Thread: Please help me understand Tancredo endorsing Romney

I was trying to get a definition of an isolationist.

This is a word that has been used to denigrate politicians in the past when they advocate policies that puts America's needs and interests first. If that is an isolationist - then why isn't everyone in America an isolationist?

What does it mean?

Just because a candidate wants our trade policy to benefit America - and not China, or Mexico, or the WTO - does that make him/her an isolationist?

Just because a candidate thinks our military should be here and not all over the map, protecting countries perfectly capable of protecting themselves - does that make him/her an isolationist?

Just because a candidate thinks we should not be interferring in other country's busines and politics - is that isolationist?

I have heard he wants to cut out foreign aid, don't know if it's true - but I'm all for it. If a candidate wants to stop sending money to grease the palms of despotic rulers all over the world - is that isolationist. We know that money doesn't make it to the people, not in a positive way. Why should money be taken from our children to send to Mexico to prop up those 5 rich families that run the country. That's not isolationism - that's insanity.

What exactly makes him an islationist?

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I have heard he wants to cut out foreign aid, don't know if it's true - but I'm all for it.

It is true. No Foreign aid at all. I do not believe that he has ever voted for foreign aid in 20 yrs in congress. He would argue that if an American wants to personally send his money overseas then he is free to do so.

The reason he is not an isolationist in the general understanding of the term is that he doesn't want the government to restrict trade with other countries at all, he is an idealogue when it comes to government staying out our lives. I admire him for it. He believes that trade with other countries empowers the individuals of those countries and promotes liberty.

Hell, just to throw out an example: He was the ONLY NO vote on "Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. The bill passed the House, 418-1."
Here is his statement as to why he voted no.

"Statement of Congressman Paul on HR 180 Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act 7.30.07"

Madam Speaker, HR 180 is premised on the assumption that divestment, sanctions, and other punitive measures are effective in influencing repressive regimes, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Proponents of such methods fail to remember that where goods cannot cross borders, troops will. Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat.

HR 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the federal government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing state and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as state assets, the federal government is giving the go-ahead for state and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account."

That makes so much sense.

We Americans simply must, if we are going to survive, drop the scales from our eyes and clear our minds of the mantras that have been fed us for the last 50 years and begin to see things as they are and be willing to listen to some common sense.

If we are going to put our fingers in our ears and refuse to listen to anything but the spin of the government, we are going to get the same thing we have been getting.

To do better, we are going to have to do differently. It's really that simple.

You can't continue with business as usual and not get the usual results.

Bren wrote:

EVERY single one of them could change their minds while in office!!!

If you actually believe that, you haven't done your research on Duncan Hunter. The man has been extremely consistent on the issues of illegal immigration and border security for 27 years! If I thought there was any potential for flip-flopping on the issues, I certainly wouldn't support him. The same cannot be said for Romney.

www.numbersusa.com

Latest AMNESTY Ratings For Presidential Candidates (21DEC07)


Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER

FRED THOMPSON
They are EXCELLENT in pledging through website and speech to oppose amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens ... advocating Attrition Through Enforcement to cause present 12-20 million illegals to go home over time

Good

RON PAUL
Does a good job of opposing amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens



I for one am not going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils.

Hunter has been working diligently on securing the border. He started out a little slow on the campaign but is still in the race and that tells me he wants it.

I wish Tancredo would have stayed in, but he chose not to, and I have said all along, "Tancredo, Hunter, or Ron Paul. I for one am not going to give up now. Hunter has supporters or he would not still be in the race, and he has all the qualities I am looking for in a Candidate.

I think it would make a big statement if he had a hugh amount of donations to let everyone know we are all still here, and will not settle for the least of the evils.

I just recently sent a fax through numbersusa to let Romney know I was not pleased with his wanting more Visa's. He may have some good qualities, but he also has some major flaws when it comes to illegal immigration.

When I was first checking out the candidates I went to his website and as soon as I seen he had set up an area in Spanish that was enough for me.

