"Ron Paul can't get elected, Sorry"

[Smith]

Ron Paul has the same problem the establishment Republicans, they cannot ignore him, but they wish he would go away. I have agreed with most of his ideas for a long time. Voted for him once for president. My biggest disagreement with him now is foreign policy. Iran and nukes??. But I can see his points. Who are we to tell them what they should have? We are in Iraq because the world believe they had weapons of mass destruction. Are we going to go to war with Iran because we think they want a nuke? Paul is taking a different approach. What we have done in the past hasn't worked. Time for a change?

Because we are the ones they will be used against. Not to mention our only ally in the Middle East, Israel.

We live in a different time than every before. As the world shrinks, we can't hide on the other side of the world and ignore everyone else. Our economies, security, ...... are all linked too closely.

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

.....................

Edited August 16, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
nonya your freakin business......

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Because we are the ones they will be used against. Not to mention our only ally in the Middle East, Israel.

We live in a different time than every before. As the world shrinks, we can't hide on the other side of the world and ignore everyone else. Our economies, security, ...... are all linked too closely.

One of the better possible explanations for Fermi's Paradox-- The capabilities of individuals or small groups are amplified as a civilization's tech advances. The increased capability of each individual can be used for either benefit or harm. Eventually when tech advances to the point that an individual or small group has the potential to wipe out his entire civilization (should the person or group decide to do that)-- Then if a civilization contains any nut-case citizens at all, then the civilization will eventually be destroyed by some random insane citizen. It only takes ONE to do the deed. In order to survive, the civilization would need near-perfect quality control in prevention of defective citizens.

Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are near this point if not past it. It still takes considerable resources to make a nuclear weapon and delivery system, but on the other hand any random nutter with a rent-a-truck, fuel oil and fertilizer can single-handedly bring down a large office building. Eventually as technology advances, the same random nutter will be capable of bringing down a city or a state or a nation.

Basement nukes are not yet possible, but basement genetic engineering is already feasible. A dedicated insane genetic engineer could today develop a deadly virus and synthesize it from scratch. Alternately a dedicated but incompetent genetic engineer could possibly design an organism to be beneficial, but then screw it up so bad that the "beneficial" organism yields the same results as an intentionally-designed plague.

A reason that large-scale breeder-reactor power plant fuel cycles were not started decades ago is fear of proliferation. Better future power technologies might turn out "too good" to use-- Some may turn out cheap, safe, and "too easy" to also be modified as weapons. Such technologies may have to be banned for wide scale use even though we desperately need the energy. For instance if anybody develops a cheap-and-safe over-unity variant of a Farnsworth Fusor, then it would most certainly also have weapons potential. Walmart can't sell cheap mass-manufactured home basement fusion generators if some idiot might turn his into a bomb. Or if some idiot might accidentally get a bomb from incompetent home repair/modification of his home fusion generator.

Just sayin, Iran's nukes are not the first or last such hazard we will see. I'm not arguing that we should restrict tech progress. It seems impossible to restrict tech progress. Increasingly larger risks will be possible from increasingly smaller groups and it looks unlikely that we can stop it.

With Iranian nuke facilities widely distributed in hardened underground bunkers, is there any realistic way to take em out short of massive invasion or large-scale attack with nuclear bunker busters? Could Israel pre-emptively nuke Iran and survive the international outrage which would follow?

Even though an Iranian bomb is bad for our self-interest, what is anybody gonna do about it? If Iran wants a bomb then eventually Iran will have one. Pure and simple. Unless somebody has the nerve to pre-emptively invade or nuke Iran and then bear the long-term consequences. What benefit do all the speeches against an Iranian bomb accomplish?

Edited August 16, 2011 by Lester Weevils

[kieefer]

The amount of effort the media is putting into marginalizing and discrediting him, speaks to how scared they are of his message getting to everyone.

As goes for Palin and Bachmann. They are already comparing Rick Perry to G. Bush who BTW worn a recent poll by Rasmussen.

"Paul, who emerged as a Cinderella of sorts from the Saturday straw poll, is viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 45%. Gingrich is in a similar position with favorables of 48% and unfavorables of 43%."

Paul has a few good ideas but as stated below or above, he's not going to get the nomination.

As bad as I hate to say it, whoever has the majority of support when it comes down to the wire is the one we should vote for. To rebel and cast a vote for a long shot will likely give the election back to Jimmy Oblameo.

[JPR1959]

I personally feel Ron Paul is too old. I don't like his foreign policy views either. I have no problems with his economic views however.

Israel possesses 4 submarines, made by the Germans no less, with nuclear weapons. At least one of those subs are in the Persian Gulf at all times. Three nuclear weapons would wipe out Israel, and their deterent are their submarines. It's very doubtful that their land based missiles would have the opportunity to be fired in the few minutes of warning they would have. I doubt very seriously that anyone or nation could stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.

[Smith]

.....................

