Thread: Can anyone explain. FULLY,why people aren't voting for RP

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

We cannot afford to give up our bases in allied nations .

He also blames us for all the evil done around the world. I agree we do our share, but no more than the others .

Interesting you say "afford", because at the rate we are borrowing money from foreign nations, I doubt we'll have a choice about keeping those bases or not. In 2005, our unfunded liabilities amounted to $45.6 trillion. To pay it off, every man, woman and child in this country owes $156,000. If you are a full-time worker, you are personally responsible for $375,000. How many years will that take your salary/wages to pay off? Is that amount of money owed good for this country? Or your family? Now it's 2008 - what do we owe now?

The hammer will drop eventually if we don't cut back starting now, and Paul wanted to make sure the Americans depending on Social Security would be taken care of (by scaling back overseas militarily). Ultimately we can either have our social security/medicaid/welfare programs or we can have our overseas empire. Guns or butter - which will it be? Anyone under thirty will never see a dime of social security as things stand now. If you feel concern for the country you leave for the next generation, you must consider the future costs of our military undertakings and social projects.

Check it out for yourself:

http://www.gao.gov/media/video/fiscal/w ... fiscal.wmv

As for "blaming" America, his motivation is not the same as the typical disparagement. Our foreign policy is directionless, and this leads to a situation where yesterday's ally becomes tomorrow's enemy. Since World War II (and arguably WWI), we have been supporting some unsavory types throughout the world. We prop up the dictatorial Shah in Iran for a marriage of convenience, and the mullahs overthrow him - and Iran becomes an enemy. We fund the mujaheedon in Afghanistan and they morph into the Taliban, which in turn play a role in making 9/11 possible. Bin Laden, if you recall, became an enemy because we were in Saudi Arabi. We are creating tomorrow's enemies today, and we're doing for it with your taxpayer dollars. Paul isn't an isolationist; he simply sees what our entangling foreign alliances have wrought, and he doesn't want to keep making the same dumb mistakes ad infiniteum.

Angela, fair point. He may have meant one thing but I'm sure many of us took it as another. However, there is often a very fine line between isolationist and interventionist. Sometimes perhaps it is just a matter of semantics. Regardless, he still came across as a kookster and someone I couldn't be comfortable with.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Citizen, I clearly remember in his first Presidential debate that RP held a strong position as an isolationist. It is crystal clear in my mind and at the time I thought that he was quite naive about this.

What you heard isn't what he said, but that's not your fault. The media is perfectly content on interchanging non-interventionism with isolationism too. My 7th grade son even corrected his history teacher on the definition.


The debate format is certainly not the best place to understand a candidate, and the media isn't concerned about ensuring that viewers have actual facts.

Originally Posted by alexcastro

That is true but try telling the masses that! Everyone talks about him as a black man! Sorry but that's the way it is.

I was just thinking today.......those black people voting for Obama because he is "black" makes about as much sense as white people voting for him because he is "white."

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

Angela, fair point. He may have meant one thing but I'm sure many of us took it as another. However, there is often a very fine line between isolationist and interventionist. Sometimes perhaps it is just a matter of semantics.

Actually, the two are clearly and absolutely defined in the semantics of foreign policies. Non-intervention is a component of isolationism, but closing the borders to trade is another.

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Actually, the two are clearly and absolutely defined in the semantics of foreign policies. Non-intervention is a component of isolationism, but closing the borders to trade is another.

I guess maybe people don't like Paul because he makes them look stupid.

Restricted trade as well as non-interventionism had been a hallmark of the Republican Party for many generations. The isolationism slur is also thrown at people who want more balanced trade, but protectionism is more often used. Anyway, with regard to foreign policy AND trade, the Republican Party has done a 180 from what had defined the party for generations.

It seems that our votes do not actually count at all anymore. The MEDIA is hand picking our candidates and you can bet that Obama probably will be our next President. The new, young voters are just voting for the "cool guy" and I myself, do not believe that they actually have A CLUE about the issues or what's in store for this country with someone as incompetent as Obama. They just want to be doing the "in" thing when they cast their votes!

What about Chuck Baldwin?

My vote is maybe for Ron Paul, or Chuck Baldwin.

Check him out.

KOOBSTER


If I have to I will write mine in.

I have been noticing on the Ron Paul forums etc...that the Revolution is shifting. A little more than half are moving to the Bob Barr camp...and the other is moving toward Chuck Baldwin. I like Chuck Baldwin, but the Constitution Party is only on 25 state ballots...and Bob Barr will be on all 50. Bob Barr has more media coverage, he's already been on Fox, Hannity and Colmes, Cavuto, Glenn Beck and Colbert. Meet ups are forming like crazy. I see this as an opportunity to get the Libertarian Party in the big leagues to compete with the two major parties. This campaign with Bob Barr is buzzing that it will be the biggest third party run since Perot. I want to see this happen...because it will crash McCain and upset the 2 party system.

Originally Posted by NOamNASTY

.

We cannot afford to give up our bases in allied nations .

I always thought Ron Paul was a good man. But too many hate groups are funding him and they will exspect favors .


.

Which other country in the world has bases on other countries? OH, how do they survive???

You have absolutely no evidence that Ron Paul is being funded by any hate groups, because it is not true. His biggest supporter group is the US Army, and the favor they want is a commander in chief who fights for liberty instead of oil.

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

I have been noticing on the Ron Paul forums etc...that the Revolution is shifting. A little more than half are moving to the Bob Barr camp...and the other is moving toward Chuck Baldwin. I like Chuck Baldwin, but the Constitution Party is only on 25 state ballots...and Bob Barr will be on all 50. Bob Barr has more media coverage, he's already been on Fox, Hannity and Colmes, Cavuto, Glenn Beck and Colbert. Meet ups are forming like crazy. I see this as an opportunity to get the Libertarian Party in the big leagues to compete with the two major parties. This campaign with Bob Barr is buzzing that it will be the biggest third party run since Perot. I want to see this happen...because it will crash McCain and upset the 2 party system.

Barr is pro-amnesty.