Ron Paul vs Barack Obama

bhkad said:

BARACK OBAMA. I detest Ron Paul's foreign policy more than I detest Obama's.

Click to expand...

Why would you even detest Obama's foreign policy in the first place? He's continuing everything Bush did. Conservatives should like the guy.

Goldenboy219 said:

You sympathize with nation building. How...... Neoconservative of you.:2wave:

Click to expand...

This is an asanine comment and the type of haughty, over simplication, know it all type answer that in part helped turn some off from Ron Paul.

Things about Paul's foreign policy that could turn people off OTHER than no nation building:

Lack of support for Israel which is a strong ally in the middle east (being supportive of an Ally is not “nation building”)

Closing dozens of Military Bases around the world (having military bases in other countries is not “nation building”)

Previously, wishing an immediate pull out from Iraq (One could disagree with being over there while dealing with the reality that like it or not we DID, and thus believe we need to take action based on the situation on the ground and the reality we face rather than a principle that address what we SHOULD’VE done but doesn’t take the reality of the present into account. Not “nation building”)

Believing the War on Terror can be performed through Letters of Marque and covert action rather than military action (believing the need for military action in this does not equate to supporting “nation building”)

Believing that temporary security measures, or modernizing of our security law, are unneeded and should be removed (this has nothing to do with “nation building”)

Off the top of my head those are just a handful of potential Foreign Policy related stances and views of Ron Paul that could cause people to not agree with him that have zero or next to nothing to do with “nation building”.

Phantom said:

Why would you even detest Obama's foreign policy in the first place? He's continuing everything Bush did. Conservatives should like the guy.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. He's continuing SOME of Bush's things.

He's waffling on Gitmo, pseudo closing but not.

His stance and tact with Israel is FAR different than Bush's.

He's taken a far more apologetic and "we are wrong" stance of Foreign relations with other countries.

The length of time to make a decision concerning Afghanistan was hardly something one could attribute to being "George Bush"-esque when you take into account the Left and the Media's "cowboy" presentation of him.

Those off the top of my head.

In many ways, yes, Obama has followed Bush's lead. He's continuing in Afghanistan, he's following Bush's general outline for draw down in Iraq, he's maintained some of the security measures and actions of the Bush admin, etc.

However it would be a great stretch to say he's continuing everything from the Bush Administration when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm confused, man there both the best anyways.lol

Ron Paul, I like his foreign policy which I think is incredibly mature and reasonable.

bhkad said:

BARACK OBAMA. I detest Ron Paul's foreign policy more than I detest Obama's.

Click to expand...

I agree. While one can object to a full-fledged neoconservative foreign policy, Congressman Paul's foreign policy would amount to abdication. Under Ron Paul, the nation would literally abandon its critical overseas interests and allies under the simplistic idea that the nation's foreign policy challenges are the result of blowback (forgetting that other factors such as the balance of power, ideology, clashing interests, geopolitical trends, etc., all play a key role in shaping the nation's foreign policy environment). As a result of abdication, Iran would gain a free hand to dominate the Persian Gulf region and gain the ability to place a chokehold on a major share of the world's oil supplies, and pre-WW II Asian rivalries could reassert themselves in the context of a rising China, aging Japan, and power vacuum created in East Asia from a U.S. withdrawal. The resulting geopolitical environment would be less stable and more threatening to U.S. interests and allies. Just as had been the case in the run-up to WW II, "non-interventionism" would not buy the U.S. security even as it could give would-be aggressors license to assert themselves at the expense of abandoned U.S. interests and allies.

Zyphlin said:

Not entirely true. He's continuing SOME of Bush's things.

He's waffling on Gitmo, pseudo closing but not.

His stance and tact with Israel is FAR different than Bush's.

He's taken a far more apologetic and "we are wrong" stance of Foreign relations with other countries.

The length of time to make a decision concerning Afghanistan was hardly something one could attribute to being "George Bush"-esque when you take into account the Left and the Media's "cowboy" presentation of him.

Those off the top of my head.

In many ways, yes, Obama has followed Bush's lead. He's continuing in Afghanistan, he's following Bush's general outline for draw down in Iraq, he's maintained some of the security measures and actions of the Bush admin, etc.

However it would be a great stretch to say he's continuing everything from the Bush Administration when it comes to foreign policy.

