One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[Quelesh]

When I said "endless war," I was referring to the so-called War on Terror as a whole (what the Bush administration called the "long war"), not specifically limited to the War in Afghanistan. They're talking about withdrawing troops (well, "combat troops" anyway) from Afghanistan, but they're not talking about ending unmanned drone operations, they're not talking about no longer bombing Pakistan and Yemen, they're not talking about closing Guantanamo, they're not talking about ending indefinite detention and they're not talking about repealing the Patriot Act.

Because it won't matter how the war is going if we don't have a country left when it's over.

And we're still at war with the Taliban, for now anyway.

None of those things are remotely essential to the continued survival of the United States. We're only at war with the Taliban because we conquered their country over ten years ago. The Taliban weren't trying to kill Americans at all until American troops started occupying their country.

[Death Metal]

You completely missed my real point, that the economy is a more important issue right now.

I will however, concede that one of the reasons the economy is the way it is is because of the war. But that was happening WAY before Obama took office, we all knew how much the war was costing, and yet everyone was SHOCKED that the country is near bankruptcy now.

Also, most people who think Obama isn't doing a good job are really misunderstanding how much power the President has. Legislation can't be signed if it never gets to his desk. Congress is more at fault.

[Xsyne]

Because it won't matter how the war is going if we don't have a country left when it's over.

And we're still at war with the Taliban, for now anyway.

None of those things are remotely essential to the continued survival of the United States. We're only at war with the Taliban because we conquered their country over ten years ago. The Taliban weren't trying to kill Americans at all until American troops started occupying their country.

The Taliban never had a country, at least not according to literally every country on the planet save Iran.

[Cromarty]

Because it won't matter how the war is going if we don't have a country left when it's over.

And we're still at war with the Taliban, for now anyway.

None of those things are remotely essential to the continued survival of the United States. We're only at war with the Taliban because we conquered their country over ten years ago. The Taliban weren't trying to kill Americans at all until American troops started occupying their country.

Afghanistan was never the Taliban's country.

The Taliban never won an election, never enjoyed widespread support, and only got to power thanks to Saudi money and Pakistani guns.

[GreaterPacificNations]

Ron Paul is good.

[Death Metal]

Good for big business maybe.

[GreaterPacificNations]

Good for big business maybe.

Good for big business and stoners. Thats quite a combo, and a decent cross section of US society.

I like Uncle Ron.

[Death Metal]

I've said this before, but the drug issue is the only thing I can agree with him on, and that's if you ignore that he will leave it completely up to the states where a more reasonable option would be to give it the same federal regulations as alcohol.

Which isn't to say sates shouldn't have any say, just as long as it's in addition to the federal rule and not instead of.


His other positions I find range from naive to asinine.

[GreaterPacificNations]

Though if the war on drugs was ended, and it became a purely nominal state issue, I think you'd see most of America legalising. Or to put it differently- if you could buy weed in California over the counter, America would see a lot of road trips.

Decent peace candidate too. It blows my mind how he is the only candidate putting forward serious budget cuts when USA's debt to GDP ratio is on par with Greece.

I'd say I agree with almost all of Ron Paul's platform. I disagree with his gold-standard sympathies, but that isn't a deal breaker. Then there is abortion, but he isn't going to put in a federal ban anyhow, so whatever.

[Death Metal]

The problem with his cuts is that he's asking for too much in too little time.

How can I put it...

Okay, when I was in high school, I came home to find the road in front of my house, the entire length of the block, torn down about 15 feet deep.

They did this for five streets parallel to us. And only had the manpower to do the repairs one street at a time. Meaning everyone who lived on these streets had to park seven blocks away.


Yes, the economy is a problem and we need to fix it. But like a poison taster building an immunity, you have to do it in small doses. Rolling back the Clinton era taxes, removing deductibles for top 10% earners, cutting from defense first (but not too much). Limiting special project allocations to no more than $10,000. Freeze on government payroll increases and hiring non-essential staff (including but not limited to paid assistants. Congressmen who want to retain assistants may do so with unpaid interns or paying out of their own wallet).

