Mitt Romney for President

1679111235

Comments

  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Paul's foreign policy is not only his sanest position, it's the sanest position on foreign policy from anywhere in the US. Safety by threat is what's insane.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Paul's foreign policy is not only his sanest position, it's the sanest position on foreign policy from anywhere in the US. Safety by threat is what's insane.



    On this we can agree.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    You're not sure it isn't, either.



    And you are sure? I think the vast majority of conservatives and even libertarians will vote for the GOP nominee over Obama. Obama's just that bad.





    Quote:



    Such as?



    Returning to the gold standard? Getting rid of Medicaid? Thinking that the world will be better off if we have no foreign military presence.



    Quote:







    "Any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, (or to a tribunal fairly representing the people,) for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner







    See the quote above. Every American citizen is Constitutionally guaranteed a trial by jury before the government can carry out punishment.



    So you're saying that an American citizen who literally takes up arms agains the nation (on foreign soil) deserves a freaking jury trial? Yeah, we just disagree there. There are special circumstances and exceptions, and this is one of them.



    Quote:



    A good place to start would be to call for an audit of the Fed. And Ron Paul has done that very thing. The point is it's a problem, he's talking about it, and nobody else is.



    He wants to END the Fed, not just audit it. He wants to return to the gold standard. Both are nuts.



    Quote:







    http://youtu.be/H6CWEI0C7ek



    He is for bailouts. He says he would have done them differently, but he believes they were and are necessary. "Essential" is the word he used.



    Come on. How can you not see that's out of context? He was talking about bailouts that were to save the financial system. He even talked about his opposition to bailouts for any other reason. And you know what? He's right.



    Quote:



    So state governments can force people to buy certain products or services? Really?



    Yes, really. I don't think they should, but they can. The states have (or should have) far more power than the feds do.



    Quote:



    Tell me one thing Ron Paul advocates that is unconstitutional.





    I didn't claim that. I said he goes much further, as in he's not JUST for "following the constitution." He's isolationist. He doesn't believe in using American power to protect our interests and security. He wants to end Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. He goes too far.



    Quote:





    The golden rule is insane?



    Yes, when it comes to foreign policy, it's batshit crazy. The world simply doesn't work that way. His Cuba position is a perfect example. Have things gotten better in Cuba since we started lightening our stance under Obama? No. They've gotten worse. Has Iran started behaving now that Obama has snubbed Israel and all but ruled out military action? No. They've become emboldened. Did the Soviets become weaker when we pursued Détente? No, they became more aggressive. The problem with Ron Paul is he doesn't believe that a strong America is good for world peace. He thinks that we are the provocateur of all the problems we face, from terrorism to Iran. He thinks that the only reason Iran wants a nuclear weapon is because we're threatening them. "If we would just back off, they'd back off. Everyone will leave us alone." That's the general idea, and it's clearly wrong. If all Ron Paul wanted to do is restructure our foreign presence to have it better reflect 21st Century needs (Korea and Germany troop levels come to mind) and argue for less intervention, that would be one thing. But he goes right up the ladder, past the diving board, up to high dive, and takes a flying leap as the pool is empty. He's just wrong.



    Quote:



    I've never claimed they are the same. I have, however, shown how they agree on many important issues, most of which you dismiss or believe are unimportant.



    Oh yes you did. You've argued that there is no difference that matters. That is simply false. There are huge differences. You simply don't care because if it's not RON PAUL (RON PAUL! RON PAUL!) it's not good enough. Mitt Romney does not equal Ron Paul, therefore Mitt Romney equals Obama. Sorry dude...I like you and all, but that's the logic of a true Paul Tard.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Paul's foreign policy is not only his sanest position, it's the sanest position on foreign policy from anywhere in the US. Safety by threat is what's insane.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    On this we can agree.



