Ron Paul, pros/cons?

[WillFarnaby]

@BrainGlutton

Because it’s ignorant or insane. Wilson didn’t even approve of the Germany-punitive terms of the Versailles Treaty.

Wilson was willing to make any concessions he needed in order to get his beloved League of Nations. This included punitive terms on Germany

[conway]

@Marley23

He’s not very good at passing legislation and does a lousy job advocating for some of his views, but for a guy who isn’t a racist, he definitely does a skilled impression of a racist.

So is that a pro or a con? I’m having trouble keeping my list straight.

[WillFarnaby]

@Ibn_Warraq

You’re showing a rather disturbing double standard behavior towards gays that “might make him homophobic” would definitely “make him racist” were it directed at blacks.
Please explain.

Thanks

I said might because the evidence offered could have been wrong. In your example it was a certainty that he had participated in that behavior.

You’re welcome.

[Marley23]

@astroidea

So if you side with 71% of the military political contributors, as well as the former CIA chief, then how is it not logical to imply the whacko libertarian would be a great way to balance out the whacko republican/democratic policies in place now?

I’ll let FriarTed speak for himself, but your interpretation seems to have nothing to do with what he wrote.

@astroidea

I’d still take his opinion over the establishment, that has nearly bankrupted us bringing us into a war with those dangerous Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction.

I thought you said the military and the CIA agreed with Scheuer (and Paul). Now you’re saying “the establishment” is against them? This doesn’t make sense.

[BrainGlutton]

@WillFarnaby

Wilson was willing to make any concessions he needed in order to get his beloved League of Nations. This included punitive terms on Germany

No, he wasn’t.

American approach

Prior to Wilson’s arrival in Europe, no American President had ever visited Europe while in office.[14] Wilson’s Fourteen Points, of a year earlier, had helped win the hearts and minds of many as the war ended; these included Americans and Europeans generally, as well as Germany, its allies and the former subjects of the Ottoman Empire specifically. Wilson’s diplomacy and his Fourteen Points had essentially established the conditions for the armistices that had brought an end to World War I. Wilson felt it was his duty and obligation to the people of the world to be a prominent figure at the peace negotiations. High hopes and expectations were placed on him to deliver what he had promised for the post-war era. In doing so, Wilson ultimately began to lead the foreign policy of the United States toward interventionism, a move strongly resisted in some domestic circles.

Once Wilson arrived, however, he found “rivalries, and conflicting claims previously submerged”.[15] He worked mostly trying to sway the direction that the French (George Clemenceau) and British (Lloyd George) delegations were taking towards Germany and its allies in Europe, as well as the former Ottoman lands in the Middle East. Wilson’s attempts to gain acceptance of his Fourteen Points ultimately failed, after France and Britain refused to adopt some specific points and its core principles.

In Europe, several of his Fourteen Points conflicted with the other powers. The United States did not encourage nor believe that the responsibility for the war that Article 231 placed on Germany was fair or warranted.[16] It would not be until 1921 that the United States finally signed separate peace treaties with Germany, Austria and Hungary.

In the Middle East, negotiations were complicated by competing aims, claims, and the new mandate system. The United States hoped to establish a more liberal and diplomatic world, as stated in the Fourteen Points, where democracy, sovereignty, liberty and self-determination would be respected. France and Britain, on the other hand, already controlled empires, wielded power over their subjects around the world, and still aspired to be dominant colonial powers.

In light of the previously secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, and following the adoption of the mandate system on the Arab province of the former Ottoman lands, the conference heard statements from competing Zionist and Arab claimants. President Woodrow Wilson then recommended an international commission of inquiry to ascertain the wishes of the local inhabitants. The Commission idea, first accepted by Great Britain and France, was later rejected. Eventually it became the purely American King-Crane Commission, which toured all Syria and Palestine during the summer of 1919, taking statements and sampling opinion.[15] Its report, presented to President Wilson, was kept secret from the public until The New York Times broke the story in December 1922.[17] A pro-Zionist joint resolution on Palestine was passed by Congress in September 1922.[18]

France and Britain tried to appease the American President by consenting to the establishment of his League of Nations. However, because isolationist sentiment was strong and some of the articles in the League’s charter conflicted with the United States Constitution, the United States never did ratify the Treaty of Versailles nor join the League of Nations,[19] which President Wilson had helped create, to further peace through diplomacy rather than war and conditions which can breed it.

Under President Warren Harding the United States signed separate treaties with Germany,[20] Austria,[21] and Hungary[22] in 1921.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@WillFarnaby

I said might because the evidence offered could have been wrong. In your example it was a certainty that he had participated in that behavior.

You’re welcome.

What evidence could have been wrong?

Are you saying that the video of him screaming “That man’s a queer!” may have been faked?:dubious:

[Balance]

@Terraplane

Chief of the Bin Laden issue station from '96 to '99, Special Advisor to the Chief of the Bin Laden Unit from '01 to '04. Must have been a real pro at his job, handling that Bin Laden problem so successfully all that time.

