Republican candidates for 2012

• sleeper

  

  Thanks for the video Web.
  
  Ron Paul is my hero.
• believer

  

  majorspark;1017676 wrote:I do not think he would behave like everyone else. He would however given the intellegence that Paul is not currently privy to, act more aggressively on the world's playground than he lets on.

  Which is exactly my point. Paul is like any other politician. He campaigns to pander to his base, but Paul - just like any other politician - will actually govern according to the realities of the day.
  
  The Paulists thump their chests and get all giddy about his unswerving principles, but I still shake my head knowing quite well that Paul will behave like any other POTUS should he - by political miracle - make it all the way to the White House. Granted his decisions will be influenced by his principles, but realpolitik will skew his principles enough to make him not unlike any other POTUS.
  
  Look at BHO. He got elected by pandering to the leftist anti-war crowd. He promised to close GITMO, pull us out of Iraq in 18 months, etc., etc. GITMO is still fully functional, it took 40 months to close Iraq operations (sort of), and he actually got us into another fire fight in Libya.
  
  Do not get me wrong. If Paul becomes POTUS I would sleep much, much better at night. I'm just asking the Purist Paulists to stop deluding themselves.
• pmoney25

  

  The difference between Paul and Obama is that Paul has been saying and doing the same thing for 30 plus. Paul has had the opportunity to change his beliefs. If he would change his foreign policy view today, he would be the frontrunner by tomorrow.
  
  Do I think he will get everything he wants as president? No, I dont. Because I believe he will follow the constitution and stay within the presidents powers. Do I think if he were president, he would start to change the way things are done? Yes.
• believer

  

  pmoney25;1017817 wrote:Do I think he will get everything he wants as president? No, I dont. Because I believe he will follow the constitution and stay within the presidents powers. Do I think if he were president, he would start to change the way things are done? Yes.

  I don't disagree. I just get tired of hearing how perfect Dr. Paul is. Trust me, he'll cave to political realities and bend his principles and beliefs just like any other politician.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Footwedge;1017469 wrote:Federal spending is 23% of the budget...whereby welfare, medicare and medicaid are about 18% of the budget. I have no idea where the 60% and the 17% numbers came from....but obviously came from somebody who has a drinking problem.

  Huh...drinking problem...let's see who's been drinking based on your quote from above - "Federal spending is 23% of the budget.." I had no idea the remaining 77% is what...spending surplus? Or maybe negative spending? Or possibly unrealized spending saved in a prior year's budget shortfall? I know what you meant to type, but you brought up the issue of incoherence, not me.
  
  I heard it on 610 on the drive into work. In the meantime, I did some research this afternoon. Here's the best link I could find in my 30 minutes of Footwedge research - http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed It would appear that the Defense spending is 25% according to the chart. Yet, here's another chart from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States Now, you will immediately find that these are for different years (2011 vs 2010). I would point out that wikipedia is showing approximately $220,000,000,000 less than the first link. The take home for me is that the US Defense Dept is not in the habit of publishing how much is actually spent on the military, so both may just be approximations. In the end, the 17% figure I heard is a little light. It's likely between 20 and 25%. You win that point. Give yourself a Big Bear hug.
  
  The first link also indicates payments for entitlement programs Health Care, Pensions, and Welfare total 59%, which is extremely close to the 60% figure I heard. Care to tell us where your 18% figure came from?
  
  The point made initially, and reinforced here, is that entitlement spending is the driver of the budget. Soon to be followed by the Debt Service, which buys NOTHING. Decimating the Defense Department, while applauded by the Neville Chamberlain society, does not fix the spending problem. It does, however, weaken us and give our enemies aid and comfort...if that's what y'all really want.
• WebFire

  Can you point me to a link where anyone says cutting military spending will take care of all our debt and spending woes?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  WebFire;1017723 wrote:Must watch.
  