    And you're both wrong. His position is the most dangerous of any candidate, including Obama. That doesn't mean he's all wrong, of course. We should reduce and restructure our foreign presence. We should definitely not have as much intervention (example: Libya). But the rest of it is simply crazy. We will not be left alone if we bring all the troops home and demilitarize. The world will not be better. That's because American strength is a good thing. As Reagan once said "Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong."
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    So you're saying that an American citizen who literally takes up arms agains the nation (on foreign soil) deserves a freaking jury trial? Yeah, we just disagree there. There are special circumstances and exceptions, and this is one of them.



    Well I agree that it would be pointless for a government that is being rebelled against to be assumed objective in such a trial, I think we can all agree that it is the right of the people to throw off their government. I mean for goodness sake this country was founded on that very premise!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    He wants to END the Fed, not just audit it. He wants to return to the gold standard. Both are nuts.



    No, they are not. Some in-depth study of banking and monetary history not to mention a true understanding of what The Fed does to the average citizen of this country would be of great benefit to you. A free-market banking system (sans central bank) and monetary competition would be lead to much greater stability and much less inflation. While I don't agree on a mandated gold (or any other monetary) standard, history suggests that gold would likely evolve as a defacto standard.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    And you're both wrong.



    Because you say so? You can't simply disagree? Those who don't hold the same view as you must be wrong?









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    His position is the most dangerous of any candidate, including Obama.



    We disagree.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    We will not be left alone if we bring all the troops home and demilitarize.



    First I agree we would not be left alone entirely...but we'd have fewer problems by reducing our fucking around in other countries. Second, Paul doesn't call for de-militarization as much as a return to armed neutrality.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    The world will not be better.



    This is a matter of debate not fact.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That's because American strength is a good thing.



    I disagree.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Because you say so? You can't simply disagree? Those who don't hold the same view as you must be wrong?



    [/quote]



    OK. In my opinion, you're both wrong. Better?



    Quote:



    We disagree.



    See above.



    Quote:





    First I agree we would not be left alone entirely...but we'd have fewer problems by reducing our fucking around in other countries.



    Opinion. And, one not supported by an understanding of history.



    Quote:

    Second, Paul doesn't call for de-militarization as much as a return to armed neutrality.



    Yes he does. He rails against the size of the military, foreign bases, troops on other nations. He has stated that the reason other nations wish to harm the US is because "we bomb them all the time."



    Quote:





    This is a matter of debate not fact.



    It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.



    Quote:





    I disagree.



    So does Ron Paul. So does Barack Obama. You're entitled to your opinion, but it is my strong feeling you are absolutely wrong. American strength is good for the world. It was good in World War I and World War 2. It was good during the cold war. America, for all its flaws, is basically a force for the good in the world. We need to defend freedom and democracy, because without us, no one else will.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    OK. In my opinion, you're both wrong. Better?



    Much.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yes he does. He rails against the size of the military, foreign bases, troops on other nations.



    Well criticizing the size of the military is not the same thing as calling for complete demilitarization.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    He has stated that the reason other nations wish to harm the US is because "we bomb them all the time."



    As I recall, he's simply stating what the CIA and other intelligence agencies have already stated. He's paraphrasing the concept of "blowback" that they have outlined.





    It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You're entitled to your opinion, but it is my strong feeling you are absolutely wrong.



    See, that wasn't so hard, was it?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    American strength is good for the world. It was good in World War I and World War 2. It was good during the cold war.



    I think this might have been a much more true statement in the past and much less so now.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    America, for all its flaws, is basically a force for the good in the world.



    Unfortunately its flaws are rising to the top. This has a tendency to happen in people, companies and nations when they get to the top and become the all powerful one. The power goes to their head. Their flaws start to become much more prominent and magnified. The US has become more empire-like and bully-like in the decades since WW2. This is the problem.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    We need to defend freedom and democracy, because without us, no one else will.



    Well I don't care about democracy, but freedom...sure. If that's what we were actually doing. But again, our foreign policy has changed quite a bit over the decades to one where we'll defend and try to control any regime that does and gives us what we want rather than truly defending "freedom and democracy."



    So we disagree that the US you're talking about is the same US that's operating throughout the world today. I agree it might have been much more like that in the past but much less like it today.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Ron Paul has stated he wants to build more military bases here at home. That doesn't sound like de-militarization to me.