That's just to start, but I would go on to make an extensive look at the budget (as I'm not privvy to those specifics, I can't say exactly what or how much I would remove). Cut or suspend programs in a case by case basis.

Small treatments over time, instead of just cutting out a tumor with a shotgun.

[Wikkiwallana]

Though if the war on drugs was ended, and it became a purely nominal state issue, I think you'd see most of America legalising. Or to put it differently- if you could buy weed in California over the counter, America would see a lot of road trips.

Decent peace candidate too. It blows my mind how he is the only candidate putting forward serious budget cuts when USA's debt to GDP ratio is on par with Greece.

I'd say I agree with almost all of Ron Paul's platform. I disagree with his gold-standard sympathies, but that isn't a deal breaker. Then there is abortion, but he isn't going to put in a federal ban anyhow, so whatever.

So you don't mind him being ok with a return of the Jim Crow laws? Or states turning into theocracies?

[Death Metal]

Don't forget believing that the right to kidnap people and stripping away their civil rights is in itself a civil right.

[The Merchant Republics]

Good for big business maybe.

Very bad for big business actually.

Big business loves the establishment, big government and big business have a happy little marriage going along. As the entrenched corporate and union interests on both sides of the floor well exemplify.

[Death Metal]

Keep telling yourself that they won't.

A smaller government is easier to corrupt. The reasoning behind this is simple mathematics: You can buy a government of 100 much easier than a government of 10000.

And then after putting a stranglehold deeper than the one on the federal government already; it's a matter of just corrupting the individual states, easy to do. Hell, look at Illinois; when was the last time they had a governor that wasn't corrupt?

Then they can write laws that favor them over their competition, give themselves more tax breaks... while needing to make less "donations" to get their way.


Also to those who say Congress isn't supposed to regulate business, let me quote Section 8 of the Constitution:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And further down...

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,

Note the language: Among, not between. Commerce, not trade.

World English Dictionary:

commerce
— n
1. the activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services

Businesses are part of commerce and therefore may be regulated.

[The Merchant Republics]

Keep telling yourself that they won't.

A smaller government is easier to corrupt. The reasoning behind this is simple mathematics: You can buy a government of 100 much easier than a government of 10000.

Very wrong.

Smaller governments are necessarily more transparent, they're smaller, and can be scrutinized much more easily. Further every non-corruptible politician has more say in a smaller sized congress.

However, I have to point out the apparent confusion that you seem to have made, small government doesn't literally mean a smaller congress, that's a rather odd when to think of it. Big government is talking about a government with more power, bigger regulatory agencies, higher level of interference with business and more money to spend. Not more politicians but more bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats are different than politicians, they are uniquely hard to scrutinize, while politicians are certainly corrupt, bureaucrats are even more so, because by nature bureaucrats run on graft and bribery, they often have wide powers with very little accountability, very few government agencies have regular audits, and are often heavily involved in lobbying themselves.

A bigger government is not a cleaner government, that should just be simply logic, there is a major reason why freedom from corruption correlates with other forms of economic freedom, the less the state is involved in the economy, the less the big businesses of the economy can get involved with the state.

The argument that a smaller government is easier to corrupt further fails in the fact that, if a smaller government gets corrupted, as we've seen it usually means that they become big. Indeed in order to perform the things we should imagine as "corrupt" the government needs to expand their powers beyond what one would call a "small government". In order to award "special subsidies" they're going to need the power to award "special subsidies". If they are being bribed to pass regulatory laws that keep out competition, they will require the authority to institute said regulatory agencies.

Really what defines corruption to you? Because at almost every turn, the definition of corrupt policy in politics requires a government big enough to implement said corrupt policy. It's absurd to argue that we should keep our current corrupt big government, because going back to a less corrupt small government will inevitably leads us right back to a big corrupt government, changing things for the better might be temporary but that hardly justifies the status quo.