Click to expand...

Most of the things you have pointed out in your post are things Obama said he was going to do. Yes he said he was going to close gitmo, but this obviously isn't going to happen. Yes he also takes the apologetic "we are wrong" stance but he isn't doing anything to reverse our mistakes. You're right, he took some time before he sent more troops to Afghanistan, but the point is he did it. At the end of the day it's not about what he says or how long it takes him to do something - It's about what he does.

Ikari said:

Ron Paul, I like his foreign policy which I think is incredibly mature and reasonable.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul wants us to remove ourselves from the UN AND follow international law. No. He's a completely dishonest individual or just plain simplistic. Countries who are members of the UN refuse to follow international law all the time. What exactly is compelling us to follow international law once we're no longer members of the UN? Furthermore with his position on foreign aid is a complete f'n joke. The US doesn't produce anything other than weapons in large enough numbers for us not to have binding treaties. Unless we plan on trading every import we get for weapons - which I doubt - we need the majority of those treaties.

Ron Paul is a candidate for children and the maladjusted. He is a rigid ideologue without a practical streak at all, and deserves to be nothing more than a small footnote in the history of American politics -- a curio spit out by the vagaries of the political process whose five minutes of fame should have ended months ago.


Oh, and I might add that I don't particularly care for him.

upsideguy said:

The War in Iraq is winding down. He never pledged to repeal the Patriot Act, so you can't count that against (though I agree with you that it was an outrage); he is behind schedule on Guantanamo, but I do believe he is committed to getting rid of it.

Click to expand...

You may make the argument that the war is winding down but the fact of the matter is that we're still there and don't need to be. That was one of the things he promised, To remove all combat troops immediately, Not take a fraction of them out only so more can be restructured in Afghanistan. Also the major problem with him dragging through the process of closing Guantanamo Bay is that what happens if he doesn't get it accomplished during his first term and loses in 2012 and the next president decides to keep the prison open? That's going to be a failure on his part for not acting fast enough on closing the prison.

upsideguy said:

He did get a new liberal justice appointed; passed health care (as watered down as it was, at least it is a bill that no other Prez could get and a big step in the right direction); he will get Wall Street reform (probably also watered down); he presided over one of the worst financial crises in US history and has generally pulled America through; he has knocked off something on the order of 15 out of the 22 Al Qaeda most wanted without starting another war to do so.... I think he is actually getting things done.

Click to expand...

Though it may be a step in the right direction on health care for the fact that he got a bill passed, It's still far from what is needed to fix the problems within the system. The whole strategy to give up on the public option in the name of "bipartisanship" is going to blow up in his face because not only did it recieve 0 Republican votes after all he did to try and gain their support, It's also does nothing to bring down the costs for the lack of competition with the insurance companies and that hurts him politically and hurts us financially. The financial reform bill does little to nothing to reform Wall Street to prevent another crash in our economy. It may be a tad bit more oversight but there's nothing in the bill that's going to break up the big banks or stop the banks from gambling with our money. As it stands now we're going to have another crisis and they're going to end up getting bailed out once again. This is something we need to put an end to once and for all. A watered down bill isn't good enough.

When a candidate wrote a book called "audit the fed" you know its scary lol

Hatuey said:

Ron Paul wants us to remove ourselves from the UN AND follow international law. No. He's a completely dishonest individual or just plain simplistic. Countries who are members of the UN refuse to follow international law all the time. What exactly is compelling us to follow international law once we're no longer members of the UN? Furthermore with his position on foreign aid is a complete f'n joke. The US doesn't produce anything other than weapons in large enough numbers for us not to have binding treaties. Unless we plan on trading every import we get for weapons - which I doubt - we need the majority of those treaties.

Click to expand...

If we signed treaties to obey international law, then that is the law of the land and we must do so. Making treaty and then doing otherwise is simply dishonest.

Hatuey said:

Ron Paul wants us to remove ourselves from the UN AND follow international law. No. He's a completely dishonest individual or just plain simplistic. Countries who are members of the UN refuse to follow international law all the time. What exactly is compelling us to follow international law once we're no longer members of the UN? Furthermore with his position on foreign aid is a complete f'n joke. The US doesn't produce anything other than weapons in large enough numbers for us not to have binding treaties. Unless we plan on trading every import we get for weapons - which I doubt - we need the majority of those treaties.

