Here
 
Me like.

 

Google "ron paul military contributions".

Straight from the horse's mouth:

I kinda wish he'd win the nomination, though I'm not sure he'd win the general election. That would certainly be an interesting race.

He just strikes me as operating from informed principles rather than political expedience. He'd kind of a nut ball compared to the smooth political types and the shoot-from-the-hip populist types but he has ~always~ been the same nut ball so you know exactly what you're getting. When he speaks I'm pretty sure I'm hearing him and not his carefully crafted campaign spiel. I don't exactly agree with all his policies but I highly respect him as a politician. This video is a clear example.

I heard recently that a fair amount of the military budget goes to foreign disaster response. That was eye opening. Countries that don't object too much to US soldiers can ask the US soldiers for aid during emergencies and we'll give them up to 2 weeks of emergency support and logistics. Our soldiers were on the ground after the Indonesian tsunami in less than 24 hours.

We might have the most fearsome military in the world but we also have one of the most helpful. I wonder how Ron Paul's "no foreign aid" policy would affect this role of the US military and how that might, in turn, affect the international acceptance of our broad military presence?

The most common objection I've heard from conservatives against Ron Paul is a nightmare scenario of Iran nuking the United States. And I don't think they're kidding.

If you stop and think about it for a minute, seriously, how likely is this to happen? How likely is it that Iran will ever get enough nukes to destroy the United States? Even if they were able to get one off, Iran isn't run by idiots. We tend to think they're crazy, but do you honestly think they're spending every hour plotting to destroy the United States like Cobra Commander? If they EVER launched a nuke, they know their entire country would be glassed within a day. There just is no credible likelihood that Iran would ever nuke us first.

If you stop and think about it for a minute, seriously, how likely is this to happen? How likely is it that Iran will ever get enough nukes to destroy the United States? Even if they were able to get one off, Iran isn't run by idiots. We tend to think they're crazy, but do you honestly think they're spending every hour plotting to destroy the United States like Cobra Commander? If they EVER launched a nuke, they know their entire country would be glassed within a day. There just is no credible likelihood that Iran would ever nuke us first.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Have you ever heard the speeches that Ahmadinejad gives?

From what I understand, a lot of what we're hearing is bad translation and misquote.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=4527

Ahmadinejad prefaces their mention with Khomeini's own words foretelling that individual regime's demise. He concludes by referring to Khomeini's unfulfilled wish: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time. This statement is very wise". This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

Further, Iran's military is pretty pathetic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_military#Budget

Iran's 2007 defense budget was estimated to be $7.31 billion by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.[19] This was $102 per capita, a lower figure than other Persian Gulf nations and lower as a percentage of gross national product than all other Persian Gulf states (2.6% of GDP in 2007). This makes Iran's ranking the 25th largest defense expenditure globally.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute the 2008 military expenditure was $9.174 billion, 2.7% of the GDP.[1]

In comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_military_budget

Budget for 2010

For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.84 billion.[1][2]

The idea of Iran as the Big Bad is kind of laughable. I'm not saying that they're incapable of supporting terrorist acts against the US, but they are nowhere near being able to destroying us or even cause us permanent harm without insurmountably greater harm to themselves. Even if you believe they're so bent on hurting the US that they would go for a hail mary play, you'd have to believe that they want it badly enough to kill themselves basically just to annoy us.

He's right. ADinejahd(wtf!sp?) takes his orders direct from the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. And the US helped the Ayatollah get into power, so who's fooling who?
 

I personally like Ron Paul and would vote for him if he were to win the Republican nomination. I am an Independent and I vote according to whom I feel is the best person for the office and not down any party lines. I wish we had a true 3 party system rather than a 2 party with a bunch of knuckleheads trying to be a spoiler for one party or another.

Unfortunately I do not believe he will get the nomination. The only real issue I have with Ron Paul is his age. As with our current president being too young IMO I believe that if Ron Paul were elected he might die in office. Or he may become incapacitated somehow while in office. I site only my opinion but if you look how badly most of our presidents have aged while in office I would think the stress in that position may be quite unbearable. Again only my opinion. Which would then lead me to who he picks as his running mate. In some years past some presidents have won and have had some Bozo VP's. But if Paul were to get the election I would think his VP choice might be more important than voting Paul himself into office.

Thoughts?