  [video=youtube;I8NhRPo0WAo][/video]

  Very nicely done actually.
  But, there are some issues with it.
  1. I have a lot of issues with the way Chalmers Johnson portrays history. He seems to ignore the overall historical movement that was the Cold War and that was why we did a lot of what we did. The choice was to stop the growth of Soviet influence, and that meant some dirty action that in hindsight look bad. But, at the time were seen as essential to stopping the USSR. I've read most of the work he wrote (he died a few years ago), and disagree with most of it.
  2. Robert Pape (who mentioned suicide bombers) is very flawed in his analysis. He ignores a ton of factors when conducting his analysis. In the terrorism field, he is really on the edges and not really credible. The writing of Bruce Hoffman is way more credible.
  3. I'm sure a lot of vets do favor Paul, but vets are not one collective group, just like the rest of the country. I have a ton of friends and colleagues that are vets, and they range the whole spectrum of views-from way left to way right.
  4. I disagree with Paul's platform really. Foreign aid is a huge POSITIVE influence that the U.S. has on its view around the wold. Plus, it is not that large compared to other DoD programs that need cut.
  5. Also, withdrawing makes no sense now days, given our alliances around the world and the growth of China, resurgence of Russia, and growth of Iran potentially. People may not like the fact that the world looks to us, but its reality folks. We cannot turn in on ourselves and leave all of our allies out to dry. International Relations 101, its all about power, and if the U.S., walks away from the rest of the world, as the largest economy in a global economic system, it screws itself as its power drops.
  6. The better option is a more restrained foreign policy that is based on power projection, but also shifting towards Asia, withdrawing from unessential bases, ending unneeded programs, and focusing more on cyber, netcentric, and cooperation based initiatives that projects power in an economic fashion. How we do that, no one has really laid out, other than Obama in the last QDR.
  7. Paul is a breath of fresh air, but as a moderate foreign policy wonk, I disagree fundamentally with his view.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  That is a great video. I liked the first one that guy made too.
  
  [video=youtube_share;ohKz9OeiI0g][/video]
• jhay78

  

  pmoney25;1017488 wrote:What country do some of you live in? What do you think is the cause of hatred towards America? Our Freedom? Our Values?
  
  All Ron Paul is saying is exactly what Osama Bin Laden and The CIA said were the reasons behind 9/11. He is not blaming Americans for what happened. He is blaming Politicians for stupid foreign policy views that have put us in these situations.

  I know what Osama bin Laden said- and his reasons were pathetic. Without directly blaming America, Paul projects the idea that he understands how these sickos feel and why they would be motivated to slaughter thousands of innocents. That's inexcusable to me.
  
  It's one thing to hate or resent America for its behavior or policy gaffes; it's another to embark on missions of mass-murder to make your point. Ron Paul's explanations for 9/11 are miserably weak at making that distinction.
  

  Footwedge;1017469 wrote:Federal spending is 23% of the budget...whereby welfare, medicare and medicaid are about 18% of the budget. I have no idea where the 60% and the 17% numbers came from....but obviously came from somebody who has a drinking problem.

  
  
  

  BGFalcons82;1018240 wrote:The point made initially, and reinforced here, is that entitlement spending is the driver of the budget. Soon to be followed by the Debt Service, which buys NOTHING. Decimating the Defense Department, while applauded by the Neville Chamberlain society, does not fix the spending problem. It does, however, weaken us and give our enemies aid and comfort...if that's what y'all really want.

  BGFalcons wins.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Ron Paul's proposed defense budget would be $501 billion. Who wants to decimate it? Or do you mean anyone who doesn't want to increase it and print more money to pay for it wants to decimate it?
• WebFire

  jhay78;1018489 wrote:I know what Osama bin Laden said- and his reasons were pathetic. Without directly blaming America, Paul projects the idea that he understands how these sickos feel and why they would be motivated to slaughter thousands of innocents. That's inexcusable to me.
  
  It's one thing to hate or resent America for its behavior or policy gaffes; it's another to embark on missions of mass-murder to make your point. Ron Paul's explanations for 9/11 are miserably weak at making that distinction.

