Not an exaggeration at all. What numbers do you have?
I have heard the term unelectable many times about Paul. Let me ask you, is that a reason not to vote for someone? Shouldn't you take the time to understand what they stand for and vote accordingly?
Like I said: At least have enough concern to learn about what he stands for (from him, not the media).
AGAIN: You slam Paul but conveniently conceal your choice. Kind of discounts your credibility don'cha think?
Not at all. I don't conceal my choice simply because I have not made a choice. I don't slam Ron Paul- I state my opinion: he's unelectable. If you tally the total vote counts from every attempt Mr. Paul has made to be elected POTUS, it would not tally, electorally or numerically, to enough votes to get him elected. I also don't resort to name-calling in intelligent debate (knuckle-draggers?).
I DO like some of his economic standpoints, but his isolationist agenda is not feasible. If America retreated from the world stage militarily (isolationism), it would inevitably create a power vacuum that SOMEBODY would have to fill. So I pose you this question- You don't want the U.S. to be the preeminent military power in the world, so who SHOULD be the preeminent power in the world? China? Iran? How would that benefit the U.S. economically? What nations besides China or Iran would benefit from that? And why would a U.S. President want to be known as the President that allowed that to happen?
And, yes, hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration. There have been 7551 Coalition casualties to date in both Iraq and Afghanistan (icasualties.org), which would imply that coalition forces have killed at least 192,449 people (to get to 200,000, in order to make it "hundreds of thousands,") in the most humanely fought wars in human history.
Last edited by Jobsrobertsharpii; 09.10.2011 at 23:20.
Reason: A couple more questions...
I simply do not like to see the US political scene dragged on to the streets of Switzerland, it's bad and corrupt enough in the US. Same goes for the OP's driven insistence.
The following 4 users would like to thank J_T for this useful post:
Not at all. I don't conceal my choice simply because I have not made a choice. I don't slam Ron Paul- I state my opinion: he's unelectable. If you tally the total vote counts from every attempt Mr. Paul has made to be elected POTUS, it would not tally, electorally or numerically, to enough votes to get him elected. I also don't resort to name-calling in intelligent debate (knuckle-draggers?).
I DO like some of his economic standpoints, but his isolationist agenda is not feasible. If America retreated from the world stage militarily (isolationism), it would inevitably create a power vacuum that SOMEBODY would have to fill. So I pose you this question- You don't want the U.S. to be the preeminent military power in the world, so who SHOULD be the preeminent power in the world? China? Iran? How would that benefit the U.S. economically? What nations besides China or Iran would benefit from that? And why would a U.S. President want to be known as the President that allowed that to happen?
And, yes, hundreds of thousands is an exaggeration. There have been 7551 Coalition casualties to date in both Iraq and Afghanistan (icasualties.org), which would imply that coalition forces have killed at least 192,449 people (to get to 200,000, in order to make it "hundreds of thousands,") in the most humanely fought wars in human history.
yeah but on the other hand wouldnt you agree that the world as well as Americans are sick of being involved in every incident the world sees. The war is what imho lead to the huge deficit they are facing right now. The soldiers are sick of fighting not for their freedom(or USA citizens) but they are starting to realize that it was all a scam (the war that is) It was an easy way through college, quick money, the honorable thing to do etc etc and now coming to terms that they have no business there. I think RP has picked up on that and I believe thats why he will be elected, cause people are sick of War....and the WANT to be isolationist (own people first). you can debate economics all you want but the regular voter will care for 2 things only : Jobs->isolationism (they still think everything comes and is made in America) Money : war is expensive
Same thing happened with Obama: he promised jobs, no more war and on top of that he was black which I believe made every single african American vote
so he will likely will as there are rather few voters imo who actually have a clue what is going on.
I hope he wins .Finally again a president who doesnt have the USA flaps in front of his eyes with the over nationalism.(like the other one in the vid) I refuse to move there as long as Obama is in office. I honestly find him to be one of the worst presidents in history( cash for clunkers programme is one of the examples) ....granted he wasnt left with exactly a clean slate by his previous even worse president G.W.B ....
Go Ron Paul. Why he is in Zurich beats me though
He won't. He's like the Dennis Kucinich of the right. Short, big ears, flat hair, with radical ideas that don't sit well with his party. Nevertheless, people LOVE him.
