell without the help from a single bullet.
@hodoprime I think the Afghans would disagree about the "Communism fell..." part. Also the failure of the USSR was largely due to their attempts to maintain a huge and advanced army. If the USA was not confronting them they would likely still be here today. It was not the desire of "freedom" that brought down the USSR.
As an outsider to your country and politics, I was found this a fascinating insight in to an American attitude. It's just like us British during our Commonwealth reign (called by others what it was, an empire), i.e. America knows best, and should manage the world with force for their own good, & America's commercial & strategic self-interest,
Britain stopped doing this when two wars indebted us to foreign lands, the same reason you too will stop this, because your war debts are owned by China
@afleececooper Yes and now few really care about Britain and Britain is on a verge of economic crash along with the larger part of Europe. Other countries that Britain used to have tremendous sway in not basically act like Britain does not exist.
@Hunterkirk We've still got our triple A rating unlike America and much of Europe, but it isn't a great situation by any means. But a big part of our problem has been militarily punching above our weight, and that has cost us big time (even now we are 3rd biggest military spenders in the world!) and that's unsustainable, as is US military spending. Stop now, you have a chance to rebuild your real economy, before China owns everything. Learn from our mistakes, and keep that torch of liberty.
@afleececooper In the USA the biggest spending issue by far and by any measure is on social welfare programs. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obama Care cost more the three times the military spend in the USA. While I do agree that the military should be cut I disagree with the idea of a isolationist nation.
My fellow Americans didn't seem to understand why they called Afghanistan the graveyard of Empires. They cheer, " turn it into a sandbox!", and don't see the irony or understand the logistical nightmare and costs involved in expanding a empire.
The US controls the seas. Our Navy is far larger and more powerful than the rest of the world combined. As such, we control shipping routs, and thus global commerce. There is also a Marine Expiditionary unit floating around at all times and can be anywhere in the world in 5-days. The 82nd Airborne can be anywhere in the world in 18-hours. If you think we need a physical military presence in-country (900-bases worldwide), you are wrong. This is about scaring the tax dollers out of you.
I would like for you take an objective look comparing Prostitution vs Pornography. What is the real difference? It is still sex for money. So why criticize Ron Paul.
Illegal Drugs vs Pharmaceutical Drugs. More people die from Pharmaceutical Drugs than illegal drugs. Netherlands has legalized drugs and drug consumption % is less than US.
Read Thomas Jefferson quotes etc, Ron Paul is almost identical. Ron Paul is not saying we want anarchy, just that states have the constitutional rights to many things the federal government does NOT. At a state level, the people have more control, and this is what we call "freedom". Which state is going to vote to legalize cocaine and heroin?
We are not much different than the country we fought for our freedom against at this point. Spend some time reading founders writings, just do it
Liberals=Democrats get that straight!
tron612 2 weeks ago
@tron612
You couldn't be more wrong. Democrats are not Liberal...anymore at least. Republicans are not Conservative...anymore at least.
sirdorkster 2 weeks ago
@sirdorkster Explain the areas of difference between the Liberal and Democrat, please.
Hunterkirk 2 weeks ago
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
tron612 2 weeks ago
Your account of his positions on social issues is short sighted. He is staunchly against drug use, prostitution, homosexuality, etc. - all the standard conservative positions. He simply sees that prohibition really boosts those problems. Enforcement against ongoing activity breeds corruption. It takes money to monitor illegal activity, which means there is money to be scammed from the system and favors to be bought and sold. So, state enforcement is better than fed. closer to voters, is best
annonymous9139 1 month ago 2
You are entitled to your views but I think your are not well informed. Thats why Dr. Paul says that we need to understand what Freedom is. What Liberty is. Not everyone is going to share your views and vise versa. NIce Hat.
1uneek 1 month ago
You have been listening to the main stream media again. Ron Paul is not an isolationist (neither are Libertarians). But we are not the police of the world. We need to follow our rules set by the constitution and declare war when there is a REAL threat, and have a plan to get in and back out. Not to hang around for decades like we are now.
IF someone wants our assistance with a war... They should ask for our help (not forced to accept our help) and help with the cost.
sargenthp 1 month ago 2
@jaymz711 "can we not look to evolve past expensive wars" short answer no. As long as everything is not infinite there will be war. As long as people are individuals and not same thinking clones with no self interest there will be war. As to the expensive part that is subjective. We could make war far cheaper as long as we are willing to kill a whole lot more of the our own population by arming our military poorly.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk "can we not look to evolve past expensive wars" short answer no. Wars are not started because they simply disagree. U.S. starts undeclared wars on false pretenses because they refuse our policies, installment of a world bank and to let corporations privatize their natural resources. Ron Paul only wants to stop blowing up other countries and then paying no bid contractors to rebuild them. He will use some of the savings to increase defense and secure our boarders.
corncobchowder 1 month ago
Youhave to research the business cycle.And then you have to explain it to your grandparents and the elderly around you. After every boom there is a depression, it has to, it prevents inflation. Think like a flower, it blooms, then wilts. Everyone wants to talk jobs, but our grandparents and my parents where able to make money work off one income, one worked and one stayed home, cooked, educated, cleaned.We don't need more jobs, we need better money. With the Fed reserve out of control....idk
butterflymoonfire 1 month ago
Dude, You probably are the best qualified to explain the different factions of the conservative or Libertarian parties. You called the 'Fiscal Conservatives', "Economic Conservatives". I know the meanings are essentially the same but technically you got your term wrong. Then you said that Ron Paul is the total Libertarian. Not so. The Libertarians have traditionally and mostly are today Pro-Choice. Ron Paul has been in the minority in the Libertarian movement in that sense.