Noi offense taken as the statement is cowardly of us. Isolationism is is self serving in one hand and destructive on the other. Ignoring the rest of the world is what allowed Hitler to rebuild Germany for WWII. Ignoring what was going on in that region prior to WWI is what led to that disaster. Just saying that taking our hands off will benefit us in the short term and yet we will inevitably be drawn into a much larger more destructive problem later on. Also, for us to keep to ourselves assumes that everyone else will too. This led to the rise of Communist Russia and China. Global politics are not as simply as some want to make it.

I don't like that we are everywhere and there needs to be a balance.

[Mike.357]

As bad as I hate to say it, whoever has the majority of support when it comes down to the wire is the one we should vote for. To rebel and cast a vote for a long shot will likely give the election back to Jimmy Oblameo.

I see what you are saying but I am never playing that game again. I am voting for whoever is in the most agreement with my views.

If he or she can't win the general election then so be it, but no more selling out. Selling out is how we end up in this boat.

[hornett22]

I see what you are saying but I am never playing that game again. I am voting for whoever is in the most agreement with my views.

If he or she can't win the general election then so be it, but no more selling out. Selling out is how we end up in this boat.

That's how I vote and I sleep well at night.

[hornett22]

I personally feel Ron Paul is too old.

I've heard that same excuse in the last three elections.........yet he's still alive.

[hornett22]

Because we are the ones they will be used against. Not to mention our only ally in the Middle East, Israel.

We live in a different time than every before. As the world shrinks, we can't hide on the other side of the world and ignore everyone else. Our economies, security, ...... are all linked too closely.

So what happens when China gets nukes. We all know they will. Just a matter of when. if they don't already.

Just because Wallyworld shelves are full of their junk doesn't mean they are our allies. I can assure you they are not. Especially when they come to collect on our bonds.

[kieefer]

I personally feel Ron Paul is too old.

I've heard that same excuse in the last three elections.........yet he's still alive.

Ross Perot had some good ideas too but voters want attractive leaders, the younger looking the better.

[G27]

So what happens when China gets nukes. We all know they will. Just a matter of when. if they don't already.

Is this a joke?

China has had nukes for almost 50 years...

596 (nuclear test) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[hornett22]

Is this a joke?

China has had nukes for almost 50 years...

596 (nuclear test) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Exactly! We ain't going after them either are we?

[hornett22]

Ross Perot had some good ideas too but voters want attractive leaders, the younger looking the better.

I think Americans are having a change of priority lately.

[greenego]

Because we are the ones they will be used against. Not to mention our only ally in the Middle East, Israel.

We live in a different time than every before. As the world shrinks, we can't hide on the other side of the world and ignore everyone else. Our economies, security, ...... are all linked too closely.

We have lived under the nuclear threat for a very long time. Remember duck and cover. fallout shelters? I do believe that the nuts in Iran would use these if they could. But we cannot continue to be the worlds police. Back in the 50s we would take out Iran's president. Can't do that now. You may not agree with Ron Paul, but you do have to try to understand what he is saying. We have to get smarter.

[mav]

Four years ago I used to be one of those who bought into the whole "bomb the out of brown people" mentality. (George Carlin reference) I used to say, "Yeah, I like Paul, but he is crazy on foreign policy. Therefore, I can never support him." From that point until now, I have done a lot of reading and most importantly, I started thinking for myself. I came to the realization that I had been duped.

I realized that my fears had been preyed upon by those who seek perpetual war. It often makes me think of the line, "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia." I remember when people were talking about how bad it is going to be when North Korea gets a nuclear bomb. A lot of people said that NK is going to sell a bomb to Iran or some other terrorist organization and they are going to bring it here and wipe out one of our cities; we need to strike them now. Well... that was several years ago and what has happened? Not much, and we still aren't allies with NK.

What about Pakistan? They already have nuclear weapons, and they certainly aren't our allies as evidenced by harboring OBL. If we take away that billion plus in yearly foreign aid to them, what happens then? Should we go ahead and do a regime change and remove the weapons they have? If we do that, will India then make a move on Kashmir? Do we intervene?

Now the discussion of a nuclear Iran has been brought back to the forefront. We now hear that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb they might not be able to hit us, but they can and will hit Israel. Even though Mahmoud is doing a bunch of sabre rattling, there is no way they are that stupid to engage in a nuclear conflict with Israel. This would be a classic case of M.A.D. For arguments sake, lets say they did manage to wipe out Israel first with multiple nuclear weapons. They know that there would be such an outcry in this country that we would retaliate and wipe them off the map.

The second reason they wouldn't try to wipe out Israel with nuclear weapons is because of what sits in the Old City of Jerusalem, the Al Aqsa Mosque. If the third holiest site in Islam got destroyed, there would be an absolute s**t storm. Sunnis, the largest branch in Islam, would go absolutely bat**** crazy.

