He's anti-imperialist, for one thing. He's pretty much categorically opposed to bombing Iran as well, although I think that's likely to be a moot issue by the election. One seldom gets a candidate with everything one wants, though. I heartily favour his emphasis on the Constitution. He also wants to close off the borders, and abandon NAFTA, the ICC, global warming treaties, etc, all of which I'd cheerfully support. None of those benefit us. I think he's wrong to want to break up NATO, even though it's not as important as it once was, and I think we should stay in the UN, simply for the sake of being able to wield a veto.
On the whole, he's got more positive than negative points. Also he's beginning to draw enough serious attention that he's becoming a plausible candidate. A two-party system forces one to think about whether one's favourite is really electable or not. I'm starting to think Paul is.
An issue with most candidates is trying to guess how much they really intend to do, and how much they're saying to get elected. W's bad about that. That's not an issue with Ron Paul. He's been very consistent in his positions through his career.
Free market and free trade are essentially the same concept. You can't be in favour of one but against the other, and you're just not a fiscal conservative unless you believe in both. These aren't new ideas - this is Adam Smith stuff, so I don't see how anyone could not get them!
Again, the emphasis should be on what's beneficial to Americans. If a free market is benefitting us, well and good. If it benefits others at our expense, then it's time to consider alternatives. Results should never be sacrificed for ideological purity.
Yes, free market/trade are seldom beneficial for the weak, so a system of welfare (or protectionism) is needed... just until those hard up on their luck can get back on their feet and contribute to society.
You wondered once before why the right doesn't seem to be particularly good with money anymore. This conceptual disconnect between free market and free trade is an example of how the current right doesn't display as much of an understanding of economics as they used to.
Perhaps not. The 14th says that you have to be born here and be under the jurisdiction of a state. It can be argued that someone who's here illegally isn't under proper jurisdiction. The courts have never ruled on that, and Congress has repeatedly asserted their right to enact laws denying birthright citizenship, so it's an open issue.
It's one of his drawbacks. Realistically, though, we've already botched that so badly that it's unlikely to be salvagable anyway. I tend to see our failure there as stemming from W's internationalist tendencies. He let others define success and failure for him. He worried about the welfare of the Iraqis, he worried about international opinion, he worried about Saudi economic stability, and in the end, America had to settle for sub-ideal outcomes because of all of these concerns. The President's chief concern should lie in doing what benefits America and Americans.
Well, first and formost, he seems like an isolationist. The kind of isolationist we had in thie country in the twenties and thirties. In my opinion, that just doesn't fly in the modern world. Can we really get away these days with thumbing our economic noses at the rest of the world and say "it's our way or the highway?" I don't think so.
And... not a single mention of the environment on his web site. Not -one-. Other than his saying that we need to avoid any international entanglements re: carbon reduction and so on.
So between the lines? If he got into office, I bet we would see a tremendous increase in the exploitation of non-renewable resources in this country. More drilling, more mining, more destruction of not only native habitat but of human lifestyles. Ask wyoming ranchers and farmers, for instance, about how they feel about gas and oil development in their state.
Don't get me started on the myth that building a physical wall along the U.S./Mexican border will somehow protect us from terrorists. Remember, these sickos are willing to fly into buildings to get to us. They'll go through Canada. Better to increase intelligence and track these people down to their bases.
And historically, walls have proven to be poor at keeping people in, or out. Also, being a treehugger, I'd be lax if I did't mention that a physical wall along the U.S./Mexican border would be a disaster environmentally.
Equally important, in my opinion, is to take a step back and have a good look at the history of these extremists, understand where they come from and why they hate us.
And about the War in Iraq... Mr. Paul makes the comment that the U.S. should "never again" participate in a war sanctioned by the U.N. Excuse me... but I seem to remember that the decision to invade Iraq was made by another Texas Republican who then went to the U.N. and basically did a "Hard Sell" of the war there? I remember there was a lot of U.N. bashing when they -didn't- immediately hop on board? Or did I dream that?
Other factors why I'd probably not vote for the man include that I'm pro-gun control (odd that the U.S. has both some the most liberal gun contol laws and the highest prison population per capita among industrialized nations...) and pro-choice. Call me a monster, but life is life. It's either all sacred or it's not. There's a reasonable chance that Mr. Ron Paul is a hunter, or is friends with people who hunt for sport and would support people's "rights" to do so. Fine, as long as it's done -responsibly.- But to turn around and tell a mother, perhaps the victim of rape or life threatening disease or condition that she doesn't have the medical option of abortion is, in my mind, hypocritical.
Whew. Quite the rant. Remember, you -did- ask. And of course, all this is just one mouse's opinion.
Just thought of something. Ron Paul says he's "pro-life." If he's a Constitutionalist, where is pro-life vs. pro-choice dealt with in the Constitution? How do his beliefs on this issue and being "pro-family," both catch phrase with a religious right as well, mesh with the separation of Church and State as outlined by the framers of the constitution?