@Ibn_Warraq

Since then he’s tried to parlay that part of his career into making a lot of money by making many alarmist and extremist claims from blaming Bill Clinton for 911, a “fifth Column” in America for the Iraq War, and in claiming in 2009 that there was a strong possibility Al Quaeda was close to detonating a nuke in the US.

So, eight years or so of abject failure, followed by fear mongering and spouting conspiracy theories in whatever media will pay attention to him.

Are you sure this guy isn’t a GOP presidential candidate?

[BrainGlutton]

@Balance

So, eight years or so of abject failure, followed by fear mongering and spouting conspiracy theories in whatever media will pay attention to him.

Are you sure this guy isn’t a GOP presidential candidate?

Wait for 2016.

[Jackmannii]

@Terraplane

Can anybody else think of a candidate with supporters who’ve said “Oh don’t worry about all that crazy stuff, he won’t be able to actually do that.” Maybe I’ve missed something but I can’t remember anything quite like it.

I was going to suggest Lyndon Larouche, but a key difference is that his followers actually want him to do all the crazy stuff.

Looks like Lyndon is gearing up for another Presidential run in '12. Stay tuned.

[astroidea]

@Ibn_Warraq

Who put that pie chart together and how did they gather their information?

I don’t mean to sound rude, but have you read any of his stuff or are you basing your opinion of him on a four minute TV clip, and that he once held an important-sounding title?

I ask, because I related fairly basic well-known facts about him that both his detractors and defenders are well aware of?

Who put the pie chart together? I stated fairly basic well-known facts about the overwhelming active duty military support for Ron Paul that both his detractors and defenders are well aware of.

By the way, just so I don’t stoop to your level. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=active+duty+military+campaign+contributions

[BrainGlutton]

@Jackmannii

I was going to suggest Lyndon Larouche, but a key difference is that his followers actually want him to do all the crazy stuff.

Looks like Lyndon is gearing up for another Presidential run in '12. Stay tuned.

Y’know, this could be his year . . .

[ladyfoxfyre]

@astroidea

Who put the pie chart together? I stated fairly basic well-known facts about the overwhelming active duty military support for Ron Paul that both his detractors and defenders are well aware of.

You have failed to demonstrate what is significant about military contributions to one guy’s campaign though. Is this the only demographic whose input should be valued? Why?
ETA: the military has a vested interest in the guy who won’t deploy them as much. If Paul’s position on foreign policy is as non-nuanced as “non-intervention” I can see why he’d be heavily favored in the military demographics, but not sure what that extrapolates to in the real world.

[BrainGlutton]

@ladyfoxfyre

ETA: the military has a vested interest in the guy who won’t deploy them as much.

Does it? Some soldiers have careers in mind, y’know. Ya gotta get yer ticket punched sometime.

[Linden_Arden]

@FriarTed

Audit the Fed- hell yes. Abolish it- hmm?

The Fed has always been audited (currently by Deloitte and Touche).

Ron Paul calls scrutinizing monetary policy an “audit”. He wants Congress to interfere with the Fed’s operations and decision making. Its a terrible idea.

Nine economists or 535 Congress people squabbling over FOMC decisions?

Easy choice.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@BrainGlutton

Does it? Some soldiers have careers in mind, y’know. Ya gotta get yer ticket punched sometime.

And they might be the ones that don’t donate to the Paul campaign. I have no idea. I’m not the one claiming that the military support for Paul is significant in any way, he is. The military skews conservative as a whole anyway, and usually favors former military candidates. Paul served, Gingrich has not, Santorum has not, Romney has not. Who else in the campaign would you suspect would garner more support from the military if not someone who was former military? I think that probably has more to do with his military support than with his foreign policy.

[astroidea]

Pros - You know he’s not in the back pockets of Wall St.

Top Contributors to Ron Paul, 2012 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Top Contributors to Mitt Romney, 2012 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Cons - He’s “unelectable.”

[FixMyIgnorance]

What is so bad about his foreign policy?

[astroidea]

@ladyfoxfyre

And they might be the ones that don’t donate to the Paul campaign. I have no idea. I’m not the one claiming that the military support for Paul is significant in any way, he is. The military skews conservative as a whole anyway, and usually favors former military candidates. Paul served, Gingrich has not, Santorum has not, Romney has not. Who else in the campaign would you suspect would garner more support from the military if not someone who was former military? I think that probably has more to do with his military support than with his foreign policy.

Good guess, but no. Ron Paul received the most military in 2008 as well, and that’s more than McCain who was commonly praised to be a war hero.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@astroidea

Who put the pie chart together?

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.

I stated fairly basic well-known facts about the overwhelming active duty military support for Ron Paul that both his detractors and defenders are well aware of.

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

[Marley23]

@astroidea

By the way, just so I don’t stoop to your level. http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=active+duty+military+campaign+contributions

Let’s not make this personal, please. No comments about each other’s “level.”