Click to expand...

The UN results in a loss of sovereignty because we become subject to some of their will. Look at the crazy things that they have come up with that they want us to do. The UN should only be about preserving peace, but it has expanded itself and so we should not be a part of it.

Hatuey said:

Ron Paul wants us to remove ourselves from the UN AND follow international law. No. He's a completely dishonest individual or just plain simplistic. Countries who are members of the UN refuse to follow international law all the time. What exactly is compelling us to follow international law once we're no longer members of the UN? Furthermore with his position on foreign aid is a complete f'n joke. The US doesn't produce anything other than weapons in large enough numbers for us not to have binding treaties. Unless we plan on trading every import we get for weapons - which I doubt - we need the majority of those treaties.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about....with regards to treaties? And you don't think we produce anything except weapons here? All your friends work in weapons factories or what?

Glad to see Ron is winning this poll.

Take it from Judge Nap:

We do not have two political parties in this country, America. We have one party; called the Big Government Party. The Republican wing likes deficits, war, and assaults on civil liberties. The Democratic wing likes wealth transfer, taxes, and assaults on commercial liberties. Both parties like power; and neither is interested in your freedoms. Think about it. Government is the negation of freedom. Freedom is your power and ability to follow your own free will and your own conscience. The government wants you to follow the will of some faceless bureaucrat.

Ron Paul's policies would certainly be brought closer to the middle by Congress. I don't like his foreign policy. I'm not a neo-con, but I'm also not a complete non-interventionist. I like his domestic policy, but he shouldn't try to do everything at once even if it was politically possible. The man wants to make huge changes to our government. I'm generally on board with him, but it will take time.

Somewhat reluctantly, Obama.

Ron Paul. I agree with him on far more issues than Barrack Obama including foreign policy.

I voted Ron Paul, but I wonder if I'd vote for Obama after a year into Paul's presidency. I have many issues with libertarianism.

digsbe said:

I voted Ron Paul, but I wonder if I'd vote for Obama after a year into Paul's presidency. I have many issues with libertarianism.

Click to expand...

Well I'd be more than happy to settle those issues.

What... Like in a cage match or something?

phattonez said:

Well I'd be more than happy to settle those issues.

Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of the libertarian philosophy, but in some areas I can't really agree with it. I am all for limited government, more personal freedom, and less government intervention. But I don't support things like legalizing drugs, taking the government out in some areas, and having society shift more towards the laws of individuals over the laws of the land. I do like giving states more power and the fed less power, but I do believe in social programs and other things that are usually opposed by libertarianism. I'm not libertarian myself so I speak somewhat out of ignorance because I don't know what the libertarian stance on every issue is.

Ron Paul, but only begrudgingly. I think his naive views on jihadists would soften once he assumed the Presidency. It's kind of hard to ignore the entire military upper echelon and intelligence community telling you that jihadist terrorism is a lot more complex than simple blowback and that a defensive military posture would be suboptimal.

However, I think a great many of his views are misunderstood and misrepresented. For instance, he voted to authorize the war in Afghanistan, which cuts against the notion that he is isolationist or unwilling to aggressively defend the nation.

Furthermore, he does not advocate or support the immediate dissolution of Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security; instead, he favors an incremental restructuring and phasing out of the programs. That is an unsubtle distinction that is often lost or ignored.

Lastly, his position on the Federal Reserve (which I disagree with) is absolutely immaterial to his Presidency. Only the Congress has the authority to materially alter the existence of the Federal Reserve.

I think he's far more pragmatic than most folks give him credit for, and a lot of that has to do with his speaking skills. He has a tendency to speak in philosophical absolutes, only injecting pragmatism after he is asked to clarify or qualify his positions.

Ultimately, I have no illusions that Ron Paul will be the President, or even win the Republican primary.

phattonez said:

Well I'd be more than happy to settle those issues.

Click to expand...

What is the Libertarian solution when bigotry and discrimination against a group of people has become enshrined in the culture?

the makeout hobo said:

What is the Libertarian solution when bigotry and discrimination against a group of people has become enshrined in the culture?

Click to expand...

They ignore it until it goes away. :rofl

I am just joking.

I honestly don't think they would do anything as it would not be the governments place if it is a private service or property.