  Ron Paul doesn't excuse the actions against us on 9/11. But he is trying to open peoples' eyes to the real reason for it. It's not that hard.
• believer

  

  Cleveland Buck;1018496 wrote:Ron Paul's proposed defense budget would be $501 billion. Who wants to decimate it? Or do you mean anyone who doesn't want to increase it and print more money to pay for it wants to decimate it?

  I don't believe Paul wants to decimate it but I've heard little about how he plans to maintain current national defense levels at his $501 billion budget.
  
  We don't need to "increase it and print more money to pay for it". But we definitely need to clean up the inefficient procurement process and rampant cronyism within the military industrial complex to pay for it. Has Dr. Paul pontificated precisely how he plans to clean-up that little mess before he implements his $501 billion defense spending plan?
• pmoney25

  

  jhay78;1018489 wrote:I know what Osama bin Laden said- and his reasons were pathetic. Without directly blaming America, Paul projects the idea that he understands how these sickos feel and why they would be motivated to slaughter thousands of innocents. That's inexcusable to me
  
  It's one thing to hate or resent America for its behavior or policy gaffes; it's another to embark on missions of mass-murder to make your point. Ron Paul's explanations for 9/11 are miserably weak at making that distinction.
  
  
  
  

  I am curious, What do you think the motive was for Osama Bin Laden? I think the point is going over your head. Ron Paul is not saying that he sympathizes with the terrorists or that what they did was justified. He is just saying that when you have bad foreign policy, things like this can happen. So when making foreign policy decisions, it is best to look at all angles before making that decision.
  
  And in the circumstance when War is required. To follow the constitution and have congress declare war. The president was never meant to be able to have the power to declare wars. All these other candidates talk like they will go to War whenever they want.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Does this make the Dr. Paul supporters cringe or clap? - http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2011/12/17/ron-paul-bachmann-hates-muslims-santorum-hates-gays
  
  If this is how he treats fellow Republicans before the nominee is picked, it can only get worse if he somehow by some miracle loses out on becoming the Republican choice to beat the 4th greatest President of all freaking time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE&feature=player_embedded). Is there any Republican he likes besides his son?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Cleveland Buck;1018496 wrote:Ron Paul's proposed defense budget would be $501 billion. Who wants to decimate it? Or do you mean anyone who doesn't want to increase it and print more money to pay for it wants to decimate it?

  If he becomes President on 1-20-2013, the Defense budget could very well be around $950,000,000,000. Cutting it to $501,000,000,000 is decimating it by 47%. Like believer asked, how are we just as safe from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, with such a devastating cut to one of the few things the government is compelled to provide via the Constitution?
  
  He's also wanting to control/secure our Southern border. So do I, but with a 47% cut, where will he find the money?
• WebFire

  BGFalcons82;1019308 wrote:Does this make the Dr. Paul supporters cringe or clap? - http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2011/12/17/ron-paul-bachmann-hates-muslims-santorum-hates-gays
  
  If this is how he treats fellow Republicans before the nominee is picked, it can only get worse if he somehow by some miracle loses out on becoming the Republican choice to beat the 4th greatest President of all freaking time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE&feature=player_embedded). Is there any Republican he likes besides his son?

  What did he say that was false?
• WebFire

  Can anyone provide a link to the current defense budget as well as the proposed $501 B budget from Paul?
• WebFire

  BGFalcons82;1019325 wrote:If he becomes President on 1-20-2013, the Defense budget could very well be around $950,000,000,000. Cutting it to $501,000,000,000 is decimating it by 47%. Like believer asked, how are we just as safe from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, with such a devastating cut to one of the few things the government is compelled to provide via the Constitution?
  
  He's also wanting to control/secure our Southern border. So do I, but with a 47% cut, where will he find the money?

  http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
  
  Are you just throwing at $950 B to give yourself have an argument?
• stlouiedipalma

  ccrunner609;1019404 wrote:When he and Bachman get out of the race.....the winner will be who they endorse (and it aint gonna be Romney)
  
  I think their power and following will determine the race but they dont stand a chance to win. I think they both endorse Perry.