This user would like to thank KeinFranzösisch for this useful post:
He won't. He's like the Dennis Kucinich of the right. Short, big ears, flat hair, with radical ideas that don't sit well with his party. Nevertheless, people LOVE him.
That what they said about our forefathers. According to youtube and google Ron Paul is generating twice as much online traffic as anyone else. So don't believe the "media" polls. He is the most popular republican.
And why not in Zurich? Is this not where many rich Americans live? Not many people in the U.S have a job thus no money to spend. It makes perfect sense to go where the money is.
Ron Paul is not the status quo, he is not a puppet and he has a pair.
Any candidate or president that takes on the MIC (military industrial complex) deserves to win the brass balls award.
The following 2 users would like to thank California Dreamer for this useful post:
yeah but on the other hand wouldnt you agree that the world as well as Americans are sick of being involved in every incident the world sees.
...let me help you out there...
"Wouldn't you agree the world is sick of the Americans getting in everybody's face everywhere, pushing or imposing their interests, their politics, their "moral authority", their phoniness, their synthetic society, their corrupted values, their usury marketing techniques, their penchant for gun law?"
Not to say that Americans haven't done enormously good things in the world, rather to say that they seem to have lost the ability to see themselves as others see them, to take reflective insight into themselves and hold others and their borders in respect, even when they don't agree with them.
This user would like to thank J_T for this useful post:
If America retreated from the world stage militarily (isolationism), it would inevitably create a power vacuum that SOMEBODY would have to fill.
I'm certainly not asking America to "retreat from the world stage militarily" I'm asking it to quit invading countries on false pretenses and get out of the ones it has already invaded.
Promote US politics in the US please. And... get a life
Should we apply that thinking to business too? Maybe we should limit US business to its own shores. I wonder how many of you would be here if that happened?
Politics, like business is global and effects us all.
This user would like to thank ed_mcgaugh for this useful post:
"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours."
I'm certainly not asking America to "retreat from the world stage militarily" I'm asking it to quit invading countries on false pretenses and get out of the ones it has already invaded.
You don't want America in other countries, but we don't retreat either? What do we do then? Ron Paul advocates that we do not get involved in any war beyond our own borders. When we leave bases in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Diego Garcia, and other places, SOMEBODY is going to step in- perhaps its a nation allied with us, perhaps it is a nation whose economic and military interests oppose ours.
A fantastic example of the dangers posed in our own time is the current state of the Panama Canal Zone. The U.S. built the canal, defended the canal, allowed free access for shipping, and eventually in 1999 we withdrew from the Canal Zone, returning it to the Panamanians. Since that time, the Canal Zone has fallen heavily into the Chinese sphere of influence. If China decides it is in their best interests to limit access to the canal or to raise the fees associated with access to the Canal, will that not result in similar economic outcomes for the U.S. as the Suez Canal Crisis did for the UK and France?
If we hunker down behind our own borders, as Mr. Paul advocates, we would need a military many times the size of our current force- we simply do not have the manpower to secure just the Mexican border, much less two borders, from a determined attack. Our Navy can better defend our coasts because it is spread out over the globe, already in or near many potential hotspots, and can more quickly anticipate threats to U.S. security because its not tied alongside in the Chesapeake, Pearl Harbor, or San Diego.
We've tried isolationism twice in the last century, and both times, it failed. Our unarmed shipping was torpedoed, leading us into the First World War unprepared and 24 years later we were dealt one of the most infamous sucker punches in military history, leading us into the Second World War, barely more well prepared.
Yes, it does depend on where you get your stats, and the largest number listed on that page, 864,531, was statistically extrapolated from an observed 629 deaths (Meanwhile there were 1474 observed births- so does that logically mean that the war actually caused the population to grow?) As I learned in statistics classes in college, by choosing your methodology, you can make statistics say anything. Just because somebody has a lot of citations, doesn't mean the sources themselves are good.
I don't either- I believe the mainstream media is heavily Leftist, and I believe they will always favor the Democrat over a Republican or an Independent.
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours."
Ron Paul - Washington Post, 11/10/2007
Its true. Is it not? Unless your worried about "terrorists" or lightening and thunder.
Linear Mode
