# Ron Paul, pros/cons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888 "2012-01-09T03:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/81 "2012-01-10T05:26:10Z")
This thread is just confusing me. The divergence of opinions here is not helping. I can’t tell how much of this thread is crackpottery and how much of it is intelligent. Can anyone please give good reasons why, say, his foreign policy is good/bad or if his economic views are reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![astroidea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@astroidea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astroidea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/82 "2012-01-10T05:34:15Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Er yes, I think asking for you to tell who put that pie chart together and how they got their information is a very fair question. > > You find lots of crap online and I want to know how reliable the information is. > > So please tell me who put the chart together, why they’re trustworthy and reliable and how they got their information. > > Even if that pie chart is correct, you have not demonstrated that at all. The chart only claims that 70% of all active duty military personnel WHO MAKE CAMPAIGN DONATIONS are supporters of Paul. > > Well, what percentage of all active duty military personnel actually make such donations and how representative of the rest of the military are they. > > Even if(and that’s a very big if) most of the small percentage of veterans who donate to political campaigns do so to Paul that hardly means that most people who serve in the military do. > > Anyway, if it’s as you say then it should be very easy to prove so please do so. > > Thanks It’s called proportion. Please, you seem decently intelligent. By your reasoning, all polls are worthless. Of course, you’re going to continue to grasp at straws finding any way to discredit any fact that supports Paul. I’m actually surprised you were so quick to discredit Scheuer, given your own glaring oversight of the very people you cite to attack Paul, Eric Dondero, his former aid that was fired for performance issues. Furthermore, this is a guy who is terribly worried about Islamo-fascism. Went to Dondero’s website, and found this with little difficulty: "My fellow Jews need to buck up,” says Eric Dondero, editor of Libertarian [Republican.net](http://Republican.net), over the phone from Houston. “The big problem right now is Islam and Islamism invading our country. And if they want to continue to move in, we need to fight back. Their culture is coming here.” Dondero, a former staffer for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, has blogged extensively about what he calls “creeping Sharia Law” over the past several years. He says if you want to know what Sharia looks like in the United States, all you have to do is look at Europe, where he claims Muslim Europeans have “invaded” the countryside. “They’re invading Switzerland and a Swedish island called Malmo, where the Muslims are raping all the European and Swedish women,” he says, recalling that city’s reports of lawlessness between the Jewish, Muslim and Neo-Nazi populations. And he fears that if Sharia Law isn’t banned in all states the way it was banned in his, the U.S. is next." I guess if you follow that line of thinking you may consider his accounts ‘accurate’. Go read his website (though that may be exactly what he’s after. Your decision). It’s full of very impressive spew. Be sure to check out the comments and his replies. > **[libertarianrepublican.net](http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/11/crime-wave-continues-to-sweep-across.html)** > > This domain may be for sale! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/83 "2012-01-10T05:36:09Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Can anyone please give good reasons why, say, his foreign policy is good/bad or if his economic views are reasonable? Paul is essentially a total isolationist. He believes the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in the United Nations and should pay no foreign aid. It’s not a policy that works on planet Earth, particularly in the 21st century. Things that happen in other countries matter, and it’s stupid to pretend otherwise. And the gold standard is not a reasonable economic idea. Other people can explain this much better than I can, but I’ve read enough to convince me it’s a hopelessly antiquated idea that doesn’t make sense. > [@astroidea](#): > > Furthermore, this is a guy who is terribly worried about Islamo-fascism. What a surprise: another nut with close ties to Ron Paul. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/84 "2012-01-10T05:41:25Z")
