"Ron Paul can't get elected, Sorry"

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi OS

Yep I voted Ron Paul in the primary and libertarian fer prez in 2008 too.

Voted libertarian for prez in most of the recent general elections but voted Ross Perot one year and voted G.W. Bush in 2004. I didn't like G.W. and had to hold my nose, but thought G.W. was the lesser of two evils versus Kerry.

It was a mistake to vote G.W. in 2004. Of course Kerry would have sucked weenies for 4 years, but in 2004 Bush hadn't yet completely finished his job of single-handedly disassembling the Republican party. The 2007-2008 recession would have happened on-time the same or worse with Kerry at the helm. Democrats would have got the blame for the economic turndown. The beginning "good part" of the first bubble of the 21st century would be fondly remembered under the wise leadership of Bush and the ending "bad part" of the first bubble would be blamed on Kerry and democrats in congress. We would have had some kind of republican president elected again in 2008, who MAY have had better luck making a competent response to this downturn. And no Obama until at least 2012 even if the republicans would have mis-managed the 2008-2012 period.

Seems voting for the lesser of two evils manages to bite us regardless. The lesser is still evil.

It is hard to say. If I need to hold my nose to vote R in 2012 then maybe it will mean that voting L and thereby helping Obama win may turn out better than whoever is the R candidate? Is the frying pan better or worse than the fire? The wrong R president could easily be as bad or worse than Obama.

My worst judgement errors-- Thinking Jimmah Carter was a better candidate than he turned out, and thinking Reagan was a worse candidate than he turned out. But even Reagan was a mixed bag. People forget or gloss over the sucky parts. At the time I was paying closer attention to Reagan's social conservative statements and less attention to his libertarian statements, though Reagan was pretty good at tossing out a good libertarian quip once in awhile.

Like Reagan, PERHAPS one of these mainstrem candidates could turn out better in practice than one might expect. Never can tell.

[seez52]

The main problem with RP is that some of his comments, when taken in sound bites, can sound a little out there and off the beaten path. And the way the media is that's what they do. When his ideals are completely aired, they are perfectly logical and make the most sense of any of the candidates. I sure hope as we go along we can get more complete thoughts through the media filter and not just the half sentence sound bites.

The way he is handled by the media is exactly why no ordinary citizen could ever hope to bring common sense to a political office. It seems that those who want to run and can are exactly the ones we don't need, and the ones we do need have no desire to become mired in all the crap.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

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.

Hi JPR1959

We don't have enough information to judge.

Assuming it is true that Israel has built an arsenal containing higher yield devices than major powers-- The megaton+ weapons are neither tactical or strategic. The big bombs are basically city busters. Russia and USA still stock a few megaton-range devices, but USA and Russia apparently had more megaton+ devices in the 1950's than any time since. The major powers apparently decided from the 1960's on, that large numbers of sub-megaton devices would be more useful in a "global thermonuclear war" game where strategists thought that it may be possible to win the game with "acceptable losses".

Assuming that it is true Israel's strategy is "The Samson Option"-- It seems unlikely that Israel would go to all that trouble and then expose their land-based nukes. It seems unlikely that the weapons would not be hardened against first strike and not fully capable of launch after a first strike. Otherwise it would not be compatible with the philosophy behind a "Samson Option".

If Iran is crazy enough to quickly assemble a few prototypes then lob them toward Israel-- Everybody's first prototypes are crude with low yield. Even megaton+ devices do not immediately devastate an entire city, though it would make a big mess and eventually the entire city would be uninhabitable. The low-yield devices have very limited destructive range. A few low-yield devices would be the end of Israel but not instantly.

If Israel's land-based arsenel is hardened then it would require multiple sustained nuke hits in the vicinity of the silos to "pin down" Israel's retaliatory force while a sustained nuke attack on the rest of the nation decimates it. That would be the old major-powers nuke war strategy. Target hundreds of nukes as "suppressing fire" while targeting hundreds of other nukes to other purposes. Iran can't do that with just a few first generation prototypes. All they could do is shoot their wad and hope for the best.

Anyway it is wild guessing and I dunno nothin. But if Israel gets popped by a third-world nation (not USA, Russia or possibly even China) then I'm guessing they can and will fully retaliate and for instance if they have 100 city-busters, then there will be nearly 100 muslim cities converted into craters.

[Guest Cory2]

I supported Ron Paul in the last election cycle and I will again this election cycle. I will not vote for more of the same, regardless of what they may claim the other gop candidates are essential obama (bush) with an R beside their name instead of a D. We can't keep following the same idiotic policies that have shepherded us to the brink of collapse. The definition of insanity literally describes the American peoples voting habits over the last decade. People keep letting fringe issues get in the way, or they will go out of their way to find something they don't agree with Ron Paul on. For instance, most people who are against Ron Paul have 1 (one) thing they don't like about his policies.... I ask those people this:

How many things do you disagree with the politician you support on?