    Freedom can only be spread by example. Trying to spread freedom through force is like stealing money from one person, giving it to another, and calling it charity.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Much.



    Well criticizing the size of the military is not the same thing as calling for complete demilitarization.



    I didn't say "complete demilitarization." But he's close enough to that for it to be dangerous.



    Quote:



    As I recall, he's simply stating what the CIA and other intelligence agencies have already stated. He's paraphrasing the concept of "blowback" that they have outlined.



    Oh COME ON. You're telling me the CIA and "other intelligence agencies" believe the only reason we are disliked by certain nations is because we're "bombing them all the time?" That is completely disingenuous.



    Quote:





    It's my opinion. If you want to make the case that I'm wrong, go ahead. I'm listening.



    See, that wasn't so hard, was it?





    I think this might have been a much more true statement in the past and much less so now.



    We agree there, but not for the same reason. I see us not standing up for our allies and ideals the way we used to. We're snubbing Israel, treating Iran ("the tiny country") with kid gloves, getting walked on by China and Russia, etc. We're not respected. We're seen as weak and in decline. And that has nothing to do with treatment of terror detainees or troops in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Iraq. It's about the perception this administration has created...that of a paper tiger. Obama even talks about how we shouldn't be the military and economic leader of the world, but rather one of a "chorus of voices."



    Quote:





    Unfortunately its flaws are rising to the top. This has a tendency to happen in people, companies and nations when they get to the top and become the all powerful one. The power goes to their head. Their flaws start to become much more prominent and magnified. The US has become more empire-like and bully-like in the decades since WW2. This is the problem.



    We've made mistakes, it's true. We've gotten involved in things we should not have. But, I disagree that we're an "empire." We don't conquer and hold territory. We didn't invade Iraq, make it the 51st state, and wash our hands. Instead, we spent 10 years, a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives rebuilding and securing the country...then we left. What you see to resent is American global influence and military projection. That's where we really disagree. We shouldn't use the military all the time, but we should be able to if we need to.



    Quote:





    Well I don't care about democracy, but freedom...sure. If that's what we were actually doing. But again, our foreign policy has changed quite a bit over the decades to one where we'll defend and try to control any regime that does and gives us what we want rather than truly defending "freedom and democracy."



    Democracy is the only way a country can be free. Democracy cannot be imposed by its very nature. As for "controlling regimes," that's a vague notion. When a regime like NK or Iran is building nuclear weapons, threatening us and our allies, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies, etc...yeah...I think we should absolutely be involved.



    Quote:



    So we disagree that the US you're talking about is the same US that's operating throughout the world today. I agree it might have been much more like that in the past but much less like it today.



    What are we doing today that you disagree with?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    I didn't say "complete demilitarization."



    You said he wants demilitarization. Absent any qualification the normal English interpretation of that statement would be to infer complete demilitarization. Thanks for clarifying.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    But he's close enough to that for it to be dangerous.



    Thanks for your opinion.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oh COME ON. You're telling me the CIA and "other intelligence agencies" believe the only reason we are disliked by certain nations is because we're "bombing them all the time?" That is completely disingenuous.



    First, I don't think I said they have said it was the only reason. But they have mentioned it a reason. You have gone the other extreme and dismissed as a reason at all. Now that's completely disingenuous.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    We're not respected.



    You have to wonder why.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    And that has nothing to do with treatment of terror detainees or troops in Afghanistan. It has nothing to do with Iraq.



    Nothing? Really? And you're the one throwing around that word naive to describe other people's views of the matter. Priceless!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    But, I disagree that we're an "empire." We don't conquer and hold territory. We didn't invade Iraq, make it the 51st state, and wash our hands. Instead, we spent 10 years, a trillion dollars and nearly 5,000 American lives rebuilding and securing the country...then we left.



    With 14 permanent military bases in place and an Embassy the size of the Vatican?



    I suppose it might be a matter of semantics.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What you see to resent is American global influence and military projection.



    You have to wonder why.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    We shouldn't use the military all the time, but we should be able to if we need to.