For the sake of rigor, though, in what ways do “events in other countries matter?” What WOULD happen if we were total isolationists? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/85 "2012-01-10T05:46:24Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > For the sake of rigor, though, in what ways do “events in other countries matter?” What WOULD happen if we were total isolationists? Manufacturing, trade, currency exchange, investment, immigration, terrorism… is this a serious question? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/86 "2012-01-10T05:49:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Manufacturing, trade, currency exchange, investment, immigration, terrorism… is this a serious question? Yes. I chose my username for a reason. I’m not well-versed in politics, and I’m not ashamed to ask stupid questions. I’d rather correct my misconceptions rather than hold onto ideas that might be totally off. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/87 "2012-01-10T05:53:55Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > I can’t tell how much of this thread is crackpottery and how much of it is intelligent. No surprise there, we’re talking about Ron Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/88 "2012-01-10T05:56:14Z")
Starting with the military angle, the U.S. has a military presences in scads of countries. I understand the point of view that that’s excessive, but those soldiers are there by mutual agreement between the U.S. government and the governments of those countries. Withdrawing them would have consequences and would piss off more than a few governments. ---
**Author:** ![astroidea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@astroidea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astroidea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/89 "2012-01-10T06:00:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Paul is essentially a total isolationist. He believes the U.S. shouldn’t be involved in the United Nations and should pay no foreign aid. It’s not a policy that works on planet Earth, particularly in the 21st century. Things that happen in other countries matter, and it’s stupid to pretend otherwise. And the gold standard is not a reasonable economic idea. Other people can explain this much better than I can, but I’ve read enough to convince me it’s a hopelessly antiquated idea that doesn’t make sense. > What a surprise: another nut with close ties to Ron Paul. Paul believes it’s not our job to police the world and to nation build. We can’t afford to hold bases around the world and to topple governments we dislike. We’re bankrupt. It’s stupid to pretend otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![astroidea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@astroidea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astroidea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/90 "2012-01-10T06:08:26Z")
To further add salt to the wound, holding bases in other countries breeds terrorism. The 9/11 commission report confirms that 9/11 is a result of US military presence in Islamic nations. Thus, to attempt to increase the security of our country by holding these bases is crackpot nutty lunacy. How would we feel if China wanted to hold military bases in our nation? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/91 "2012-01-10T06:09:52Z")
> [@astroidea](#): > > To further add salt to the wound, holding bases in other countries breeds terrorism. Depends on the country. It never bred any in Japan or Germany. (Well, not much, there were the “Werewolves” in occupied Germany, but they were Nazi holdovers and didn’t last long.) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/92 "2012-01-10T06:17:42Z")
> [@astroidea](#): > > We’re bankrupt. Again, you take a decent point and take it to a ridiculous extreme. The United States isn’t bankrupt. I would prefer the U.S. confine its overseas activity to supporting democracy rather than propping up unsavory governments (although you don’t always choose your dance partners) and I was even concerned about Obama in this regard. But the country isn’t bankrupt and it’s not in debt because of military bases. > [@astroidea](#): > > The 9/11 commission report confirms that 9/11 is a result of US military presence in Islamic nations. This is an oversimplification. > [@](#): > > Thus, to attempt to increase the security of our country by holding these bases is crackpot nutty lunacy. It’s not only for U.S. security. > [@](#): > > How would we feel if China wanted to hold military bases in our nation? As I already noted, these arrangements are covered by treaties. The U.S. didn’t invade 150 countries and station troops there. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/93 "2012-01-10T06:19:37Z")
What, exactly, is so bad about the gold standard? I’m not condoning it at all, but I want to understand why it’s a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![astroidea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@astroidea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astroidea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/94 "2012-01-10T06:25:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Again, you take a decent point and take it to a ridiculous extreme. The United States isn’t bankrupt. I would prefer the U.S. confine its overseas activity to supporting democracy rather than propping up unsavory governments (although you don’t always choose your dance partners) and I was even concerned about Obama in this regard. But the country isn’t bankrupt and it’s not in debt because of military bases. It’s a hyperbole, and quite fitting given our exponentially increasing debt. I would prefer the US confine its activities to fixing its own glooming issues before putting so much attention on other’s issues. > [@](#): > > This is an oversimplification. As are your posts. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/95 "2012-01-10T06:31:41Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > What, exactly, is so bad about the gold standard? > > I’m not condoning it at all, but I want to understand why it’s a bad idea. [Here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Disadvantages) > [@](#): > > **Disadvantages** > > - The total amount of gold that has ever been mined has been estimated at around 142,000 metric tons.[51] and arguments have been made that this amount is too small to serve as a monetary base. The value of this amount of gold is over 6 trillion dollars while the monetary base of the US, with a roughly 20% share of the world economy, stands at $2.7 trillion at the end of 2011 [52] Even in the unlikely prospect that all mined gold could be turned into coin, a return to the gold standard would result in a significant increase in the current value of gold.[53] > - Deflation punishes debtors.[54][55] Real debt burdens therefore rise, causing borrowers to cut spending to service their debts or to default. Lenders become wealthier, but may choose to save some of their additional wealth rather than spending it all.[56] The overall amount of expenditure is therefore likely to fall.[56] > - Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing money supply during economic downturns.[57] Following a gold standard would mean that the amount of money would be determined by the supply of gold, and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy in times of economic recession.[58] Such reason is often employed to partially blame the gold standard for the Great Depression, citing that the Federal Reserve couldn’t expand credit enough to offset the deflationary forces at work in the market.[59] > - Monetary policy would essentially be determined by the rate of gold production.[60] Fluctuations in the amount of gold that is mined could cause inflation if there is an increase, or deflation if there is a decrease.[60][61] Some hold the view that this contributed to the severity and length of the Great Depression as the gold standard forced the central banks to keep monetary policy too tight, creating deflation.[53][62] > - Although the gold standard has brought long-run price stability, it has also historically been associated with high short-run price volatility.[61][63] It has been argued by, among others, Anna Schwartz that this kind of instability in short-term price levels can lead to financial instability as lenders and borrowers become uncertain about the value of debt.[64] > - The unequal distribution of gold as a natural resource makes the gold standard much more advantageous in terms of cost and international economic empowerment for those countries that produce gold.[65] In 2010 the largest producers of gold, in order, are China, followed by Australia, the US, South Africa and Russia.[66] The country with the largest reserves is Australia.[67] > - James Hamilton contended that the gold standard may be susceptible to speculative attacks when a government’s financial position appears weak, although others contend that this very threat discourages governments’ engaging in risky policy (see Moral Hazard).[62] For example, some believe that the United States was forced to contract the money supply and raise interest rates in September 1931 to defend the dollar after speculators forced Great Britain off the gold standard[62][68][69] > - If a country wanted to devalue its currency, a gold standard would generally produce sharper changes than the smooth declines seen in fiat currencies, depending on the method of devaluation.[70] > - Most economists favor a low, positive rate of inflation. Partly this reflects fear of deflationary shocks, but primarily because they believe that central banks still have some role to play in dampening fluctuations in output and unemployment. Central banks can more safely play that role when a positive rate of inflation gives them room to tighten money growth without inducing price declines.[71] > - It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard to tailor to an economy’s demand for money, providing practical constraints against the measures that central banks might otherwise use to respond to economic crises.[72] The demand for money always equals the supply of money. Creation of new money reduces interest rates and thereby increases demand for new lower cost debt, raising the demand for money. [73] But, really goldbuggery is about crackpot politics, not crackpot economics – essentially, mistrust of “they” who control the value of our fiat currency. Gold seems not only more “natural” but seems to be something beyond the control of states. It’s a form of economic populism based on a general distrust of the financial sector based in turn on [producerism,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producerism)aka the “physical fallacy,” the idea that people who make things you can hold in your hands are the only makers of “real” wealth and all others are parasitic on them. This kind of thinking is actually very old in America. British