Ron Paul's biggest fallacy can be summed up in one word: Isolationism.

 

How anyone can support a candidate who would move to that is beyond me.

Ron Paul's biggest fallacy can be summed up in one word: Isolationism.

 

How anyone can support a candidate who would move to that is beyond me.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. Isolationism takes non-interventionism a step further and couples it with economic nationalism. Dr. Paul does not believe in the latter; he is a staunch supporter of free trade. Non-interventionism is simply not getting involved in business around the world that has nothing to do with us. Isolationism is not dealing freely with any countries at all.

 

So now that I've debunked "Ron Paul's biggest fallacy" for you, could you give me another one?

Ron Paul's biggest fallacy can be summed up in one word: Isolationism.

 

How anyone can support a candidate who would move to that is beyond me.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist. Isolationism takes non-interventionism a step further and couples it with economic nationalism. Dr. Paul does not believe in the latter; he is a staunch supporter of free trade. Non-interventionism is simply not getting involved in business around the world that has nothing to do with us. Isolationism is not dealing freely with any countries at all.

 

So now that I've debunked "Ron Paul's biggest fallacy" for you, could you give me another one?

I didn't say he was an isolationist, but his 'policies' would absolutely move us to that area.

 

I'll keep playing this game with you though. Paul's stance that the United States foreign policy and intervention is what has caused things like 9/11 and other terrorist attacks is absolutely untrue. It may have some sort of role, it is not the sole reason by a long shot. Paul continually overlooks a small thing called radical Islam. We were attacked, unprovoked, on 9/11, thus we had every right to attack back. Paul doesn't seem to grasp the concept of radical Islam or why we felt the need to attack those responsible for 9/11.

 

I should have rephrased my original wording. The biggest fallacy to Paul's campaign isn't just his policies, it is that he has no chance on a national level. The man can raise all the money he wants but until it shows results in meaningful polls he has no chance. Zero.

 

There are a lot of things that Paull supports that I support (not supporting the gay marriage ban, making governement small, anti-death penalty, pro-hemp, etc.) but those two weigh too heavily for me.

 

His supporters are living in a dream world if they think he has any chance. I don't support Paul because I do not believe in his isolationist views, his ideas on what makes Islamic countries tick, and his views on foreign policy in general. I can't get past it and won't. It's my right not to support him just as it is for you too. I just won't go up to people in public and force him down their throats or 'protest' other candidates.

 

I await my ad hominem attack.

Here's another issue that I have with Ron Paul. He seems completely unwilling to compromise at all. While some people may be thrilled of the idea of seeing a hard line libertarian in office, it's not a very practical mindset to have when you're working in politics. People are not always going to agree with you, and, oftentimes, you'll need those people to get things done. That's a simple fact of politics. Paul is so adamant that all policies strictly conform to his libertarian views that I worry what happens when that ideal policy dies in Congress or another nation doesn't agree completely with the terms of a treaty. Would Paul actually work to negotiate a deal that may not be ideal but is still better than the status quo, or is he going to stick to his guns and wait until the time is right (Answer: Never) for his liberatarian dreams to become a reality.

 

Case in point: NAFTA. Paul's against it because he considers it "managed trade" as opposed to free trade, in the true sense of the word. Now, I can understand where some of his objections come from. But, suppose NAFTA is the best we can get Mexico and Canada to agree on. Is he going to walk away from the negotiations yelling at Mexico and Canada that they don't know about the power of the markets or should read Milton Friedman ASAP?

 

Whoever this president is, they are probably going to go in there with a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know Paul and the Dems agree on Iraq, but on every other issue shared opinions run scarce. Is he actually capable of hammering out compromised policies that are better than what we currently have? I don't mean that as an insult, it's a genuine question I have about the guy. He's written countless bills before Congress that he keeps trying to pass year in and year out and they're met with very little support from either side of the aisle.

Whoever this president is, they are probably going to go in there with a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know Paul and the Dems agree on Iraq, but on every other issue shared opinions run scarce. Is he actually capable of hammering out compromised policies that are better than what we currently have? I don't mean that as an insult, it's a genuine question I have about the guy. He's written countless bills before Congress that he keeps trying to pass year in and year out and they're met with very little support from either side of the aisle.

 

What candidates do you think will be willing to work with the dem congress?

The Big 4 will be more 'reasonable' then Paul.