Yeremyah2by2 1 month ago
In regards of us testing nuclear weapons, we can't because of treaties so what we do is a lot of computer simulations etc. the nuclear abilities are essential irrelevant because once the hit orbit they really can't be stopped. So we place the new scram jet missiles around China and Russia to shoot them down before they hit orbit thats why Russia and China are annoyed with us. We really are not threatened by anyone we are actually the aggressors. The problem is global Banks run our government.
RefractableMe 1 month ago
@RefractableMe Well if you goal is the have a effect Nuclear deterrent we must test to see if these really old nuclear weapons still work... Our missile defense system is not as advanced as you claim. Scram jets are still 100's of billions of spending before they would be effective... I thought Ron Paul was about cutting the military and not sinking 100's of billions in to new nuclear defense systems.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
For the record, I hit like on this video.
Because Im not at war with ''conservitives'', their at war with us.
And being a conservitive should make us natural allies.
The trouble is most conservitives dont know that the GOP was hijacked by ''Neo-conservitives''.
A name THEY invented for themselves, not us old-school-conservitives.
Answer this, why are ''conservitives'' now pushing the foreign policy of Wilson and Lyndon Johnson?
Just look up where neo-conservitives came from.
WVMADMAN1 1 month ago
@WVMADMAN1 Again I will vote for Ron Paul if it is between him and Obama. I just have some disagreements. I have no problem with the Ron Paul supporter if they are willing to also say they will vote for anyone other then Obama also. I think some of their expectations are exaggerated and what they think Ron Paul can do as President is unrealistic. Also I am taken back with the aggressiveness of Ron Paul's supporters.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Foreign policy isn't just limited to military power. If our economy crashes, the nation-building, our presence overseas, and such will end. (Besides charity begins at home.) If we start getting our economic power back and we start trading more with other nations, this will also have a positive effect on how other nations will view us. Right now, most nations do not have a positive view of America. Even the countries' governments we supposedly helped like Iraq and Afghanistan have dissed us.
balthasar3 1 month ago
Where do you get that iran is or could be a player in world politics, if the USA is bankrupt
they wont be a player,get your house in order.
pollyton7 1 month ago
@pollyton7 They don't. All they have to be is players in middle east politics (which they are) and that would effect the rest of the world.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Probably not accurate to describe Iran (the 26th largest economy) and Venezuela (the 35th largest economy as "Big Players". I don't think Paul's policy is for the U.S to mind it's own business in every aspect. Just military intervention. I think foreign trade would thrive under Ron Paul. Might be a nice change to kill less people, promote less hate and have more money.
amul83 1 month ago
@amul83 True Iran and so on are not large economies but they don't need to be to be a threat. For example they are actively building a nuclear missile launch site in Venezuela with the help of North Korea and are starting the build process of the nuclear weapon in Iran. As for the rest I simply disagree.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Bigger threat is an attack on Iran and Chinese response. General Zhang Zhaozhong now a professor at China's Military Defense University has stated that a US attack on Iran would be viewed as an threat to China's national security and it would be in China's interest to counter a US attack. Even if it led to WW3. Iran is the second largest supplier of China's growing need for oil, and a disruption could criple the Chinese economy.
cornas47 1 month ago
@cornas47 I guess our disagreement in on the behavior of other nations. You seem to think other nations act in the best interest of the world community and if you only let them alone to do what they want they will look out for your interests. I see it very much opposite that they only look out for themselves (see China and Iran) and the natural desire of all nations is to expand their influence and size. I expect a China USA conflict that is how China is building their military.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I do not prejudge any other nation as to intent either way. I judge threat by capacity. Iran does NOT have the capacity. In addition, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses the USA's aggressive rhetoric and US history in interfering in Iranian internal affairs to shore up his support and to stay in power. Really dumb policy by the USA...... After capacity I judge motivation. Does gain outweigh harm? Only if the USA weakens economically does opportunity outweigh harm.
cornas47 1 month ago
@cornas47 Everyone Judges and Prejudges. So you are claiming if we retreated in to the borders of the USA and allow Iran a free shot to create as many Nuclear Weapons and fund as many terrorist organizations that they wish they will fall in love with us and want to do what will help the USA?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Iran has a medium range ballistic missile. Not an ICBM. The last time they tried to test it it blew up. The claims of a base being set up in Venezuela have been discredited by US intelligence sources.