  
  
  
  I think when Ron Paul leaves the race he will file as a third party candidate.
  
  I cannot, under any circumstance, envision Ron Paul endorsing any of the current candidates. To do so would be to compromise his principles. I don't agree with much of what he believes, but I do think he is passionate about both his beliefs and his principles. I just think he will offer an alternative to the same-old-same-old.
• WebFire

  stlouiedipalma;1019434 wrote:I think when Ron Paul leaves the race he will file as a third party candidate.
  
  I cannot, under any circumstance, envision Ron Paul endorsing any of the current candidates. To do so would be to compromise his principles. I don't agree with much of what he believes, but I do think he is passionate about both his beliefs and his principles. I just think he will offer an alternative to the same-old-same-old.

  So you believe in big government, lack of civil liberties and freedoms, policing the world, over spending and big unsustainable debt and inefficient goverment programs? Why would you like that stuff?
• BGFalcons82

  

  WebFire;1019415 wrote:http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm
  
  Are you just throwing at $950 B to give yourself have an argument?

  See post #2530 above, but here ya go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States Wiki is just a little under $700,000,000,000 for 2010.
  
  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed - This is shown as $903,200,000,000 for 2011.
  
  I note your site, and there is a huge discrepancy. I don't know why.
• stlouiedipalma

  That's merely your opinion, which is undoubtedly based on the conspiracy theory-laced beliefs of Rep. Paul and his followers. You know, a nut-job like Paul (and others, such as Kucinich to name one) can win his district's elections every two years because his constituency reflects his beliefs and values, no matter how extreme they may seem to outsiders. The real problem is being taken seriously on the national stage by real people with real concerns and real problems. Pandering to the "Trekkies" may work at home, but on the road it is a lot tougher to sell that particular bill of goods, as evidenced by his polling numbers.
  
  I still believe he goes third party. Who that helps or hurts is anyone's guess because I can't imagine followers of the D's or R's embracing that particular brand of lunacy.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BGFalcons82;1019308 wrote:Does this make the Dr. Paul supporters cringe or clap? - http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2011/12/17/ron-paul-bachmann-hates-muslims-santorum-hates-gays
  
  If this is how he treats fellow Republicans before the nominee is picked, it can only get worse if he somehow by some miracle loses out on becoming the Republican choice to beat the 4th greatest President of all freaking time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE&feature=player_embedded). Is there any Republican he likes besides his son?

  He was on Leno. I'm sure he was being a little facetious. Although, nothing he said wasn't true. And I'm sure he likes a lot of Republicans personally. He said in that interview that Romney and Huntsman are nice guys. He still wouldn't endorse any of them. He would lose his growing base of liberty lovers. None of them will vote for any of these tyrants.
• WebFire

  BGFalcons82;1019443 wrote:See post #2530 above, but here ya go - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States Wiki is just a little under $700,000,000,000 for 2010.
  
  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_fed - This is shown as $903,200,000,000 for 2011.
  
  I note your site, and there is a huge discrepancy. I don't know why.

  Sorry, I missed this post earlier for some reason. Also, your talking defense spending but quoting military spending. Ron Paul wants to cut military spending, but has said he won't cut defense spending.
  
  I assume you are meaning military spending.
• WebFire

  stlouiedipalma;1019451 wrote:That's merely your opinion, which is undoubtedly based on the conspiracy theory-laced beliefs of Rep. Paul and his followers. You know, a nut-job like Paul (and others, such as Kucinich to name one) can win his district's elections every two years because his constituency reflects his beliefs and values, no matter how extreme they may seem to outsiders. The real problem is being taken seriously on the national stage by real people with real concerns and real problems. Pandering to the "Trekkies" may work at home, but on the road it is a lot tougher to sell that particular bill of goods, as evidenced by his polling numbers.
  
  I still believe he goes third party. Who that helps or hurts is anyone's guess because I can't imagine followers of the D's or R's embracing that particular brand of lunacy.

  The real nut jobs are the ones leading this country on a path to bankruptcy. And that is a problem.