I'm starting to realize that while I'm opposed to pollution, and to cruelty to animals, I'm equally opposed to that sort of environmentalism that focusses on ecosystems rather than animals and pollution. Look what's going on in England right now. They're systematically killing all of the mink, because they're not a 'native' animal. Look what happened in Australia, where they introduced diseases to kill the rabbits. This kind of thing goes on all over, and it's done for the simple reason that it's been decided that it would be more pleasing to have one assortment of species than another. I can't see any difference in deciding that we're going to kill all the mink so we can have more otters, and deciding that we're going to kill all the wolves, so we can have more cattle. In either case, you're killing animals who've done nothing to anyone, simnply on a human whim that it's better to have one species than another, and it's wrong, and it's cruel.
Environmental treaties are, in general, written in support of that sort of ecosystem-based thinking. I'm slowly becoming more active (voting against, writing to congressmen, etc) in fighting against those sorts of laws, and in particular against the idea of trying to stop global warming. The world's not going to stand still, much less revert to the way it was in Darwin's time, and we're wasting out time and effort to stand there like Canute trying to turn back the tide. We ought to be learning to deal with the changing earth, rather than trying to control it.
I'd support someone running on a platform of stronger laws against animal cruelty, including things like sport hunting, battery farming of chickens, feed lot veal, etc, but I don't see anyone at all standing up for those.
Paul's an isolationist, it's true. I don't really like that, but it's probably a reasonable strategy for the times, given the poor support that we're getting from Europe and even domestically in trying to control the middle east. We won't stay that way forever, but for the moment, it may be best.
I disagree with him on the 'pro-life' thing too, but that seems a very minor issue to me. So far as constitutional justification, I'd imagine he feels the 14th amendment applies. Most of the anti-abortion people argue that a fetus is a person. I disagree, but there's no such thing as a perfect candidate.
1980, yes. It was very much a case of 'less bad'. Carter was honest, and he meant well, but he was completely incompetent. I was too young to vote in 1976, but I went out and campaigned for Carter because I was impressed by his character, and like some sinner in a Greek tragedy, my prayer was answered, and I got the president I wanted.
Reagan was an amiable dunce, even before he started to go senile. He wasn't a bad man, but he was basically an actor playing the part of President. Ed Meese, Donald Regan, and Nancy Reagan were the decision makers, and 'evil' would not be too strong a word to describe that cabal. The danger, of course, was that Reagan held the titular authority, and in an emergency he was the one with his finger on the button. I'm amazed yet that we got through those eight years with no more damage than we did.
Wow, Ron Paul is *horrible*. Good at condensing stuff into talking points that look all honorable and crap, but his policies actually boil down to 'I am going to use every trick in the book to sidestep the rest of the government and slam my personal opinions into law'.
I don't see that in him. He looks very much like a hardcore consitutionalist to me. Such a man would, of course, wreak havoc on the sort of Federal government that we've had since the 1930s, but he doesn't make any secret of that either.
Paul is a truth-teller. I don't especially like his truth, but at least he's honest. The US usually votes for the biggest liar, except after a Nixonian debacle like Bush Jr. when a truth-teller has a chance. Vis. Jimmy Carter, who basically had nothing to offer except truthfulness and a ridiculously bright smile.
It's not that W is dishonest that bothers me. I can deal with a President who's a big fat liar, and I can deal with one who steals anything that's not nailed down. I voted for Clinton twice, after all, and I'd have voted for him a third time if I could have. Dishonest men have a natural advantage in a democracy, and the system tends to select for them.
What bothers me about W is that the man has no loyalty at all to his supporters. He send soldiers to Iraq, then lets them be prosecuted for 'war crimes'. He asks the American people to make all kinds of sacrifices for national security, then decides to help his buddy the Sultan of Dubai get the license to operate an American port. It's not that he's dishonest per se, but that he's dishonest to the benefit of foreigners, and the detriment of Americans.
Paul is honest, though. He strikes me very much as a man who means what he says. And unlike Carter, he's got some steel in him.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 04:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 04:47 pm (UTC)On the whole, he's got more positive than negative points. Also he's beginning to draw enough serious attention that he's becoming a plausible candidate. A two-party system forces one to think about whether one's favourite is really electable or not. I'm starting to think Paul is.
An issue with most candidates is trying to guess how much they really intend to do, and how much they're saying to get elected. W's bad about that. That's not an issue with Ron Paul. He's been very consistent in his positions through his career.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 08:16 pm (UTC)You wondered once before why the right doesn't seem to be particularly good with money anymore. This conceptual disconnect between free market and free trade is an example of how the current right doesn't display as much of an understanding of economics as they used to.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 12:58 am (UTC)But he wants to end birthright citizenship. If I read the Fourteenth Amendment correctly, that's in the Constitution.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 04:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:16 pm (UTC)About the only thing I seem to agree with him on is his initial comments about Iraq. I didn't bother clicking on the "read more" link.