cornas47 1 month ago
@cornas47 "The claims of a base being set up in Venezuela have been discredited by US intelligence sources." I hope you are right.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I think you need to consider why these countries are seeking a greater deterrence capacity. The U.S sponsored a Venezuelan coupe in 2002 overthrowing a democratically elected government. If you look at a map you'll notice that the U.S has intervened in two countries that share a border with Iran. That along with the verbal threats the Israeli and U.S governments dish out, I'm not suprised Iran seeks some protection. Or do they arm themselves because they hate the U.S's freedom?
amul83 1 month ago
@amul83 Yes I no they are seeking nuclear weapons as a kind of "you can't touch me" thing but you start from the assumption that the USA is the evil bad guy and they are poor victims and that all the intervention has done was make bad guys and never had a real reason behind it. But Iran has also called for creating a Caliphate and retake all the lands the Muslims lost after their golden and and after that go for the world. They don't sound like they will ever love use unless we convert.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
1 like
67 dislikes.....ouch!
DarkSkyRain 1 month ago
@DarkSkyRain Yes I find it amazing just how aggressive Ron Paul supporters are. I got most of those 67 dislikes in the first 10 minutes of posting. Along with 30 comments. I thought far leftist were bad in shout downs but when it comes to bullying it seems the Ron Paul supporters carry the 1st prize.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
I agree a one world government is not a good idea, RP is the least likely to push towards one, he's even talked about leaving the UN (the US regularly breaks UN resolutions/laws anyway). I hope everyone will start demanding that politicans start representing the people, rather than lobbists.
BigTranquil 1 month ago
@BigTranquil So if the UN does not get involved in conflicts between nations the only alternative is individual nations deal with the conflicts themselves (the wild west). If we engage in trade we will run in to conflicts even more so if we open complete free trade and other nations engage in protectionism. I think lobbists are unavoidable as long as advertising and getting elected costs money and that could only be avoided with socialistic government paying for elections.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@hunterkirk aggressive? I prefer passionate. How about we compromise somewhere between desperate and animated? Lol. He's doubled his support from early polls through to final tallies, and once people understand his message, they not only come round, they get their friends to come round to. I've never trusted a Republican in my lifetime before, it's weird!
BigTranquil 1 month ago
@BigTranquil Trust me I have engaged in discussions with many extreme elements that reacted far less aggressively and quickly as the Ron Paul supporters have. I call such a response the "shout down" and see it as a form of bullying. Thankfully I don't generally care about the feelings of others and am more then experienced facing 10 to one odds. Also it helps that I have no problem banning those who simply insult me.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
The problem with Rick Santorum is he said he won't cut one dime from our military spending while we spend 59% of our annual budget on it, which is more than the rest of the world put together. He also voted to raise the dept ceiling several times, voted for earmarks, doubled the department of education, and voted for medicare part D, the largest entitlement program in US history. How can he call himself a fiscal conservative with all this on his voting record?
DP3mo24hofosho 1 month ago
@DP3mo24hofosho Again your focus and that of many of your fellow Ron Paul support seems to be only the military. It is as if you have some kind of hate for the USA military and see them as the reason for all the troubles in the world. Which is a view shared by far leftest who hate the USA and wish it to collapse. Again the biggest spending is on Social Welfare and not the military although I don't mind cutting the military it isn't the biggest problem.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I do not have a hate with our military, I am proud of our troops and have many relatives currently serving overseas, but our dept crisus needs to be addressed in all parts of our budgets and there should not be any sacred cows. That includes changing our foriegn policy which does not address our national security interests, and have no declaration of war.
DP3mo24hofosho 1 month ago
@DP3mo24hofosho Oh I agree that the military along with social welfare programs and the Federal government should all be cut back. For example I am all for closing bases in countries that are stable and have effective governments like those in Europe and Japan. The area of disagreement comes in how we should interact with other nations. I get the impression that Ron Paul would allow other nations to do whatever they want. I find some nations have the desire to kill us and others.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I agree with that, and if congress declares the wars against countries that want to attack us, Ron Paul would go after them.
DP3mo24hofosho 1 month ago
@DP3mo24hofosho "Ron Paul would go after them." I wish I could believe that.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk He voted for the authority to go after Bin Laden
DP3mo24hofosho 1 month ago
If you choose not to believe what someone says that's your decision....but Ron Paul has ALWAYS said he would use Letters of Marque to go after threats to America. I don't think Paul has ever given anyone a reason not to trust him so your decision seems to be based on, literally, nothing.
