One of Paul's largest shortcomings is his position on Israel. It is also one of the most dangerous for the country. Overall he isn't too bad but that one is a biggie.
Leo, I respect you (believe or not) but this is one of the most dumbest thing I have read yet.
One of the largest shortcomings is his position on Israel?
The most dangerous for us?
How can that be, they hold no national security interest for us when it comes to our defense mainly because we ignore their prudent and rather salient advice.
Most fail to get the idea that without them, we still stand, not trashing their significant contribution to the region on different levels but the middle east stability doesn't have Israel as a linch pin holding it all together. I support them as a country and did when my country ran to the aid of the Hamas but I think my issue isn't with them but with my fellow citizens who can't seem to think beyond the Glenn Beck rhetoric.
I'm sure aristotle can answer for himself, but I'm wondering why this "scared of him" response comes up every time somebody expresses serious doubts about Ron Paul. There is nothing in the past, nor are there any present indicators that would signal Paul has even a remote chance of winning any primary beyond the Iowa caucus.
He can if he wants to but it seems to me that it would be the same thing you are saying and I go right back to the idea that many who call themselves conservative are just plain scarred of Paul and the libertarian ideals he has. It seems there is more to the story we don't get in the news and what others seem to be speaking as candidates are the same values that Paul and others have had and stick to.
I don't think winning matters to him. Really I think the message matters more than actually winning. If he gets in the top three, then that's good enough to have people think but if he wins, well then that's going to be funny to hear all the crying. I don't think he will win but there is a chance.
In spite of the solid conservative economic positions and voting record in congress, Paul is simply not qualified for POTUS when it comes to executive experience and leadership skills needed to handle the most demanding and consequential job in existence. His foreign policy positions are naive, simplistic and dangerous; regardless of his sound economic beliefs, foreign affairs will have equal weight in the future due to their influence on the global economy.
Solid conservative economic position?
Seriously?
Hey guess what, his position has been of libertrian nature and nothing modern conservative about it. It seems to be a hijack of the values that people on my side of the fence have been speaking about for years and fighting for. I don't see those values with any of the other candidates, especially with Gingrich and Romney, but those two seem to represent the majority of the republican party and not of the independents or libertarians voters.
Well here comes the same "executive experience" BS. Sorry but every president has been without executive experience - EVERY ONE. No one takes training for the office of the presidency, even those greats like FDR and Washington.
His foreign policy positions are naive, simplistic and dangerous; regardless of his sound economic beliefs, foreign affairs will have equal weight in the future due to their influence on the global economy.
Well see here is the issue, most won't get this unless they get hit in the head by a book explaining it.
His position seems to focus on the US and the people first with the concept that we are part of the global community but not leading it - because no one can lead it if they are weak. We are weak, very weak but still have the same arrogant attitude as the French did in the post 1840's Europe not realizing that they no longer have a strong voice in world affairs - if you know a bit about history. We fail ourselves by allowing ourselves to be buried in debt while having a large bureaucracy running the country at the federal level which has been part of the weakness of the country.
Naive?
Not at all. There is no real complex issue that we need to be involved with on the world stage, we elect to participate in the UN and we can let them deal with it or the regional countries step up for once. South Korea can do this alone, or they can pay us - they are no longer a poor country. Japan and others can step up to meet any threat to the region but we are expanding our presence in the Pacific to deal with a perceived threat - amazing people are falling for the BS.
Simplistic?
Why not?
I mean if the average citizen can't understand our foreign policy, then it is an ineffective one. Meaning that we all have a stake in it, so we should have a clear understanding of it.
Dangerous?
Not really. He isn't advocating pulling our troops out of our own country but returning to what the constitution has in mind for them, to defend the country and the people of the country. Having troops man a border of some country that has little to do with our sovereignty and protection which means that the military is not doing their job. Having them man the southern border means they are. Mexico is more of a threat to us at this point than the middle east, so why are we worried about Iran when they don't border us.