 

CC is right with his characterization.

Whoever this president is, they are probably going to go in there with a Democrat-controlled Congress. I know Paul and the Dems agree on Iraq, but on every other issue shared opinions run scarce. Is he actually capable of hammering out compromised policies that are better than what we currently have? I don't mean that as an insult, it's a genuine question I have about the guy. He's written countless bills before Congress that he keeps trying to pass year in and year out and they're met with very little support from either side of the aisle.

 

What candidates do you think will be willing to work with the dem congress?

 

- John McCain: He said as much in the GOP debates. Specifically, the NH one.

 

- Mitt Romney: I'm assuming his time as governor of Massachusetts is a pretty good indication he can work with the other side of the aisle.

 

I don't know enough about Fred Thompson to speak on his behalf either way.

My reasons I enjoy Ron Paul in many respects as a good interesting canidate:

 

The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.

 

 

 

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

 

 

Both from a Much Smarter George then the one in office. I feel the second quote can be displayed upon the position of any area of the world modern day not just Europe.

Fox, you forget that Bin Laden said himself that the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia was a reason for 9/11. That alone would mean that Ron Paul is right. We also provided the weapons and training against the USSR via the CIA to many mujahideen who would later join Al Qaeda or the Taliban. We have also given support to repressive regimes in the Middle East, of which there are plenty. Saudi Arabia is one great example. This support breeds contempt not only for the repressive government itself, but for its supporters (ie. US).

 

I just don't think you can successfully argue that 9/11 was a completely unprovoked attack.

Violence and terrorist attacks are politics through other means. Al Queda wants change in the Middle East. Specifically, it wants an Islamist revolution. It attacked the United States on September 11 because it thought such an attack would further this goal. It probably thought it could provoke us into Afghanistan and, perhaps, also Iraq. Taking the fight to them would, in their minds, set the stage for the ultimate fight, which would be fought mainly after we left. They figure they have the staying power to outlast us (even if they can't defeat us directly). Once we leave Iraq and leave yet another power vacuum, we'll see what happens and who ultimately prevails.

 

History has not judged whether this little plan of Al Queda will work. We'll find out when we leave Iraq.

 

I think that we shouldn't base our foreign policy on what Al Queda or Osama say. We should simply be prudent in our decisions. After they attacked us, we absolutely needed to go into Afghanistan. We've messed up everything else since then. Our invasion of Iraq was unnecessary. Our occupation of Iraq was poorly planned. If we would have made the right decisions, we could have defeated Al Queda by now.

Paul's stance that the United States foreign policy and intervention is what has caused things like 9/11 and other terrorist attacks is absolutely untrue. It may have some sort of role, it is not the sole reason by a long shot. Paul continually overlooks a small thing called radical Islam. We were attacked, unprovoked, on 9/11, thus we had every right to attack back. Paul doesn't seem to grasp the concept of radical Islam or why we felt the need to attack those responsible for 9/11.

Dr. Paul voted for the AUMF in Afghanistan, and has never suggested that we should not respond to attacks.

 

What you need to understand is that our inteventionism is what gives radical Islam traction. Radical Islam was a failing movement. Sayid Qutb & co failed to take down Nasser. Al-Zawahri & co assassinated Sadat and still failed to cause an uprising and revolution in Egypt. All throughout the Middle East these movements failed. They succeeded in 2 places where secular westerners interfered: In Iran, where we destroyed their democracy by subverting Mossadeq en route to installing the Shah as absolute monarch because they wanted to push out US oil companies and in Afghanistan where the Soviets invaded, tried to impose socialism, and then we funded the Mujahadeen. Radical Islam has failed completely as a movement everywhere else. But when we interfere and subsidize totalitarian regimes or "occupy" their lands, as is their perception of our involvement in Saudi Arabia or by supporting the Israelis, we prove the Islamists right, that all this evil has us at the source.

 

And furthermore, if "Radical Islam" is the enemy, why did we attack Iraq? It was a secular dictatorship that at the very least provided a bit more equality for women and religious minorities. Hell, one of Saddam's top guys was Tariq Aziz, who is Catholic. Radical Islam had no traction or power in Iraq until we brought it there.

The thing that I especially dislike about Ron Paul is the fact that he essentially wants to disband the entire government.

 

 

Which is exactly why I like him.