gsukrw06 1 month ago 2
@gsukrw06 My difficulty is how Ron Paul defines "Threats to America"
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Lots of your comments end with "I wish I could believe that"... or ... "I hope you're right".... The point about objectivity is to go on evidence. Ron Paul hasn't demonstrated that anything he has said he wouldn't do. He is the most consistent of all the candidates... so although I can understand a Neocon or Liberal not agreeing with his ideas, I can't understand the cynicism you demonstrate.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 It isn't his consistency that concerns me. We don't live in a dictatorship and I don't think Ron Paul plans to become a Dictator. As such his ability to live up to his stated goals is largely limited to the powers of his office and the actions of other elected persons... the large majority of which don't agree with his stated goals. Given that the best he could hope for is to create blockages unless he ignores the Constitution and becomes a dictator.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Well he would never ignore the constitution. Even changing it (to get rid of the post office) he'd submit an amendment through the proper channel. However, as Milton Friedman wrote, the greatest barrier to a growing Government is a gridlocked congress&senate. With RP as president, over 66% of legislative branch would have to disagree with him. He is the USA's best shot at stopping the growth of the State, even if he can't manage to get his cuts through.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 Grid lock can only go so far. For example with a super majority the congress can over rule any of President Paul's veto's. Grid lock does not reverse existing laws that he as President is required by the Constitution to enforce. Failure to do so would counter his claim of following the Constitution. He in short at best can hope to slow the expansion of Government and not to reverse it and if he says he is going shrink government he knows he is being deceptive.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Again, you make a tacit assumption that he would fail to enforce existing laws. He has no record of doing this, or demonstrating that police should not do their duty (although he has come out in favour of civil disobedience). Further only 4% of Vetoes have been overridden in US history. All your claims about the ineffectiveness of veto apply equally to foreign policy as legislated. So if u so doubt he'd be able to cut domestic, why assume that he'd be able to cut military?
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 Well he claims to be against pork yet as I understand it his district has increase to 4 billion dollars of federal spending. Under his watch the spending in his district (as his own request) has increase four fold. If he can not keep spending in his own district down how can he be expected to do so on the national level?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk "Well he claims to be against pork....". Yes, the legislation being voted on should not be passed. They are typically stuffed with all kinds of things that don't even relate to the issue in question. So RP adds something for his constituents and then votes no on them as he was going to in the first place. Only this way, when the other shmoes pass it, at least he's gotten something for the people he's representing.
corncobchowder 1 month ago
@corncobchowder Doe that not make him a hypocrite?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk No, because it is understanding the difference between allocating and pork. When legislation is passed that needs funding if it is not stipulated where the money will be spent, well then, nobody really knows what they will do with it. It's like the gas tax not being used on infrastructure and social security being used to purchase bonds that can then be spent on anything...someday the bill will come due on those bonds and where will that money come from?
corncobchowder 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I assume that you cede the point about inconsistency whether either the executive can veto military&domestic or they can do neither. Regarding your accusation about federal money to his district... tinyurl(.)com/7jg9x58 . It seems perfectly reasonable to me that although he's never voted for an increase in spending, he does bring back to his district the max amount allocated, because it would simply go to another district otherwise. U misunderstand voting for increases vs allocation.
dmg46664 1 month ago
@dmg46664 Doe that not make him a hypocrite?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk No it doesn't. Because once the bill is passed, the theft has already taken place. If I steal 30% of your income and also from 10 of your friends, and I put it in a pot. Now I say, I'm not giving you back what I took, but all of you can rush to the pot and what you take is yours. We want to get back to the original position, but are you helping to do that by refusing to take money when all your friends are rushing? No. It's a bad situation, but we get closest by everybody grabbing.
dmg46664 1 month ago
Ron Paul can shut down alot of the social programs because their illegal under the constitution. So he wouldn't really have to get along... On vacuum of power. they are called nuclear missiles and China has never attacked a foreign country. And Ron Paul has said he will use the military given to him under the constitution and follow the law. unlike Bush, Obama and Romney. Santorum can't win he would get no liberals and he doesn't have the money and can't run in Virgina
RefractableMe 1 month ago
@RefractableMe Is Ron Paul willing to increase spending on Nuclear Weapons to keep them up and run and cutting edge? I didn't get the impression he was.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Yep his main thing removing troops. he has said several times he likes Subs.
RefractableMe 1 month ago
@RefractableMe Our Nuclear Weapons program has been cut for a while now and maintenance of the Nuclear delivery systems has largely been ignored. In fact we have not tested if our nuclear weapons work in the last 50 years. Also a missile defense system would be needed to negate the counter effect of another nations Nuclear weapons and defenses... big spending would be required.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
in 2010 RP's bill to audit the Fed was only voted down by 229 to 198. Do you think he'd be able to make up the differance as presedent? How much difference would that make?
BigTranquil 1 month ago
@hunterkirk You honestly beleive a "wild west" aproach to foreign policy would be good for America? Not the best form of deplomacy really.
BTW many RP supporters are pressing voters to also vote in congressmen that would back RP's possition, pushing for real change. I agree with you that a "reboot" (debt default?) is a 99% certainty, but it'll be an almighty blood bath! RP's solution is a down hill slope, rather than a cliff dive!