Ron Paul's doing a lot better in the polls than you might think, especially considering that the media have pretty much ignored him for the most part, going so far as pretending he doesn't even exist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-is-for-real-in-iowa-seriously/2011/11/17/gIQAoSM7UN_blog.html

His age is definitely a concern, and because of it, his choice of running mate will have more impact than it might otherwise. I don't think he will, but I hope he doesn't pull a McCain and torpedo his campaign with a Palin. From that point on, the campaign turned from Obama v. McCain to Obama v. Palin, which was very disheartening. And how much difference has Biden made in his office? Palin as VP would've made just as much of a difference.  Still, I was *this* close to voting for my first Republican candidate for President, ever (I doubt I could ever vote for a Democrat.), but in the end, Palin was so unpalatable, I voted for the Libertarian candidate again.

But back to Paul, people were concerned about McCain's age when he ran against Obama, and he's still alive and kicking. From everything I've ever seen, Ron Paul is in perfectly good health.

I site only my opinion but if you look how badly most of our presidents have aged while in office I would think the stress in that position may be quite unbearable.

During the 45 days between when a candidate is elected and inaugurated he learns, among other things, all the stuff that only the presidents and their closest advisers get to know.

Obama's temples turned gray during that period of time. I noticed it at the time since there was so much coverage of the man. Might be he was already graying and that was just a day that he had forgotten to color it, but it reminded me that the presidency of the US might be one of the most powerful public positions in the world, but it is also probably among the prescribed. They aren't dictators and there are things in motion already over which they have no control.

Paul would probably run into this, as well. His ideals and policies are fantastic but I'm not sure he'd be able to enact all that many of them beyond the scope of the Administrative department. Having been in the Senate he probably already knows this but I don't think anything can prepare a person adequately for what comes with that role.

His ideals and policies are fantastic but I'm not sure he'd be able to enact all that many of them beyond the scope of the Administrative department. Having been in the Senate he probably already knows this but I don't think anything can prepare a person adequately for what comes with that role.

You bring up a really good point, one a lot of voters failed to consider back in 2008. For all his talk of Hope and Change, there was no talk about what Obama was actually going to do, or how.

It is true that Ron Paul's Presidency would not be an immediate cure for all that ails us, and for all his ideals, and even for all the specific goals he has laid out, he could run into problems that will keep him from achieving all the things he promises, but at least with him, we know it's not a lot of hot air. He will fight to get rid of a lot of bloat in the government. He will work to end the Fed. He will demand that Congress cut our government's budget and its reach into our lives.

I'd rather have someone sitting in office who says he'll fight for those things, and will, and accept the results, rather than vote for any of the other candidates who promise nothing and probably will deliver worse. Wouldn't you?

^^^yes

Thread necromancy, I know.

I was just playing with the idea that Ron Paul might actually be the most electable candidate. Or at least a serious threat to Obama.

Romney is kinda flat and easy to demonize for being rich and out of touch. Gingrich might pull clever tricks now to avoid the public spotlight on all his colorful baggage but he'll be an easy target during the general election. Santorum might get some good airplay now that the field is narrowing but until recently he's seemed a bit unskilled - we'll see how he does.

But if Paul were to somehow get the nomination, a fair number of the folks who would have voted for Obama would vote for him. Not independent voters but the segment of democrats that thought the "change" Obama was going to bring would be like some of the stuff Paul has been talking about for years.

The anyone-but-Obama folks would vote Paul because he's not Obama. I'm guessing most Republicans would follow suit unless they have a pet issue that they disagree with Paul on. Obama could lose a good percentage of his previous votes. The trick would be getting Paul to look like a good candidate to the independents. Except for the libertarian segment of the independents... that would be pretty hard to do.

Just wondering how much challenge Paul would present if he were to square off with Obama given that he could easily swipe a good number of Obama voters out from under him.

I think what you are saying is true, but it looks like he doesn't stand a chance in the primaries.

I listen a bit to talk radio and it sounds like most of the talking heads have seen Paul as a threat and have been on a war path to discredit him. And I think it's working. When they say that one of the President's main jobs is as Commander in Chief, that really puts his foreign policy in the spotlight, and it is pretty weak. All his other stances that are more in line with the Republican party, many don't even thing the President will have sway with, that it's the Congress that matters in those areas.

But back to the point, I think many of the Occupy Wall Streeters and many other Americans leaning slightly left would vote for Paul as President.On top of that, a great majority of registered Republicans would vote for Paul over Obama or not vote at all. Combined, I think that would give him a great chance in the Presidential elections.

Ron Paul is done.

He will NOT make it past the primaries.

He's like the fat kid that will finish last in the race.

The unfortunate thing here is that I don't think that any of these guys have a chance against Osama in the general.