Why I Can't Support Ron Paul
Thursday, January 10, 2008 Labels: politics 11 comments
I have gave each candidate serious thought and seen most of them in person. I actually looked deep into Ron Paul because his emphasis on the constitution. Unfortunately Congressman Paul does not score high marks when it comes to the primary job given to the President by the constitution, which is Commander in Chief.
His foreign policy is ridiculous in that we isolate ourselves. We abandon our Israeli ally and let them fend for themselves against neighboring countries that want to "wipe them off the map". Ron Paul is the Karl Marx of the Republican party. By this I mean that everything revolves around economics. In my opinion, a President has much more control over the safety of its citizens rather than the economic climate. The only major thing a President can do is cut taxes and limit spending, which each candidate says they will do.
The biggest problem I have is his total disregard of radical Islamic ideals trying to destroy the western culture (i.e. America, Great Britain and Israel). I have also posted a video that proves Ron Paul does not pay attention to current events, but rather listens to his own ideas about blaming America. It comes as no surprise that he has the support of "truthers". As someone who has served on a United States Naval ship, I would like to remind Ron Paul of the USS Cole, which lost American lives due to a small boat attack. It frightens me to think of Ron Paul as Commander and Chief.
Disclaimer:
This post is directed at Ron Paul's ridiculous statements at the debate in South Carolina and not directed at anyone's personal endorsement of Ron Paul.
"The only major thing a President can do is cut taxes and limit spending, which each candidate says they will do."
Yes, but only one will actually do it.
I like this post. Critical without being overly offensive.
Of course, the Paul supporters might disagree.
His foreign policy is ridiculous in that we isolate ourselves.
It's non-interventionist, not isolationist, Craig. He doesn't believe in invading every other country willy-nilly, but that hardly makes him a hermit.
We abandon our Israeli ally and let them fend for themselves against neighboring countries that want to "wipe them off the map".
First of all, Israel is not our ally. We may have treaties and such with them, but that hasn't stopped them from spying on us, trying to manipulate our foreign policy for their own ends, and killing our sailors on the USS Liberty. With "allies" like that, who needs enemies?
Second, the U.S. government is currently financing those countries and organizations that want to wipe Isreal off the map. Ron Paul is the only one who would put a stop to this - he doesn't think we should be subsidizing ANY foreign entity, whether it's Israel, the PA, Hamas, or whoever.
It is the current foreign policy that is dangerous for Israel. A Paul Presidency would be better for both Americans and Israelis.
Ron Paul is the Karl Marx of the Republican party. By this I mean that everything revolves around economics.
Well, that's certainly an interesting way of putting it. I would agree with your point, though; everything DOES revolve around economics. Or, more properly, everything revolves around praxeology, on which Austrian economics is based. See Rothbard for more on this.
In my opinion, a President has much more control over the safety of its citizens rather than the economic climate. The only major thing a President can do is cut taxes and limit spending, which each candidate says they will do.
This is usually true. Paul is vastly different, though, for one major reason: gold.
Ron Paul wants to put us back on the gold standard. This would have enormous effects. It would halt inflation, which I'm sure we all agree is out of control. More importantly, though, it would prevent the government from overspending. (In concurrence with that goal and with re-establishing the gold standard, Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve.)
He wants to get rid of the 16th amendment. If that amendment was never properly adopted, as some claim, then another amendment wouldn't be necessary; the President could simply declare it annulled and let the Supreme Court hear any challenges from Congress.
I personally believe that economic collapse is in our future unless something radical is done. The dollar is sinking into oblivion, other countries are starting to diversify into other currencies, etc. The only one whose policy would prevent the coming disaster is Ron Paul.
The biggest problem I have is his total disregard of radical Islamic ideals trying to destroy the western culture (i.e. America, Great Britain and Israel).
Islam wouldn't matter at all if the border was under control. Ron Paul wants to keep the bad guys out while simultaneously not giving them more reasons to try and get in.
It's bombing a foreign country without cause and then practically inviting the survivors to come here that is a recipe for disaster.
I have also posted a video that proves Ron Paul does not pay attention to current events, but rather listens to his own ideas about blaming America.
Well, I'm on dialup, so I can't comment intelligently on the video.
It comes as no surprise that he has the support of "truthers".
So what? That doesn't make HIM a truther; in fact, he has explicitly denied the truthers' claims.
There are Jews supporting Paul, too; that doesn't make him Jewish. (It might mean, though, that you should reconsider Paul's foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel.)