BigTranquil 1 month ago
@BigTranquil I do believe in the wild west foreign policy as the alternative is a one world government foreign policy. As for electing people similar to Ron Paul truthfully the supporters of Ron Paul number only at best 20% of the population and while I admit you are by far the most aggressive political group I have every run into this hardly means that Ron Paul clones are going to take over all of congress and the be put in all the seats of the the Supreme Court.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
Some comments - Ron Paul's budget only reduces defense spending a small fraction - to 500 billion dollars/yr (2006 level). He cuts no personnel, relocates foreign-stationed troops home, and uses the Navy to patrol international seas of strategic interest. Importantly, this balances the budget without borrowing or printing, and enables a more efficient redeployment when Paul's term is done - if needed. Very reasonable, despite his opponents' rhetoric.
mclapper333 1 month ago
@mclapper333 That is nice to hear, but the main budget problem isn't the military it is to Social Welfare programs and I would be more impress to hear about cuts in that then cuts in the military. A balance budget will not save the country... we need to be have a 10% excess that we put aside for paying off our national debt. Congress can not even balance the budget much less put money aside to pay off the debt.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk the military is part of the budget problem. we spend tens of billions of dollars a year just on the air conditioning for those mobile bases in iraq and afghanistan. that is just flushing money down the toilet. RP also is for ending the war on drugs, again throwing money down the toilet. we also overspend on prisons, RP wants to purge federal prisons from people that commit drug crime(not violent crime, just criminal drug charges)
iconoclasm12345 1 month ago
@iconoclasm12345 And we spent trillions on social welfare programs. That is like complaining about a 10 dollars in spending while spending 1000's on other things. Your focus seems to be ONLY the military it makes me wonder if hate for the military plays a role in this as you seem to completely ignore the far more massive spending on social welfare programs.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk "And we spent trillions on social welfare programs." Sorry but this is just incorrect. Obama spent 707Billion on the military in 2011. No social welfare program came close to that,even combined. I like that we have the biggest military. We can cut military spending by 700 billion dollars and still have the biggest military. defense spending was over 900B. welfare was 440B. pensions/(social security) is close to 900B. health care 800b usgovernmentspending. com/budget_gs.php
iconoclasm12345 1 month ago
@iconoclasm12345 I am sorry you are wrong. $734 Billion to support the deployment on Welfare he spent 431 Billion, Education 121 Billion, Health Care 866 Billion, Pensions 805 Billion, Transportation 104 Billion, So the Social Welfare programs cost the government 2Trillion 327 Billion that is almost three times the military spending.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@koromaseraph Yes but both Bush and Obama had support from the elites of their respective parties. I generally get the idea that Ron Paul is not supported by his fellow elected Republicans and will clearly not be supported by the Democrats. Without either camp his ability to change laws simply does not exist.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@koromaseraph Again as president he will not have that power. You need to show that the majority of congress will work with him to over turn that law. Can you show me a majority of congress agreeing with Ron Paul?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Even if the US draws it's troops back any country with nuclear weapons will always have a pretty strong say in foreign affairs. (That includes the US).
If they don't, the US goes broke, and goes from a "weakened" power. To a nearly non existent one. And thats better for influence somehow? You'd rather take the path of Rome (now non-existant), or Russia? (Scale back, now a re-emerging world player) US would be much stronger and return much faster than Russia.
sirellyn 1 month ago
@sirellyn The USA will go broke no matter what we do with the military as the largest spending in the USA is on Social Welfare programs and even if we purge our military altogether we would still go bankrupt. I am for cuts in the military but also in every other field of spending and in the size of the Federal Government. Yet since I see no evidence people share the willingness to suffer I expect the USA will "reboot" as a new nation at some point in my life.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Well you are right, without cuts across the board the US would still go down. Thats why a lot of people appreciate RP for his 1 trillion plan. He will transition out the social programs as well.
It's a harder sell to cut social programs immediately w/o transition, vs the years it would even take for other countries to "ramp up" with a given military change. (Again no defense against a nuclear option) + Congress can still declare war.
sirellyn 1 month ago
@sirellyn I have no problem with pulling troops out of Europe, Japan, and other areas that are not hot spots and have stable allied governments that should be taking care of their own defense. I still think that pulling out of the middle east and letting it go will simply create a Islamic Extremist Supper State that will go to war with its neighbors.
Social Programs will need transitioning but I see no evidence the nation is prepared to do that as Bush suggested such a thing.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
your understanding of ron paul's foreign policy is poor and should spend more time looking into it. ron paul does not want to make the militry smaller. and have you ever heard of blowback. and like you said santorum will use the big gov to enforce his social views on people thats why he has no chance of beating obama. if you don't want obama you better do some more research and come to trems with ron paul because he is the only one that can beat obama
jamesd750 1 month ago
@jamesd750 Maybe but I have heard nothing from him or his camp that changes my mind on the matter.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@hunterkirk Do you agree with Santorum's statement condoning the illegal assasination of the Iranian scientist? It was my understanding America respects the rule of law? Do you agree with Santorum's big government voting record especially in this time of dept crisis?