I bet the answer is greater than 0.

P.s. If you live in the Maryville area and you end up with a Ron Paul card in your mailbox or flyers on your windshield... It was probably me

[MattCary]

The two ball-busters in our budget, causing the current 1.6 trillion deficit, are military and SS/Medicare.

The two ball busters in our budget, causing the current 1.6 trillion deficit, are Social Security and Medicare

There ya go, fixed that for you.

It's funny, but I can find in the Constitution where the Federal Government is authorized to budget for the Military.

Cut everything that isn't one of the 18 Enumerated powers, and I bet we'd be running a BIG surplus.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The two ball busters in our budget, causing the current 1.6 trillion deficit, are Social Security and Medicare

There ya go, fixed that for you.

It's funny, but I can find in the Constitution where the Federal Government is authorized to budget for the Military.

Cut everything that isn't one of the 18 Enumerated powers, and I bet we'd be running a BIG surplus.

Thanks MattCary

That's kewl. Just abolish all SS/Medicare benefits, keep the SS/medicare tax as-is in spite of the cancellation, and also substantially increase income tax, and we can afford to be the world's policeman while also balancing the budget!

[sigmtnman]

Regardless of what the Ball Busters are, .gov is broke and needs to budget like it is. Start with taking away salaries for representatives and supplying dorms for them to stay in while in DC.

Folks wont come out and say it, but anyone who currently works for the Fed or Big gov is scared of Paul doing away with their dole.

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

Regardless of what the Ball Busters are, .gov is broke and needs to budget like it is. Start with taking away salaries for representatives and supplying dorms for them to stay in while in DC.

Folks wont come out and say it, but anyone who currently works for the Fed or Big gov is scared of Paul doing away with their dole.

Yea !!! After 6 pages with the best reason he'll not get elected was "He is too old" until now that is...... Thanks to Sigman , I understand just fine why he'll not get elected.

.Gov is probably the biggest employer in the nation and to correct our affairs that would mean that a very large number would have to get off the gov. tit and get a real job where it takes 1 guy with 1 shovel to dig a small hole rather than 1 shovel and 3 guys.

So Obama did have a plan after all, to take many as possible and make then part of the government in turn they'll vote to keep their job. Using self preservation as a tool, wow what a catch 22. I knew there had to be a obvious reason that was eluding me.

[mav]

Have y'all seen Paul's newest ad? I like it, but it sort of reminds me of an Alex Jones promo.

[hornett22]

Nothing wrong with an Alex Jones promo. He may have used his producer.

[Smith]

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.

Yep, and if Ron Paul had been in charge all of Europe would be under Communism right now and then where would we be? I just don't see that being the better plan. I don't care what the theory is, smarter is not taking an academic principle (non-interventionism), simplifying it, and then deifying it. We have seen how that philosophy on the opposite side is working for socialism (Russia,Europe) and worked for Nazism (Germany) and Facism (Italy). Keep in mind all those started innocently as reactions to economic hardship.

Of course we are need far less involvement worldwide, but that is not the cureall. Over reacting is as bad as not reacting. The hardest thing to do is to find the balance between idealism and reality. We need people like Paul to give us an idealism balance against Obama, but he is not balanced enough to get us from point A to B. You can't make major jumps from one ideology to another without having it swing terribly out of balance. This is what made Reagan so good. He was able to "gently" walk the country back to principled, anchored reality.

[Guest bkelm18]

Yea !!! After 6 pages with the best reason he'll not get elected was "He is too old" until now that is...... Thanks to Sigman , I understand just fine why he'll not get elected.

.Gov is probably the biggest employer in the nation and to correct our affairs that would mean that a very large number would have to get off the gov. tit and get a real job where it takes 1 guy with 1 shovel to dig a small hole rather than 1 shovel and 3 guys.

So Obama did have a plan after all, to take many as possible and make then part of the government in turn they'll vote to keep their job. Using self preservation as a tool, wow what a catch 22. I knew there had to be a obvious reason that was eluding me.

I'm pretty sure the fact that no one in Washington and the majority of citizens don't share his political views was a pretty good reason.

[greenego]

Of course we are need far less involvement worldwide, but that is not the cureall. Over reacting is as bad as not reacting. The hardest thing to do is to find the balance between idealism and reality. We need people like Paul to give us an idealism balance against Obama, but he is not balanced enough to get us from point A to B. You can't make major jumps from one ideology to another without having it swing terribly out of balance. This is what made Reagan so good. He was able to "gently" walk the country back to principled, anchored reality.