conservative Paul Johnson commented in his _A History of the American People:_ > [@](#): > > The Founders, particularly the Virginians, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al., equated property, as a moral force, with land. Their views were articulated by John Taylor (1753-1824), like them a Virginia landowner who served in the Senate and published in 1814 a monumental work of 700 pages, _An Inquiry in the Principles and Policy of the United States._ Taylor distinguished between ‘natural’ property. such as land, and ‘artificial property’ created by legal privilege, of which banking wealth was the outstanding example. He saw the right to issue paper money as indirect taxation on the people: ‘Taxation, direct or indirect, produced by a paper system in any form, will rob a nation of property without giving it liberty; and by creating and enriching a separate interest, will rob it of liberty without giving it property.’ Paper-money banking benefited an artificially created and parasitical financial aristocracy at the expense of the hard-working farmer, and this ‘property-transferring policy invariably impoverishes all laboring and productive classes.’ He compared this new financial power with the old feudal and ecclesiastical power, with the bankers using ‘force, faith and credit’ as the two others did religion and feudality. What particularly infuriated Taylor was the horrible slyness with which financiers had invested ‘fictitious’ property, such as bank-paper and stock, with all the prestige and virtues of ‘honest’ property. > > Taylor’s theory was an early version of what was to become known as the ‘physical fallacy,’ a belief that only those who worked with their hands and brains to raise food or make goods were creating ‘real’ wealth and that all other forms of economic activity were essentially parasitical. It was commonly held in the early 19th century, and Marx and all his followers fell victim to it. Indeed plenty of people hold it in one form or another today, and whenever its adherents acquire power, or seize it, and put their beliefs into practice, by oppressing the ‘parasitical middleman,’ poverty invariably follows. Taylor’s formulation of this theory fell on particularly rich soil because American farmers in general, and the Southerners and backwoodsmen in particular, already had a paranoid suspicion of the ‘money power’ dating from colonial times, as we have seen. So Taylor’s arguments, suitably vulgarized, became the common coin of the Jeffersonians, later of the Jacksonians and finally of silver-standard Democrats and populists of the late 19th century, who claimed that the American farmer was being ‘crucified on a cross of gold.’ The persistence of this fallacy in American politics refutes the common assumption that America is resistant to ideology, for if ever there were an ideology it is this farrago. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/96 "2012-01-10T06:36:46Z")
> [@astroidea](#): > > It’s a hyperbole “OK, so it’s not true. You have to admit it’s a compelling argument!” ---
**Author:** ![astroidea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/58956e/32.png) [@astroidea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astroidea)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/97 "2012-01-10T06:50:44Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “OK, so it’s not true. You have to admit it’s a compelling argument!” Good you got it! That is the art of the hyperbole. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/98 "2012-01-10T06:58:33Z")
Also, what is up with this states-deciding-gay-marriage laws thing? Shouldn’t we just legalize it at the federal level? Thanks for the intelligent responses, Marley/Brian. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/99 "2012-01-10T12:40:26Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Also, what is up with this states-deciding-gay-marriage laws thing? Shouldn’t we just legalize it at the federal level? Paul has this strange opinion (shocking, I know) that in principle, the Federal government should stay out of marriage, however, he also supports a Federal law that prohibits the recognition of same sex marriage. He also supports a bill that, if passed, would prohibit courts from reviewing the constitutionality of the ban on recognizing same-sex marriage. He has stated that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman and that the institution “must be protected” against same sex marriage. So in contrast to your view that same sex marriage ought to be legalized nationally, Paul is stridently in support of retaining the states’ ability to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/100 "2012-01-10T13:51:16Z")
SHOULD marriage be a state-level concept as opposed to federal? In principle, it “sounds” like a decent idea because I don’t like the idea of the federal government not recognizing same-sex marriage, but I also don’t like the idea of states not recognizing it, either. It just seems like all that’d happen is heterosexual marriage stays legal but gay marriage remains at the mercy of potential bigots. How would it feel if different states had different laws based on the color of your skin? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=6)