BigTranquil 1 month ago
Yes I do. You see I generally reject the idea of "international law" when it comes to nation vs nation conflict I believe it is largely more like the wild west then it is like a "Global Community" I think some laws have been create that should be done away with as their intention and results have cause a reduction in freedom and a enlargement of the government. As for the spending I don't believe anyone will stop it including Ron Paul as they would have to control Congress.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
ron paul is worthless
Ievoluzombies 1 month ago
I agree with Dr. Paul 100%
D10SdelFutbol 1 month ago 5
Hey good video and valid points. Ron Paul is about member states making their own rules and less federal government. Localized government would decide things like prostitution, gay marriage etc. As far as power struggles does it really bother you what the world thinks about you? I think u need to live overseas for a couple of years dude get used to see some other cultures. Sovereignity is the best thing for the world not one world order
ndog37 1 month ago
On the issue of legalizing now illegal drugs there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization for medical reasons and have advocate Dr get drug prescriptions for any reason. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to keep these drugs illegal but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk For almost a thousand years, governments have been prohibiting things. Coffee, Tea, Prostitution, Cotton, Religion...
It always does more harm than good. Usually, it has the fucked side effect of corrupting the police AND hitting minorities disproportionately.
Portugal legalized and is doing BETTER.
ParrhesiaJoe 1 month ago
@ParrhesiaJoe Thanks for proving me right.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Huh? We need to legalize. We need to do it now. Innocent people are dying because of these laws. The black market enriches douche bags and victimizes the weak.
The entire country of Mexico and much of Central and South America are completely under the thumb of drug cartels.
Prohibition is the cause.
To save a person from themselves, you victimize a hundred.
ParrhesiaJoe 1 month ago
@ParrhesiaJoe So you are saying ALL illegal drugs should be made legal and that is why you support Ron Paul because you feel he will make that possible through his "States decide" position. My point what that people like yourself support him because you want the drugs legalized and that the claim of "States Rights" is simply a deception as you would not approve of a State NOT legalizing them.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk
Again, this misses the point. The point of state regulation isn't because all states will make the right decision. This is the very essence of the "great experiment of democracy." Inevitably some will get it wrong and other's will get it right. The one's that get it wrong will learn from the others and that is how we improve and innovate. The problem with the Federal government is that there is one decision so that when it's wrong, it's wrong for everyone.
seanthemedicjudoman 1 month ago
@seanthemedicjudoman I am for States Right and I truly believe that a lot of the powers that should belong to the States have been taken from them or have been given up for bribe money from the Federal Government. My concern is on the "right decision" part of your comment. That indicates that your real goal may not be States Rights at all but something else that you are not saying. I find such wording deceptive.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk I have so many problems with your position. There are a few drugs I would ACTUALLY like to control... like that date rape drug. I want to make it VERY hard to get, which we could do, in the absense of a significant black market.
Once you get enough money into a black market, it always grows. The mechanism used to subvert justice for smuggling is the same one that gets used for weapons, human trafficking and contract killing.
ParrhesiaJoe 1 month ago
@ParrhesiaJoe If you are for the legalizing all these drugs fine promote that and so on. I have no problem with your position or your expressing of it. What I am against is deception. Don't claim that you support Ron Paul because he is for States Rights when your real position is "I want all these drugs legalized". Be honest and that is all I am asking. I disagree with your desire but that will be hashed out in elections and such.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk
While that may be a very small minority of RP's support, to label anyone above this small minority as drug seekers is missing the point entirely and is dishonest. It's about freedom of choice and accepting responsibility for yourself - good or bad. There are no examples to be had if bad choices are subsidized by good ones, which also eliminates the incentive for good choices. RP is more than a politician. He is an incorruptible prophet so stop hiding behind talking points.
seanthemedicjudoman 1 month ago
True but to ignore this element and to assume that all those who yell "States Rights" are doing so because they really believe States should have the right to illegalize any drug they want is to blind oneself to a truth & buy in to a deception. If you are really for States Right then you should be just as happy with a State that keeps or makes a drug illegal as you would with a state that legalizes the drug. If you can show this then you are being honest and can be trusted.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
First of all he is an non interventionist and not an isolationist ... I think you are watching too much of main stream and listening less to dr paul speeches ...or don't know the diffrence between them. And second you think other country don't have rights to think whats best for their interest and be a slave to America by acting towards their interest...you call middle east country's aggressive ...but don't see it's you who are the aggressors ... pt 1
vinay00420 1 month ago 13
@vinay00420 You in your second comment showed that you lied in your first. The second comment indicates to me that you want the USA not to intervene in anything outside of the USA. This first comment claimed that some how being non interventionist is not the same as being a isolationist. I see no difference in practice between the two. If you don't intervene then you are isolating yourself.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk if you are isolated it means no trade, no talk, involment with others at all. noninterventionalist don't send militry to try to enforce their belifes on others, you don't get involed in civil wars that we have no rights to be involed in. you don't get blowback. ron paul has never called for a small or weak military. he says if we need to go to war you go to the congress get it declared, then you get in win it and get out.
jamesd750 1 month ago
@jamesd750 I disagree. You miss the basic fact that trade it's self is interventional. You are directly effecting the economy of the other country. In fact you desire the population of another country to over throw their oppressive government and promote this behavior by "showing them freedom" or "by example" you are intervening. All interactions influence others and thus are interventional. As for my self I am more concerned about the self interest of the USA then otherwise.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk you are right trade is his the byproduct of influencing others, that is unless you don't worry about the internals of a country and only base your trading with them on the interest of the USA. you shoould educate yourself on what words mean and not get caught up in how they sound. and just out of interest what is worng with promoting civil disobedience exhibiting freedom. you know the whole shining light upon the hill thing
jamesd750 1 month ago
@jamesd750 Are you claiming that Ron Paul would promote subversive covert actions (CIA) to destabilize nations with oppressive governments? If so don't you think the other nations would figure that out and respond either directly with military force or indirectly with trade wars and so on? How would Ron Paul deal with a trade war? Would he just let our nation suffer in the name of not intervening?