    Agreed...for defensive purposes. Not this new doctrine of the best defense is good offense.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Democracy is the only way a country can be free.



    Quite untrue. A little more in-dept study of political philosophy would benefit you here. The best guardian of freedom we've found so far is a constitutional republic. But even that is showing signs of crumbling.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    As for "controlling regimes," that's a vague notion.



    Yes, I suppose it is. That doesn't mean it isn't happening in some vague and non-obvious ways.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    When a regime like NK or Iran is building nuclear weapons, threatening us and our allies, threatening to disrupt global energy supplies, etc...yeah...I think we should absolutely be involved.



    Well when that actually happens, then we can talk.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What are we doing today that you disagree with?



    Most of what the US government's imperial attitude is doing. Trying to gin up war with Iran. The way it handled Libya. The way it handled Iraq. The meddling in Pakistan. There's plenty not to like.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Trump to endorse Romney.



    Not sure endorsements matter all that much, but at least we know the Donald won't be out there slamming the GOP nominee or running as a third party.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Anyone who votes based on the endorsement of Donald Trump really shouldn't be voting, IMO.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    You said he wants demilitarization. Absent any qualification the normal English interpretation of that statement would be to infer complete demilitarization. Thanks for clarifying.



    Oh boy, now we're playing games. Ron Paul wants to drastically reduce the size and scope of the military. True or false?



    Quote:









    Thanks for your opinion.









    First, I don't think I said they have said it was the only reason. But they have mentioned it a reason. You have gone the other extreme and dismissed as a reason at all. Now that's completely disingenuous.



    I am not arguing blowback doesn't happen. Clearly, it does. What I'm saying is that blowback is not the primary problem. The problem happens long before we get to blowback. Anti-Western sentiment didn't come from us "bombing countries for years." That's just stupid.



    Quote:



    You have to wonder why.



    I don't. It's because everyone knows we're not going to do a damn thing. Everyone knows we have leadership that resents our superpower status, and thinks America should be less influential. We're not leading. That's the problem. It's not because we waterboarded a few people and invaded Iraq. Interestingly, Libya renounced it's nuclear ambitions shortly after we did that. At least we meant what we said then.



    Quote:



    Nothing? Really? And you're the one throwing around that word naive to describe other people's views of the matter. Priceless!



    OK. "Little to nothing."



    Quote:





    With 14 permanent military bases in place and an Embassy the size of the Vatican?



    I suppose it might be a matter of semantics.



    That's not the same as conquering.



    Quote:





    You have to wonder why.



    Yeah, one does wonder why you resent that.



    Quote:





    Agreed...for defensive purposes. Not this new doctrine of the best defense is good offense.



    The best defense is, in fact, a good offense.



    Quote:



    Quite untrue. A little more in-dept study of political philosophy would benefit you here. The best guardian of freedom we've found so far is a constitutional republic. But even that is showing signs of crumbling.



    Oh look! Condescension and more semantics!



    Quote:





    Yes, I suppose it is. That doesn't mean it isn't happening in some vague and non-obvious ways.



    Be specific about what you mean. Examples, please.



    Quote:



    Well when that actually happens, then we can talk.



    You see, this is where Paul supporters become delusional. Iran is doing exactly the things I mentioned and many more. And you flatly deny it because you're blinded by Paul's reality distortion field.



    Quote:



    Most of what the US government's imperial attitude is doing. Trying to gin up war with Iran. The way it handled Libya. The way it handled Iraq. The meddling in Pakistan. There's plenty not to like.



    1. Iran: Iran is the provocateur, not the U.S., and not Israel.



    2. Libya: I didn't like that either. We should have either been in or out...not both. And there should have been Congressional approval to keep the mission going.



    3. Meddling in Pakistan? MEDDLING? Pakistan is a hotbed of terrorism, and isn't doing enough to stop it. We should tell Pakistan that if they don't like us taking out AQ leaders and Taliban leaders with drones, they can pound sand. Literally. Oh, and let's make sure we stop sending them billions.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    1. Iran: Iran is the provocateur, not the U.S., and not Israel.