We still have proven candidates on the issues that concern us most, and I will support them until they win or decide to drop out.

Eyes wide open, and I refuse to be deceived. Two times I voted for Bush and will have to live with that mistake, I will not knowingly vote for a maybe he will, or maybe he won't.

http://gohunter08.com/

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

EVERY single one of them could change their minds while in office!!!

If you actually believe that, you haven't done your research on Duncan Hunter. The man has been extremely consistent on the issues of illegal immigration and border security for 27 years! If I thought there was any potential for flip-flopping on the issues, I certainly wouldn't support him. The same cannot be said for Romney.

Again, in case you did not realize------Hunter has LESS support than Tom.

If he does not drop out before/after Iowa, it will probably be after New Hampshire.

Also, what exactly is Hunter's plans for the illegals who are here and the employers, I don't think that I have seen it posted anywhere????

Originally Posted by LeShel

www.numbersusa.com

Latest AMNESTY Ratings For Presidential Candidates (21DEC07)


Excellent

DUNCAN HUNTER

FRED THOMPSON
They are EXCELLENT in pledging through website and speech to oppose amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens ... advocating Attrition Through Enforcement to cause present 12-20 million illegals to go home over time

Good

RON PAUL
Does a good job of opposing amnesties of all kinds for illegal aliens



I for one am not going to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils.

Hunter has been working diligently on securing the border. He started out a little slow on the campaign but is still in the race and that tells me he wants it.

I wish Tancredo would have stayed in, but he chose not to, and I have said all along, "Tancredo, Hunter, or Ron Paul. I for one am not going to give up now. Hunter has supporters or he would not still be in the race, and he has all the qualities I am looking for in a Candidate.

I think it would make a big statement if he had a hugh amount of donations to let everyone know we are all still here, and will not settle for the least of the evils.

I just recently sent a fax through numbersusa to let Romney know I was not pleased with his wanting more Visa's. He may have some good qualities, but he also has some major flaws when it comes to illegal immigration.

When I was first checking out the candidates I went to his website and as soon as I seen he had set up an area in Spanish that was enough for me.

We still have proven candidates on the issues that concern us most, and I will support them until they win or decide to drop out.

Eyes wide open, and I refuse to be deceived. Two times I voted for Bush and will have to live with that mistake, I will not knowingly vote for a maybe he will, or maybe he won't.

I agree with you completely. With Hunters numbers down, I have been doing my best to find another candidate I could fully support - it cannot be done. While Mitt may end up the nominee, and may not be a bad choice, a better choice is Hunter. He has all the qualities we want in our next President. So he will have my vote in the primary.

Bren wrote:

If he does not drop out before/after Iowa, it will probably be after New Hampshire.

Also, what exactly is Hunter's plans for the illegals who are here and the employers, I don't think that I have seen it posted anywhere????

Hunter has no plans for a quick retreat. Haven't you been reading the related threads? I've posted a link to his exact words on the subject on two different occasions.

As for his plans in dealing with illegals, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Perhaps you should do your own research because your not paying attention to what others have posted on the subject. Plus, doing your own research will serve to better etch the findings to memory.

Originally Posted by Bren4824

Originally Posted by MW

Bren wrote:

EVERY single one of them could change their minds while in office!!!

If you actually believe that, you haven't done your research on Duncan Hunter. The man has been extremely consistent on the issues of illegal immigration and border security for 27 years! If I thought there was any potential for flip-flopping on the issues, I certainly wouldn't support him. The same cannot be said for Romney.

Again, in case you did not realize------Hunter has LESS support than Tom.

If he does not drop out before/after Iowa, it will probably be after New Hampshire.

Also, what exactly is Hunter's plans for the illegals who are here and the employers, I don't think that I have seen it posted anywhere????

Bren I think you pose an excellent question. I'm not sure he has addressed what to do with the illegals that are here. Let me look into that. I'll get back to you.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... unter.html

[quote]“I think that you have to enforce the law, [b]and that includes employer sanctions,â€