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
He's better than all the rest though- These wars are B.S.
lushfauna 1 month ago 2
@hunterkirk let's role play
A map of china's air bases ausairpower [] net/APA-PLA-AFBs.html#mozTocId762020
What's you perception of China's safety as a nation. Do you think they would be able to fend off an attack on their soil, or do we think that they'd be over run. Aside from the US, they're probably safe.
China a policy of non-alignment and non-interference in international affairs of other countries, which they trade with countries they don't agree with. That how they exert influence.
j0rd 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@j0rd If you actually think China has been "non-alignment and non-interference in international affairs" you are grossly mistaken. They have been very active including taking Tibet and threatening to take Taiwan. They are also building a Air Craft Carrier Task Force so they can project power even further. Not only that they have been buying up natural resources all around the world, with a focus on Africa and the Middle East.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk China with regards to Taiwan & Tibet are "internal affairs" as far as China is concerned. They're like the US and Guam or Puerto Rico.
I've also lived in Taiwan, and the Taiwanese are self determined and govern themselves. The youth in Taiwan are also more pro-china than the older generation, due to the economic benefits that alignment comes with.
As for buying up nat. resources / land / business, that's not military, that's trade and the proper way to do it.
j0rd 1 month ago
@j0rd Yes and that is exactly what Germany said in the beginning of WW2. Muslim nations did not invade either they were just bring order and peace to the nations they took over. The Crusaders were just reclaiming their Christian lands. Etc.. Etc. I am certain that position goes over well with those that were conquered by China. One just has to wonder how many more future "internal affairs" are to come.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Leave the American tax payers alone. They should not to be forced to pay for everyone else's problems and misery.
elbuggo 1 month ago
I'm from the UK too, I can't imagine you have to pay much attention to our politics, but unfortunately we HAVE to follow American politics has stunk for decades (SOPA is the latest). Paul, as I see it is the only candidate that would change anything much at all. With his strong youth and independant base, he's the only one who can take on Obama. (Romney? Obomney! no chance, Gingrich is just as slimey) Peace.
BigTranquil 1 month ago 3
Just want to say thanks for the quick replies. You Ron Paul supporters remind me of the far leftist OWS people. You tend to be just as aggressive and intolerant. It reminds me a of old cartoon with a guy at a computer saying "I can not go to bed yet someone is wrong on the internet!"
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
Hm hm.
Many people think that Ron Paul is for legalizing everything, but actually he just thinks that the _federal_ government should have no say in those issues, but the _states_ themselves should decide (as the constitution suggests it).
Would you mind to explain how you think the US will keep filling the "void" once it is even more bankrupt than now and won't be able to keep the empire up anyway?
Most empires collapsed or got destroyed because they couldn't finance themselves long-term.
AnotherUselessNick 1 month ago
@AnotherUselessNick I find on the issue of legalizing now illegal drugs there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization for medical reasons and then have advocate doctors get drug prescriptions for nearly any reason. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to keep these drugs illegal but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
ok ur saying that its dangerous if we leave from overseas because u say islamic state will then see us as weak and will start taking advantage of this and slowly conquer the world because the quran says thats what they have to do. what u fail to see is 1 islamic countries are collapsing on themselves cuz the people are revolting (look at the arab revolutions in 2011) 2 even if they try to conquer the world, since the us has 10 thousand nuclear weapons, the arabs will die tryin
Giannantonio83 1 month ago
@Giannantonio83 1) The countries that are revolting are revolting against dictators and are being replaced with Islamic fascism. It is a worse of two options and is to be feared not praised. 2) How much longer do you think liberals would keep our nuclear weapons much less use them? Do you think if a bomb from Iran took out one of our cities Obama or Ron Paul would strike back with nuclear weapons? I have seen no evidence of this claim.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk Please tell me how an Iranian bomb could possibly take out one of your cities? They have some of the worlds largest oil reserves but lack the capacity to make enough fuel for themselves and you think they could manage to run a sortie to the states? I would like to ask also, is Great Britain, Australia, all of Europe and Russia isolationist? There is a very big difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionalist. Non need for 900 Bases across the world.
AussieAustrian 1 month ago
@AussieAustrian Easy for one they are active supporters of terrorist Islamic Groups. For two if that should not be useful they are actively building a nuclear launch site in Venezuela with the help of North Korea. Lastly the leaders of Iran believe that it is their job to start a war against the infidels.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
You're wrong about marriage. He doesn't want to recognize all marriage, he wants the government completely out of marriage. So basically the government would NOT recognize ANY marriage.
