I think this is a very thorough interview, and at some points one of the interviewers is even critical regarding some of Ron Paul's views. Around the 30 minute mark, the interview embarks onto discussions about compromising, the legislative process, and the limited power Ron Paul would have in getting things to go into effect. At 34:23, Paul's answer to the question of how he will get anything done is by building coalitions of democrats & republicans, arguing on principle, and showing that an uncompromising position regarding a sensible foreign policy is the best thing for the U.S.

Lol...well...see...now you're getting into a fallacious argument, specifically an "argument from ignorance." It is not on me to prove that the president cannot withdraw the troops...I showed you that congress does all the legal/political rigamarole for that (look through any troop withdrawal historically and you'll see that's the case).

The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that the President CAN withdraw the troops without congressional action...the thing is...I don't think such evidence exists.



Look, this thread was started as a VOTE RON PAUL HE'S AWESOME thread. My replies in this sense have nothing to do with my own political opinions (that violent revolution will be necessary at some point in the future if people want real change) but are designed, rather, to question the assertions and assumptions made by emotional individuals like yourself.

I do not feel that emotional feelings and "belief in [Paul's] innocence...[and] incorruptability" and "irrational and somewhat emotional" views are the manner in which to approach politics, any moreso than they would be the appropriate manner to approach a physics experiment or chemistry experiment or even a math problem. Things happen in the political arena in a very specific way and through very specific channels and for certain reasons...there is cause and effect...there are "laws" and order (in some sense) to politics. There are political phenomena that are easily explained...there are political phenomena that are hard to explain...there are political phenomena that exist only in a theoretical sense...yet all of these phenomena have been mapped out and studied; they are not mere abstractions that happen without understanding or reasons (although the understandings/reasons presented publicly may be flawed).

This is the underlying crux of the issue, to my mind. If the reason to vote for Paul is because many people have a wonderful gut-feeling about him, that's fine and dandy, but it sure as hell isn't an actual reason to vote for him. Politics is closer to science than religion...evidence can be collected...claims can be substantiated...support should be based on the hard facts...not abstract emotional impulses.

If the president of the united states was to stand in front of the nation of America and say he will pull the troops out no matter what the establishment says that man would be a hero. Instead you are stuck with false prophets and liers. Give Ron Paul a chance, he might surprise you.

Please stop the empty rhetoric...what purpose does it serve?

Why is it empty rhetoric? You have a choice in america, not much of a choice i admit but given a chance of a guy like Ron Paul running the country or one of those other barbarians then the choice is simple. You dont really want change snozz, you seem happy with the wars and unemployment and dismantlement of your countries foundations. Why do you have such a problem with Ron Paul? why wont you give the guy a chance? Can it get any worse?

Yea...the guy advocating violent insurrection "doesn't really want change."

Yea...the guy commenting on the scope/scale of the Military Industrial Complex is "happy with the wars."

Yea...the guy showing how the constitution has been stripped of its power and that the vast majority of the populace is enslaved to corporate interests that are presented as "American Interests" is happy with "unemployment and dimsantlement of [my] country's foundation".

It's empty rhetoric because saying "Any president who stands up in front of America and says he'll pull the troops out" doesn't MEAN anything...you're not saying anything...it doesn't contribute anything.


Give me a break...sheesh.

Ok Snozz i hear ya bro. Im not clued up on American politics much in the same way as Ray of Light possibly is. We see a seemingly truthful guy who wants change in america and by golly america does need change. I acknowledge that you want change too, i was being a bit harsh if im honest.

Can you see a way out of the corporate mess snozz?

If Ron Paul get's the bid I'll vote for him.

However. Make no mistake about this he won't be able to accomplish any more of his 'radical' ideas than Obama could with his 'radical' ideas.

I think many on here would agree that Obama has tried hard to be a good president. But how effective has he actually been at it? Horrible. Not because of his personal views of how things should be done but because in the mid term elections we put a bunch of right wing lunatics into power that seem hell bent on destroying the entire political process of this country. Our system is actually most likely the worst system in the world for making rapid changes. We are literally one of the only nations still debating climate change. Need I say more?

Back to Ron Paul.

He is the most consistent of any candidate over the last decade I've ever seen. I certainly don't like all his ideas, but I do like a lot of them...however...please see above.

No president of the USA will ever be effective until the people of this country get off their lazy asses and rise up and take this country back from big business. It really and truly is as simple as that. This country is owned by business men. Our federal court system even views corporations as people.

We are fucked...

Violent revolution is the only way...if not direct violence, than the threat of it and imo, the threat of it won't be enough.