[Death Metal]

So by this logic, it's all an excersize in futility, then, isn't it?

Because in the end, the only way a government can be truly incorruptible is if there is no point in corrupting it because it wouldn't have enough authority to be worth the briberies.

Then what's the point of even having the government?

Fighting corruption is therefore like fighting any other crime; you'll never get it to zero no matter how hard you try. It's human nature... sad, but true. The best you can do then is to try to keep things from being more corrupt.

But if the government is already choked by corruption- and I'm sure we can both at agree on that if nothing else- we cannot rely on it to enforce it's own corruption.

How then, can you expect any one man to truly stamp out enough corruption that it would even make a dent? Even if that man is put in presidential power, there's only so much the POTUS can do. Executive orders alone will not cut it.

Thus another problem with Ron Paul: Even IF he somehow got into office, there is simply no way he'll get enough support from either party to implement his ideas. Even less so than Obama, I'd say.

But all that says is we need someone willing to be more moderate to get things done in the White House. Sadly, I don't see any of the GOP as capable of this, except maybe Romney.


EDIT- Also, I don't believe in such a thing as an incorruptible politician in the 21st century. The last truly corruption-proof man in American politics was George Washington, and that was mostly because he really didn't even want to be President.

[The Merchant Republics]

So by this logic, it's all an excersize in futility, then, isn't it?

Because in the end, the only way a government can be truly incorruptible is if there is no point in corrupting it because it wouldn't have enough authority to be worth the briberies.

Then what's the point of even having the government?

Fighting corruption is therefore like fighting any other crime; you'll never get it to zero no matter how hard you try. It's human nature... sad, but true. The best you can do then is to try to keep things from being more corrupt.

But if the government is already choked by corruption- and I'm sure we can both at agree on that if nothing else- we cannot rely on it to enforce it's own corruption.

How then, can you expect any one man to truly stamp out enough corruption that it would even make a dent? Even if that man is put in presidential power, there's only so much the POTUS can do. Executive orders alone will not cut it.

Thus another problem with Ron Paul: Even IF he somehow got into office, there is simply no way he'll get enough support from either party to implement his ideas. Even less so than Obama, I'd say.

But all that says is we need someone willing to be more moderate to get things done in the White House. Sadly, I don't see any of the GOP as capable of this, except maybe Romney.


EDIT- Also, I don't believe in such a thing as an incorruptible politician in the 21st century. The last truly corruption-proof man in American politics was George Washington, and that was mostly because he really didn't even want to be President.

Well unfortunately, yes. Hence why I describe myself as anarcho-capitalist.

I don't see however why it being hopeless is a good reason to not support the one person who can at least try to make a dent. It's not that Ron Paul will even in an ideal world be able to implement all his ideas, it's that anyone else but Ron Paul will make it all the worse. I would far prefer an incapable saint to an effective sinner, so to speak.

[Death Metal]

Well, as I said before, I think his extreme budget cuts would be worse, so I would actually rather have an inept Ron Paul than and effective one...


I don't consider him a saint at all either. At best, I can agree that he appears to actually believe in what he says, but what he says sounds to me like he's the political Jack Kevorkian.

[GreaterPacificNations]

The problem with his cuts is that he's asking for too much in too little time.

How can I put it...

Okay, when I was in high school, I came home to find the road in front of my house, the entire length of the block, torn down about 15 feet deep.

They did this for five streets parallel to us. And only had the manpower to do the repairs one street at a time. Meaning everyone who lived on these streets had to park seven blocks away.


Yes, the economy is a problem and we need to fix it. But like a poison taster building an immunity, you have to do it in small doses. Rolling back the Clinton era taxes, removing deductibles for top 10% earners, cutting from defense first (but not too much). Limiting special project allocations to no more than $10,000. Freeze on government payroll increases and hiring non-essential staff (including but not limited to paid assistants. Congressmen who want to retain assistants may do so with unpaid interns or paying out of their own wallet).