No surprise though. I'm pretty liberal in my politics, somethings touching on socialist.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 07:27 pm (UTC)I'm most assuredly not. Goldwater would be my dream candidate, but he shows no sign of rising from the dead. Yet.
This guys scares the hell out of me.
What, in particular, distresses you about him?
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 04:35 pm (UTC)And... not a single mention of the environment on his web site. Not -one-. Other than his saying that we need to avoid any international entanglements re: carbon reduction and so on.
So between the lines? If he got into office, I bet we would see a tremendous increase in the exploitation of non-renewable resources in this country. More drilling, more mining, more destruction of not only native habitat but of human lifestyles. Ask wyoming ranchers and farmers, for instance, about how they feel about gas and oil development in their state.
Don't get me started on the myth that building a physical wall along the U.S./Mexican border will somehow protect us from terrorists. Remember, these sickos are willing to fly into buildings to get to us. They'll go through Canada. Better to increase intelligence and track these people down to their bases.
And historically, walls have proven to be poor at keeping people in, or out. Also, being a treehugger, I'd be lax if I did't mention that a physical wall along the U.S./Mexican border would be a disaster environmentally.
Equally important, in my opinion, is to take a step back and have a good look at the history of these extremists, understand where they come from and why they hate us.
And about the War in Iraq... Mr. Paul makes the comment that the U.S. should "never again" participate in a war sanctioned by the U.N. Excuse me... but I seem to remember that the decision to invade Iraq was made by another Texas Republican who then went to the U.N. and basically did a "Hard Sell" of the war there? I remember there was a lot of U.N. bashing when they -didn't- immediately hop on board? Or did I dream that?
Other factors why I'd probably not vote for the man include that I'm pro-gun control (odd that the U.S. has both some the most liberal gun contol laws and the highest prison population per capita among industrialized nations...) and pro-choice. Call me a monster, but life is life. It's either all sacred or it's not. There's a reasonable chance that Mr. Ron Paul is a hunter, or is friends with people who hunt for sport and would support people's "rights" to do so. Fine, as long as it's done -responsibly.- But to turn around and tell a mother, perhaps the victim of rape or life threatening disease or condition that she doesn't have the medical option of abortion is, in my mind, hypocritical.
Whew. Quite the rant. Remember, you -did- ask. And of course, all this is just one mouse's opinion.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 07:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-17 04:15 pm (UTC)Environmental treaties are, in general, written in support of that sort of ecosystem-based thinking. I'm slowly becoming more active (voting against, writing to congressmen, etc) in fighting against those sorts of laws, and in particular against the idea of trying to stop global warming. The world's not going to stand still, much less revert to the way it was in Darwin's time, and we're wasting out time and effort to stand there like Canute trying to turn back the tide. We ought to be learning to deal with the changing earth, rather than trying to control it.
I'd support someone running on a platform of stronger laws against animal cruelty, including things like sport hunting, battery farming of chickens, feed lot veal, etc, but I don't see anyone at all standing up for those.
Paul's an isolationist, it's true. I don't really like that, but it's probably a reasonable strategy for the times, given the poor support that we're getting from Europe and even domestically in trying to control the middle east. We won't stay that way forever, but for the moment, it may be best.
I disagree with him on the 'pro-life' thing too, but that seems a very minor issue to me. So far as constitutional justification, I'd imagine he feels the 14th amendment applies. Most of the anti-abortion people argue that a fetus is a person. I disagree, but there's no such thing as a perfect candidate.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 10:59 pm (UTC)It would be the first time in my life I've voted on anything.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-15 11:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 04:06 am (UTC)Reagan was an amiable dunce, even before he started to go senile. He wasn't a bad man, but he was basically an actor playing the part of President. Ed Meese, Donald Regan, and Nancy Reagan were the decision makers, and 'evil' would not be too strong a word to describe that cabal. The danger, of course, was that Reagan held the titular authority, and in an emergency he was the one with his finger on the button. I'm amazed yet that we got through those eight years with no more damage than we did.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 12:28 am (UTC)What a sleazy little weasel.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 04:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-16 03:57 am (UTC)It's not that W is dishonest that bothers me. I can deal with a President who's a big fat liar, and I can deal with one who steals anything that's not nailed down. I voted for Clinton twice, after all, and I'd have voted for him a third time if I could have. Dishonest men have a natural advantage in a democracy, and the system tends to select for them.
What bothers me about W is that the man has no loyalty at all to his supporters. He send soldiers to Iraq, then lets them be prosecuted for 'war crimes'. He asks the American people to make all kinds of sacrifices for national security, then decides to help his buddy the Sultan of Dubai get the license to operate an American port. It's not that he's dishonest per se, but that he's dishonest to the benefit of foreigners, and the detriment of Americans.
Paul is honest, though. He strikes me very much as a man who means what he says. And unlike Carter, he's got some steel in him.