As someone who has served on a United States Naval ship, I would like to remind Ron Paul of the USS Cole, which lost American lives due to a small boat attack. It frightens me to think of Ron Paul as Commander and Chief.
Ron Paul received more donations from military employees last year than any other candidate. Your fellow soldiers, sailors, and airmen seem to disagree with you.
This post is directed at Ron Paul's ridiculous statements at the debate in South Carolina and not directed at anyone's personal endorsement of Ron Paul.
Don't worry, I didn't take it personally.
I missed the debate, though, so I can't comment on anything in particular Paul said that night.
To sum up, I believe a Paul Presidency will in fact give you exactly what you want from U.S. foreign policy.
I don't keep up on every piece of news.
I'll have to look this one up:
...and killing our sailors on the USS Liberty.
Liberty looked like an accident to me. We may never know, so why use it as ammunition to say Israel is a bunch of sneaky backstabbers?
We've killed more of our own troops with friendly fire than that.
Liberty looked like an accident to me.
It's definitely controversial. The Israelis claimed it was an accident. Survivors from the Liberty say otherwise. You can read about the incident here.
We may never know, so why use it as ammunition to say Israel is a bunch of sneaky backstabbers?
I said nothing of the kind. I said they killed our sailors, which is undeniable. Had they made restitution immediately, then the claim that it was an accident might carry more weight. But they didn't; it was decades before they took any kind of real responsibility. That doesn't sound to me like something an ally would do.
Yeah. I read the link Triton.
That's why I think it was an accident.
And the unfortunate thing is that the way they acted is just like we act toward our allies when we screw up sometimes. Too shamed to admit we goofed.
Doesn't mean we can't be allies. Just that we all fall into the same human failings.
The fact is Israel is our only true Ally in the middle east. Every other country hates Israel, which can't be suprising to anyone who has read scripture.
MCQ,
I agree and I wrote about this awhile back.
http://craigscogitations.blogspot.com/2007/07/zionism.html
Our own foreign policy is certainly despicable in a number of ways, Roland, but that doesn't excuse Israel. Just because we treat our allies like crap doesn't mean every other country should do the same.
The fact is Israel is our only true Ally in the middle east.
Well, with that mountain of evidence you provided, how could I possibly think otherwise...
Here are some actual facts:
Israel attacked the USS Liberty. This attack was unprovoked. Whether it was deliberate or not remains a controversy, but the sailors believe it was. You can give the benefit of the doubt to a foreign government if you like; I'll give that benefit to the Americans on the ship.
Israel conducts espionage against us. The Jonathan Pollard case is probably the most famous. I know we do the same to those we call our allies, but that doesn't make it right.
Israel influences our government's policy in ways that every American should consider disturbing, if not downright treasonous. Here's a short article. Here's a longer one.
A number of muslim countries have all been our "allies" at one time or another. Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Morocco and Turkey are all current military allies. Turkey is even a NATO member, though technically it's in the Near East, not the Middle East. We'll get in bed with anyone we think we can use, whether it's Israel or some muslim hellhole on the verge of revolution.
Every other country hates Israel, which can't be suprising to anyone who has read scripture.
On this we agree, though I would point out that the modern government of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible. In fact, the Israeli government is occasionally quite hostile towards Jews who take the Bible too seriously (such as those who want to rebuild the temple or settle on land the Bible says belongs to Israel (Gaza)).
Our own country subsidizes Israel's enemies in addition to subsidizing Israel. What we hope to achieve with that "offsetting penalties" mindset is beyond me.
My personal belief is that no American should be compelled by the government (in the form of taxes or otherwise) to subsidize some foreign entity, whether it's Israel or Hamas or the Cayman Islands. If you want to defend Israel from the muslim horde, then by all means pick up your rifle, fly to the sandbox, and get to it. That'll take a lot more courage and conviction, though, than simply extracting money from Americans and giving it to foreigners. It's always easier to use someone else's money and put someone else's life at risk.
Paul supporters take everything personally Craig. They take everyone to task if they disagree with Paul. As if their arguments are swaying opinions. They should go after the people on the fence, not the ones who think he is a complete nut case. That might be the flaw of his whole campaign anyways. The followers don't understand politics, why expect him to win?
But then again, if they feel the need to support Paul because he is fiscally conservative and turn a blind eye to his $400 million in requested earmarks last year, then how credible are his followers anyways? Not to mention his biggest fans are the klan and 9/11 truthers. Im just kidding, don't attack me.