This is what we need to take from Paul's position. I don't believe a President Paul could withdraw from the world stage anymore than President Obama could do the things he campaigned on. When we get involved, there needs to be a clear plan to get in and most important get out. We must protect our interests around the world. We must not jeopardize those interests by flawed foreign policies that gets us involved in no win endless situations.

[Smith]

This is what we need to take from Paul's position. I don't believe a President Paul could withdraw from the world stage anymore than President Obama could do the things he campaigned on. When we get involved, there needs to be a clear plan to get in and most important get out. We must protect our interests around the world. We must not jeopardize those interests by flawed foreign policies that gets us involved in no win endless situations.

100% agree. Pauls is an excellent voice of truth and reason on many points. Some people are presidents some are advisers. Presidents aren't always the best, but the good ones surround themselves with the right people to keep them straight. Paul would be an excellent inner circle guy.

[TM01]

I personally would love to see Ron Paul as the next president but I fear that the bought and paid for political machine has found its new front runner. Perry will most likely become the new Obama unless more of America wakes up.

» Perry Zooms to Front of Pack for 2012 GOP Nomination Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

[kieefer]

100% agree. Pauls is an excellent voice of truth and reason on many points. Some people are presidents some are advisers. Presidents aren't always the best, but the good ones surround themselves with the right people to keep them straight. Paul would be an excellent inner circle guy.

Can you name some possible advisers to President Paul?

[Guest GunTroll]

No one else is even remotely close to what is needed. I'll gladly vote a losing ticket again, than to vote like I did last time...which was vote for McCain because that was my only option compared to the one and I did have hope that he would win. I will no longer vote what is best for the R party. If my candidate is not on the ballet, I will write it in. Not sure thats allowed in TN since I am relatively new here but I will be bringing a pencil, #2 lead.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Various people have advocated for laws to always have the choice "none of the above" on every contest.

If "none of the above" wins an election, you schedule a new election in a couple of months, and none of the losing candidates in the current election can run in the next election.

[G27]

Various people have advocated for laws to always have the choice "none of the above" on every contest.

If "none of the above" wins an election, you schedule a new election in a couple of months, and none of the losing candidates in the current election can run in the next election.

*like*

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

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

Here's the lock step possum they're offering up OhShoot........

I don't think you'll be any better off.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Zombie-Hunter
Added a Video

[Guest Zombie-Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGKEnwhcScg&feature=player_embedded

Enjoy the truth and tricky of our elected, Then vote Perry because they want you too.

[sigmtnman]

It aint called TV Programming for nuthin.

[greenego]

As far as the first Gulf war, I remember hearing then that the reason Saddan "Who Was Insane" went into Kuwait was because Bush sent the wrong signal, saying he wouldn't do anything. As far as the government trying to cover up and rewrite history, I think this is known also. I believe Bush the 2nd went into Iraq because everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs. Now we know he didn't, but I haven't read that the government knew this before hand. So Paul's commit about government blunder looks correct, so far.

[Oh Shoot]

.... I believe Bush the 2nd went into Iraq because everyone believed that Saddam had WMDs. ...

Dubya went into Iraq because he had to do SOMETHING to show America we were fighting back, and Saddam was a world wide known bad guy who was an easy win with lots of show. And because on a personal level too, since his Daddy didn't get The Big Bad Man, just thinking with his gut (actually, dick) instead of his "brain".

The WMD evidence was sparse and sketchy at best, probably will be proven some day every bit of it was trumped up and Dubya knew it.

- OS

[greenego]

Dubya went into Iraq because he had to do SOMETHING to show America we were fighting back, and Saddam was a world wide known bad guy who was an easy win with lots of show. And because on a personal level too, since his Daddy didn't get The Big Bad Man, just thinking with his gut (actually, dick) instead of his "brain".

The WMD evidence was sparse and sketchy at best, probably will be proven some day every bit of it was trumped up and Dubya knew it.

- OS

I think this is one of the reasons Ron Paul is being taken seriously this time. The constitution says only Congress can declare war. This was put in because the kings and emperors would go to war for what ever reason they decided. Not necessarily for the good of the people or country. Since the 2nd world war we have had a willing congress allow our presidents to do exactly what are forefathers were trying to prevent. Oh they would go ask congress for permission, but that 'permission" has got us into some of the longest and costliest, both in blood and money, wars in our history. I cannot imagine a President of this country sending our man and woman into battle without believing it was necessary for the security and interests of the nation.