    U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East





    Who is provoking who, again?



    How many military bases does Iran have surrounding the U.S.?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oh boy, now we're playing games. Ron Paul wants to drastically reduce the size and scope of the military. True or false?



    True.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    What I'm saying is that blowback is not the primary problem.



    I guess that's a matter for debate.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Everyone knows...









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    OK. "Little to nothing."



    Thanks for your opinion.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    That's not the same as conquering.



    Again, probably a matter of semantics.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Yeah, one does wonder why you resent that.



    Cute.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    The best defense is, in fact, a good offense.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Oh look! Condescension and more semantics!



    Actually I was politely suggesting that you would benefit from a better understanding of things like democracy, etc.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Iran is doing exactly the things I mentioned and many more.



    Are they? Really? Prove it.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    And you flatly deny it because you're blinded by Paul's reality distortion field.



    I might say that you are blinded by the neo-con reality distortion field.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    1. Iran: Iran is the provocateur, not the U.S., and not Israel.



    I have no doubt you see it that way.



    ( waits for "I see it that way because that's how it is." )
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Paul's foreign policy is not only his sanest position, it's the sanest position on foreign policy from anywhere in the US. Safety by threat is what's insane.



    Ron Paul lives in his own little world.Where government should not exist to him and helping foreign countries is not very helpful.He is an isolationist! He will never ever become president.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by marvfox View Post


    Ron Paul lives in his own little world.Where government should not exist to him and helping foreign countries is not very helpful.He is an isolationist! He will never ever become president.



    We didn't help Iraq, and we're not helping Iran. At all. We could help without bombing, you know?
  • marvfoxmarvfox Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Anyone who votes based on the endorsement of Donald Trump really shouldn't be voting, IMO.



    Trump is a loud mouth bragging turd.His endorsement is worth as much as Romney promise to help the poor.All talk no backing.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,121member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    U.S. Military Bases in the Middle East





    Who is provoking who, again?



    How many military bases does Iran have surrounding the U.S.?



    There you go. See, it's the US that is provoking. If we would only withdraw our forces, close our bases and go home with our tail between our legs, everything would be so much better. Iran wouldn't still see us a threat. They'd renounce terrorism, nuclear ambitions, and their determination to destroy Israel. There would be fewer security problems in the region. There would be more stability. It's just that poor, little, tiny Iran is SO threatened by our military presence. Got it.



    Really, there is no way to sugarcoat this: The above view is fucking insane, as is why Paul can't gain real traction politically. Every time he espouses his very popular (and correct) views on Constitutional government, self-reliance, liberty and fiscal sanity, he pollutes them with this completely unrealistic, dangerous foreign policy. Every time he talks about less foreign intervention and restructuring deployments in Germany, Korea and elsewhere, a statement nations not liking us because "we keep bombing them" is not far off. He's Crazy Uncle Paul.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    True.



    OK. Let's discuss why you think this is a great idea (assuming you do).





    Quote:



    I guess that's a matter for debate.



















    Thanks for your opinion.









    Again, probably a matter of semantics.









    Cute.



















    Actually I was politely suggesting that you would benefit from a better understanding of things like democracy, etc.



    No, you were being a condescending jack ass. You took a single statement and presumes it to mean I didn't realize the difference between true Democracy and Constitutional Republic.



    Quote:







    Are they? Really? Prove it.



    It's not my job to "prove" anything, but how anyone can deny the statement I made is beyond me. Here's an interesting article to get you started. It's quite alarming.



    Quote:



    I might say that you are blinded by the neo-con reality distortion field.



    Oh boy. I think it's time for a Godwin's Law for the term "Neocon."



    Quote:



    I have no doubt you see it that way.



    ( waits for "I see it that way because that's how it is." )



    Just let me get this straight (and correct me if I've put words in your mouth, so to speak): You believe that the U.S. is the primary provocateur of the problems we have with Iran? And you further believe that if we simply started treating them differently, things would improve greatly in the Middle East?
Sign In or Register to comment.