That's just to start, but I would go on to make an extensive look at the budget (as I'm not privvy to those specifics, I can't say exactly what or how much I would remove). Cut or suspend programs in a case by case basis.

Small treatments over time, instead of just cutting out a tumor with a shotgun.

While that is sensible enough, time and time again we have seen real change is only possible with sweeping movements by a candidate whilst they are still (a) in power, and (b) enjoying popular support. If Ron Paul got elected he'd have a 4 year window to make good on his promises, all the while any inaction and failure would be constantly criticised, every initiative would be resisted along partisan lines. Swift and decisive action whilst still under the mandate of the people (presuming he got elected) is the way.

Anyhow, I think you're worrying too much. Yes a gradual change would be preferrable, but a sudden jump to drastically lower public spending and taxing would fuck it all up- there'd just be a turbulent year or two of change. Roosevelt's 'New Deal' was largely done in the first 100 days of his Presidency in 1933.

[The Merchant Republics]

Well, as I said before, I think his extreme budget cuts would be worse, so I would actually rather have an inept Ron Paul than and effective one...


I don't consider him a saint at all either. At best, I can agree that he appears to actually believe in what he says, but what he says sounds to me like he's the political Jack Kevorkian.

I think looking at some of his policies, his extreme budget cuts are coming mostly from places that aren't sustainable. Indeed, if I heard him right, he's going to keep himself from slashing social programs until the very last. Which makes sense, since it's politically volatile and frankly, people are too attached to the state to simply be cut off.

Which might have been what you are referring to with the Jack Kevorkian analogy. As far as I've seen, Ron Paul can't and wouldn't try to pass bills that would kill social programs, not at least without first inserting some other support method for them to rely on in the meantime. Less like Jack Kevorkian more like a risky heart transplant.

[GreaterPacificNations]

Though if the war on drugs was ended, and it became a purely nominal state issue, I think you'd see most of America legalising. Or to put it differently- if you could buy weed in California over the counter, America would see a lot of road trips.

Decent peace candidate too. It blows my mind how he is the only candidate putting forward serious budget cuts when USA's debt to GDP ratio is on par with Greece.

I'd say I agree with almost all of Ron Paul's platform. I disagree with his gold-standard sympathies, but that isn't a deal breaker. Then there is abortion, but he isn't going to put in a federal ban anyhow, so whatever.

So you don't mind him being ok with a return of the Jim Crow laws? Or states turning into theocracies?

Only the shit ones.

[Grave_n_idle]

Keep telling yourself that they won't.

A smaller government is easier to corrupt. The reasoning behind this is simple mathematics: You can buy a government of 100 much easier than a government of 10000.

Very wrong.

Smaller governments are necessarily more transparent, they're smaller, and can be scrutinized much more easily. .

Utter rubbish.

[Aquophia]

Has anyone stopped to wonder about Ron Paul's Health? I believe he is 76 years old and would be well into his eighties in the next four years. He seems pretty energetic though. He has tough skin too. He could make it.

[Jimanistan]

It's actually a fairly compelling ad, though I find I disagree with Paul's positions more often than I agree with them.

[Death Metal]

Very wrong.

Smaller governments are necessarily more transparent, they're smaller, and can be scrutinized much more easily. .

Utter rubbish.

To be fair, Gangland Chicago was very transparently corrupt.


Also, my former hometown of Hialeah, Florida had a mayor who managed to embezzle millions of dollars from the government.

He was convicted for it... but then when it came to the retrial, all the witnesses suddenly and inexplicably refused to testify. I don't think he even served time.

And, despite all this, he somehow got re-elected.

Incidentally, there's at least two businesses in Hialeah that everyone knows are grey markets. The owner of one was actually arrested for knowingly buying and selling stolen merchandise but he got a slap on the wrist.