As I stated in a previous post, isolationism and non-interventionism are not the same things. What have we gained from the nation-building interventionist policies of Bush, whom I voted for twice? We don't have peace in the region. We haven't gained any allies. We have some psuedo-allies only because we give them a bunch of money we don't have. How many triilions have we spent, and most importantly, how many lives of our servicemen and women have we lost? For what, national security? I used to believe that with absolute conviction, but not any more.

Edited August 17, 2011 by mav

[seez52]

this is hilarious

and unfortunately true...

Jon Stewart: Why is Everyone Still Ignoring Ron Paul? - Entertainment - The Atlantic Wire

[kieefer]

He was ignored last time too wasn't he.....

Perhaps his son will have a better appeal.

[G27]

I'm with Mike - I haven't thrown my vote away by voting 'for the lesser of two evils' for the last several elections, and I won't start now. Unless someone better comes along (and considering there hasn't been a candidate this honest and logical, imo, in my lifetime) RP will likely get my vote.

[JPR1959]

Ross Perot was going to win in 1992, and the national media knew it. He killed Clinton and Bush in the debates, and bought many infomercials on TV explaining what he wanted to do and how he was going to do it. He made a bad decision to be interviews on 60 Minutes about a month before the election. They made him look like a fool. I think they made it look like he thought the Bush family wanted to kill his daughter. After that interview, he was done. I still voted for him thought because his vision for the country was right.

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

I'm with Mike - I haven't thrown my vote away by voting 'for the lesser of two evils' for the last several elections, and I won't start now. Unless someone better comes along (and considering there hasn't been a candidate this honest and logical, imo, in my lifetime) RP will likely get my vote.

I agree, I'd rather "throw my vote away" than hold my nose and vote whatever R&D flavor the media forces down our throats. Either way its a win, win for them, and I am voting for Ron if I have to write it on the back of the voting booth.

The fact that Fox News co-created the Tea party and now ignoring Ron Paul-because he's not a tool for special interest- tells everything you need to know about Tea party. Many people get manipulated to vote against their own interest, and they don't even realize it.

This perfectly illustrates how politics are run in our country and by the time you go to an election booth to vote for one of two candidates all you are doing is voting for one of two political monopolies, two monopolies that have a proven track record of running our country into the crapper over the last three presidential terms. This is what happens when somebody builds a platform, sticks their guns, and refuses to onform to the political monopoly/monotony and sticks their guns for over a decade. Their platform gets stolen out from them, gets a fancy name and assigned to the same talking faces that we have all grown accustomed to, gets interjected with the overriding facets of the particular political monopoly (in this case moraldom/hate/religion), and said harbinger gets pushed aside just as the platform comes to forefront of the collective national political conscious.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm with Mike - I haven't thrown my vote away by voting 'for the lesser of two evils' for the last several elections, and I won't start now. Unless someone better comes along (and considering there hasn't been a candidate this honest and logical, imo, in my lifetime) RP will likely get my vote.

I generally feel this way too, and indeed voted Libertarian in the last general election. But it retrospect, thank Gawd all the votes for fringe candidates didn't add up to enough to defeat Obama, or I'd be feeling guilty now.

I'm telling you, this Obama cat is something previously unknown outside of political conspiracy novels. O will continue to destabilize this country more than any other influence in its history.

Though it won't cure many of of our problems right away, he must be stopped. Seriously. I'll vote for the Republican candidate this time around if they nominate a frigging possum, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

- OS

[Links2k]

I agree, I'd rather "throw my vote away" than hold my nose and vote whatever R&D flavor the media forces down our throats. Either way its a win, win for them, and I am voting for Ron if I have to write it on the back of the voting booth.

The fact that Fox News co-created the Tea party and now ignoring Ron Paul-because he's not a tool for special interest- tells everything you need to know about Tea party. Many people get manipulated to vote against their own interest, and they don't even realize it.

This perfectly illustrates how politics are run in our country and by the time you go to an election booth to vote for one of two candidates all you are doing is voting for one of two political monopolies, two monopolies that have a proven track record of running our country into the crapper over the last three presidential terms. This is what happens when somebody builds a platform, sticks their guns, and refuses to onform to the political monopoly/monotony and sticks their guns for over a decade. Their platform gets stolen out from them, gets a fancy name and assigned to the same talking faces that we have all grown accustomed to, gets interjected with the overriding facets of the particular political monopoly (in this case moraldom/hate/religion), and said harbinger gets pushed aside just as the platform comes to forefront of the collective national political conscious.

Refreshing! We still need to open a lot of eyes.

[eapking]

Americans want someone that will tell them what they want to hear

...not what they NEED to hear. This country has gone soft. Give me something for free...

Where did this country go off the tracks? The Sixties maybe?

[mav]

I never would have believed there were so many that will vote for Paul here.

Paul gets my primary vote. Hopefully he will win the nomination. If not, I will be voting for whichever republican wins regardless how I feel about them.