You're COMPLETELY wrong about the radical muslims. Even if they do want to conquer the world, they can't. And we don't have to invade them do defend our country from being conquered.
fopown 1 month ago
@fopown I find on the issue of legalizing all marriages there is a lot of deception on the part of its supporters. Thing like "States should be choosing" often come from the same camp that call for legalization of homosexual marriages. I would like to trust that he would truly seek to restrict Marriage but on the State Level but experience warns me otherwise.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
One mistake your making is Dr. Paul is NOT a libertarian.
Hes a strict Consitutionalist.
Libertarians want to legalize many things that are illegal.
Dr. Paul believes the Constitution dosnt give the Fed-Gov authority the make many things illegal in the first place.
The two are so similar that its sometimes hard to tell the difference, but they are.
WVMADMAN1 1 month ago
@WVMADMAN1 Define Libertarian and "Strict Constitutionalist".
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
The concept is that we lead by example. We give our own people liberty, we become prosperous, we trade with other countries so they can see how well off we are. The people of other countries will want to follow.
hodoprime 1 month ago
@hodoprime I have seldom seen the "lead by example" work in inter national affairs. If you can site a example it would be nice. What I have seen are money deals, economic back scratching, and military posturing if not out right force. You seem to think that nations act out of a interest to help other nations. History shows nations act out of helping themselves.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk When east germany left Russian control, did they stay communist? Did west germany want to be communist? It's not in human nature to stay oppressed when they actually see freedom work. When people see a free country, they want to emulate them. Spreading democracy through bombs, economic sanctions or peeing on dead corpses doesn't spread goodwill with the people of other countries. Communism fell without the help from a single bullet.
hodoprime 1 month ago
@hodoprime I think the Afghans would disagree about the "Communism fell..." part. Also the failure of the USSR was largely due to their attempts to maintain a huge and advanced army. If the USA was not confronting them they would likely still be here today. It was not the desire of "freedom" that brought down the USSR.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
As an outsider to your country and politics, I was found this a fascinating insight in to an American attitude. It's just like us British during our Commonwealth reign (called by others what it was, an empire), i.e. America knows best, and should manage the world with force for their own good, & America's commercial & strategic self-interest,
Britain stopped doing this when two wars indebted us to foreign lands, the same reason you too will stop this, because your war debts are owned by China
afleececooper 1 month ago 12
@afleececooper Yes and now few really care about Britain and Britain is on a verge of economic crash along with the larger part of Europe. Other countries that Britain used to have tremendous sway in not basically act like Britain does not exist.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@Hunterkirk We've still got our triple A rating unlike America and much of Europe, but it isn't a great situation by any means. But a big part of our problem has been militarily punching above our weight, and that has cost us big time (even now we are 3rd biggest military spenders in the world!) and that's unsustainable, as is US military spending. Stop now, you have a chance to rebuild your real economy, before China owns everything. Learn from our mistakes, and keep that torch of liberty.
afleececooper 1 month ago
@afleececooper In the USA the biggest spending issue by far and by any measure is on social welfare programs. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now Obama Care cost more the three times the military spend in the USA. While I do agree that the military should be cut I disagree with the idea of a isolationist nation.
Hunterkirk 1 month ago
@afleececooper
My fellow Americans didn't seem to understand why they called Afghanistan the graveyard of Empires. They cheer, " turn it into a sandbox!", and don't see the irony or understand the logistical nightmare and costs involved in expanding a empire.
chewbaca1989 1 month ago 10
The US controls the seas. Our Navy is far larger and more powerful than the rest of the world combined. As such, we control shipping routs, and thus global commerce. There is also a Marine Expiditionary unit floating around at all times and can be anywhere in the world in 5-days. The 82nd Airborne can be anywhere in the world in 18-hours. If you think we need a physical military presence in-country (900-bases worldwide), you are wrong. This is about scaring the tax dollers out of you.
rdonoho 1 month ago
I would like for you take an objective look comparing Prostitution vs Pornography. What is the real difference? It is still sex for money. So why criticize Ron Paul.
Illegal Drugs vs Pharmaceutical Drugs. More people die from Pharmaceutical Drugs than illegal drugs. Netherlands has legalized drugs and drug consumption % is less than US.
Also, the benefit....
watch?v=9vPK6q-PSSE
pattaniketan 1 month ago
Read Thomas Jefferson quotes etc, Ron Paul is almost identical. Ron Paul is not saying we want anarchy, just that states have the constitutional rights to many things the federal government does NOT. At a state level, the people have more control, and this is what we call "freedom". Which state is going to vote to legalize cocaine and heroin?
We are not much different than the country we fought for our freedom against at this point. Spend some time reading founders writings, just do it
johnnywrath6969 1 month ago
How about just obeying the rule of law? There are new players,.. because US is morally corrupt, broke and becoming an fascist empire,..
brscic 1 month ago