The amazing thing is that Russia and China both do not have massive deployments of their troops in other countries as we do but they are a lot stronger than we are at this point in time because of their economy. They focus on their economy first, taking lessons from our past and using them to expand their influence. You think that Africa is open to China because they threaten those who control the African oil fields or just made a deal with them to give them money?
When you speak of Paul's ideas, don't you think his reduction of the size of government would allow us to say DRILL or have a pipeline from Canada to Texas?
Isn't this the strength we need to regain in order to safeguard ourselves against say a middle east oil crisis?
Do you honestly believe that someone like Gingrich or Romney would take the high road and stop the BS with the federal government and reduce their size?
We have an inexperienced rookie in the White House now, and the results of his radically liberal agenda have been disastrous. Although Paul is far more experienced and qualified for the job than the adolescent jr. senator from IL that currently masquerades as POTUS, we need somebody that understands the dangers our country faces from abroad and from our southern border. The idea that the Iranians, Russians, Chinese, jihadists, etc will like us if we just "mind our own business" is simply out of touch with reality. This isolationist mindset alone disqualifies him from being perceived as a serious candidate for the nation's highest office.
I agree we do have one inexperience rookie in the WH but we also had one the last administration and the one before that and the one before that. They are all rookies when you look at what the job is. No one has the corner on the presidency, they may have the arrogance to be one, the staff who helps him say the right things but the days of a unilateral decision making president has been long gone - out with Nixon.
Remember that unless we start focusing on ourselves with the intent that we will fix our own problems first, then we don't have a chance on the world stage.
Also the funny thing is that Paul isn't speaking about the isolationism that many make him out speaking but rather the same thing that matters to most, paring back our involvement in world affairs and being a cop to the world. WE as a country can't afford to do this and like a few have been saying lately, out ROI in our military operations have been zero for a long time because of our inability to actually work with diplomacy properly and the more we expose ourselves, the more danger we are in.
Congressman Ron Paul, who claims to be a Republican, flatly refuses to rule out the possibility of a third party run against the GOP if he fails to secure the nomination. Sore loser syndrome.
Wouldn't you?
I mean I don't see it as a sore loser but more of a political move to gain momentum with one's ideas and values.
The man is not to be trusted.
Neither can Romney, Gingrich, Backmann and most of the republican party - they have sold out the country more than once with their need to conform to the political landscape.
Toying with the prospect of running as an independent shows Paul has no allegiance to the GOP or the conservative movement.
The amazing thing is that he shows the same allegiance that the republican party has given him. I don't know about the conservative movement, no one seems to understand they can't just start stealing ideas and claiming them as their own while thinking that people won't catch them at it.
But then, he's a Libertarian and ran as the Libertarian nominee in the recent past.
Wasn't Reagan an FDR democrat at one time?
If Ron Paul runs as a third party nominee, he could siphon off at least 5% of the votes in a general election. Paul understands such a move guarantees a second term for Barack Obama.
IF 5% of the votes are a killer for any republican candidate, it shows the lack of influence the candidate has in the election.
Ron Paul would rather throw the election to Barack Obama than see another person win. Anyone in favor of a second term for Obama?
Well that's almost a given, looking at what the party wants (Romney) and what some of the people want (Gingrich) - Obama will rip those two up and even if the election is close, Obama will most likely be winning a second term.
Again, conservatives will cast a distrusting eye upon Rand Paul should he follow his father's model of deceit. If this father and son duo aren't prepared to support the GOP nominee, they should leave the party as a matter of principle.
No deceit, that's pretty funny. Paul seems to have laid it all out while others are still tuning their message.
What is pretty sad is while the conservatives are casting that distrusting eye on Paul, the independent voters have been doing the same for the past 15 years and know that the republicans (conservatives) are the same as the democrats (liberals) but with a different mascot.
.... rather than a man of principle ....