One way of looking at it:

If you were one of the multi-billionaires or multi-hundred-millionaires (or even the piddly little ten-millionaires), replete with all their ideology and upbringing, what would it take to get you to surrender your unrivaled global socioeconomic power?

For what it is worth, if I was american..and I was going to vote(BIG if), I would vote for Ron Paul. I dont agree with everything he says, but it is not hard to see he seems more reasonable than anyone else.

What’s wrong with ron paul?

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
He believes abortion should be illegal.
He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.
While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises at the turn of the century, including the Great Depression.
He believes in free market capitalism.
He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action, which has been shown time and again to be ineffective and not good enough.
His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.

Any Ron Paul fans want to take on any of the above criticisms? I still have yet to hear a compelling argument of how and why Ron Paul would be better than Obama at fixing any of the numerous problems America is having. JoeDirt has a great post above that shows how Obama has been prevented from applying any of his plans that would benefit most Americans. The biggest problem America currently faces is the complete corporate control of government and media and law.

I think your list of whats wrong with Ron Paul would be dwarfed by a list of whats right with Ron Paul, not to mention the fact that Paul makes a clear distinction between what he believes personally and what the constitution calls for.

And heading that list would be this: The Official Ron Paul Seal

seriously that almost made me piss my pants

Here is an animated explanation of what Ron Paul stands for that he just posted on facebook, I hope people can see how important this is.

I think anyone in their right mind would want a political leader with a very firm grasp of this concept. But hey thats just me.

http://www.youtube.com/w...feature=player_embedded#!

those sure were some fine hats

Vote Rick Parry for all your American needs.


Now here's a true American hero, this man will save our country and restore Freedom, Liberty, and American values while doing it.





So come on guys, let's build a better tomorrow, tomorrow.

Here's some Hope and Change we can believe in



This man understands the problems of the American people and offers "not the empty rhetoric of hope, but a record that gives us Hope."

"faith in god" nuff said LOL.

Aren't there any athiest politicians in america?

Yes, it IS on you to prove the president cannot withdraw the troops. I claimed the Commander in Chief, being the highest ranking official of the armed forces, has the ability to make military decisions based on the powers enumerated to him by the US constitution. On the subject of declaring war, it explicitly requires the approval of congress, obviously because of how serious invading another country is; however, in the case of withdrawal, there is no explicit prohibition on it, and considering it a matter of military strategy, the Commander in Chief is within his right to withdraw. This is not arguing from ignorance. This is arguing from a premise you refuse to accept.

You argue, in turn, that the president does not have this power because congress is needed, even though you fail to procure a source from the constitution backing this up, and then refer me to a Wikipedia article on the Iraq War which elucidated nothing on the matter (Bush wasn't trying to withdraw the troops against the will of congress or the people) and then refer me to the entire military history of the United States instead of doing the proper research to refute my claim. In any event, to look at an issue historically instead of from written law, you are arguing on the basis of precedent. What precedent of presidential military action is more valid then that of the last 60 years, that the president has the power to wage war without congressional approval? One could infer this means the president can end wars as easily as he starts them.



See, THIS is arguing from ignorance. I gave my reason and my proof. If you are not satisfied with that, you need to procure evidence that the president CANNOT withdraw troops, and more convincing evidence than a generalized allusion to every past war.




Let me reiterate. You cannot begin to know the intentions of someone through anything other than their actions. Emotions are tertiary at best in my selection of a candidate. Besides, you missed my point entirely and took it out of context. You said:



So, if the president CAN withdraw troops, you seem to be questioning (correct me if I'm wrong) whether he would given the nature of contemporary politics with all the wheeling and dealing in Washington. So this suggests an appraisal be made of a candidate's corruptibility. What basis is there for this appraisal? Paul's record, writings, media blackouts, and speeches point towards "not corrupt." If this is not good enough for you, what else is there except hope and faith? Yes, they are illogical, but that is why I say they are tertiary at best. His record is good enough in my opinion.



I and others have already given logical reasons to vote for Ron Paul: War, drugs, decentralization, economics, spending, bureaucracy, etc. There are many perfectly understandable reasons to vote for him. The illogical reasons (i.e. emotion, "gut-feeling," etc.), like I said, are tertiary at best. What I mean is why do you care? Unless people are voting for him for extra-political reasons (which most of his supporters support his views and not just him. In fact, a huge part of his appeal is focus on the issues), why would you even bother addressing this? Why not sit back and observe like any reputable sociologist, or to generalize, any reputable scientist. By wrapping yourself up in the question itself, you have succumbed to the importance of subjectivity in politics.