The Ron Paul thread.

Indeed. Despite all the things that I actually (and shockingly, as far as I'm concerned) agree with in his platform, there's more that I don't, and I don't trust him—a politician, not a statesman—to implement half the things he says.

Eh, I get the sense that if Ron Paul were in power, he'd do everything in his power to do what he wants. But he'd fail miserably. Congress wouldn't pass a repeal of the War on Drugs after all. He could probably pull out of the various wars though.

More importantly, he'd veto anything having to do with government spending.

Thus is why I wouldn't vote for him, when it comes down to it: I want my healthcare and education, thank you.

A lot of those are funded at the state level, and he can't affect Medicare or Social Security because those are mandatory programs. It's only new appropriations bills that he could veto, as I understand it.

Better safe than sorry. If only we could get Obama to make good on his word to end the wars, and he would effectively beat out every other runner there, as far as I care. Ah well.

Isolationism is naive and irresponsible.

Autarky is irresponsible, but not policing the world single handedly is just sensible.

edited 16th Aug '11 6:29:45 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I can't figure out how to embed what The Daily Show is saying about him, so I'll just post the link.

Says you. Call me when Canada has a military large enough to make everyone want it but hate you at the same time...

No, seriously, because that whole "longest undefended border" thing is going to have to end if that happens...

I doubt it will ever reach the US Army's level. If I become PM then I'd probably boost it, however.

Anyways, USAF, you realize that the size of the military isn't the problem, but what it does?

And besides, since Obama was elected people like Ameria more. You gusy aren't hated everywhere.

The size is a big contributing factor. We're getting to be like the British Empire was in its heyday, ironically: a huge military that gets used to get what it wants, but other countries (in that case, us, which is bitterly ironic) would hide under it and avoid paying for their own military by making buddy-buddy with Britain and then shipping stuff around while the mighty British Navy (TM) protected them. Most people today skip the whole "buddy-buddy" bit and skip to "you have a moral obligation to help people, and we define what and who 'help' and 'people' are."

And, no, Obama has repaired a little bit of the damage, but not much. Ron Paul has the right idea with his isolationism, he just takes it too far with regards to South Korea and, probably, other places (Taiwan comes to mind, if he wants to pull out there)...

Basically, yeah, sure. Now it's just almost everywhere.

edited 16th Aug '11 6:39:20 PM by USAF713

There's a difference between being true isolationists, and just thinking that we shouldn't have so many military operations overseas.

Specifically...? I know there is, I just want what you think...

@USAF: Don't compare yourselves to the British Empire. Please.

Seriously, if America got it's act together it could regain it's old granduer.

I can't tell if that's an insult to the US or the British. Either one is annoying. It's an apt comparison, however, with regards to the military size and other people essentially mooching.

Sure, we could. I don't think we will, though.

edited 16th Aug '11 6:42:43 PM by USAF713

Well, for one thing, full blown isolationism would include autarky, which would mean an absence of international trade. Which radically reduces your overall efficiency as a nation and ability to provide for your people.

Other than that, we can have a political presence outside of our military. The UN lets us talk about stuff, even if it's mostly an empty gesture (what with individual sovereignty of nations and whatnot). How much we participate in these conversations dictates how much we care about the world market.

Ah. I think that economic isolation is stupid. Military isolation should be a given, and political isolation should be almost the same, save a handful of countries that actually are our friends. I'm tired of dolling out support based on history, rather than merit. I can think of about 10, max, countries that are actually our friends. The rest can stuff it, because they shouldn't be getting our help unless they actually deserve it. Just like we shouldn't be unless we do—it's not like we need it, though.

So, yeah, unless Paul says that we should be isolationist, economics-wise, I agree with him. If he does say that we should cut off from the world economy, he's just stupid.

@USAF: The US hasn't done the kind of imperial land grabbing the Brits did, nor did they do India.

It's telling you to be realistic.

Meh, we substitute the overt landgrabbing (now that Manifest Destiny is done with) with bleeding heart "idealism" backed by Corrupt Corporate Executive money to establish puppet states (the Banana Republics comes to mind) to spread "the glory of democracy."

Monroe Doctrine was stupid, yes, but that's because of bad leadership. US was still definitely morally better then the USSR.

edited 16th Aug '11 6:53:11 PM by Erock

The Monroe Doctrine was a good idea until the Presidents decided that the whole "interference from foreign powers" thing didn't apply to the US itself. It stopped being "nobody mess with the baby countries," as my history teacher calls them, to "only we can mess with the baby countries."

Better than the USSR? Nominally.

Such is why Ron Paul is right on the isolationism. We stop hurting other people, and they can stop complaining about us. If they need something done, they can build their own military, like they should. They can defend themselves and stand on their own merits, and we can stop spending money on people we aren't supposed to be. Everyone wins.

But they can't build their own military. And, plus, America needs to redifine itself as a mediator, instead. Isolating yourself form the world has historically always lead to technoligical stagnation.

The Marshall Plan should have been used around the world.

edited 16th Aug '11 7:01:37 PM by Erock

We still need to discuss international policy regarding things like Global Climate Change and the like. Some problems are international.

The letters N, M, and P come to mind.

I think that Ron Paul is too... himself to appeal to the Democrats or Republicans. I liked his passionate speech about withdrawing our troops from the war zone during the Iowa debate, which I saw on the Daily Show. But the way that FOX News treats him is cringe inducing. "Why can't we talk about Sarah Palin more?! 8D" Just... just... Face Palm.

I have soooo many reasons why no one, anywhere, should talk about Sarah Ctulhu, but that's another thread, I'm sure. Probably one that's already locked.