Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[mangxema]

Paul has some very good ideas, but most bad ones. I could conceivably vote for him in the primary just to keep him in the race--reason being, he'll start/derail conversation to the topics I'd like discussed--but to do that I'd have to register as a Republican and... I don't think I could bring myself to do that.

If I were to vote for a libertarian, I would much prefer Gary Johnson.

Also this.

 

[Dachs]

Well, flip flopping is annoying in general, but let me dress it up in poetic terms:

It's better to know someone's an enemy than to know they could be an enemy.

But they are all enemies. Consistency just implies either a lack of imagination or an inability to respond to developing circumstances.

yes they do, drop a few on some army or navy and see what happens

then drop a few more for good measure

if Hitler's neighbors had 'em, how far would he have gotten?

Entirely apart from the fact that modern armies - at least, American ones - have protocols for reducing the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons (and since the circumstances of how to fight a war have changed dramatically since the Second World War - one doesn't focus on breakthrough, for instance - you can't use tactical nuclear weapons for the purpose of blowing a hole in the enemy's lines because there are no lines), just think about normal dispersal of force; it would take a unrealistically large number of nuclear weapons to be able to hit everything.

That, and there's no guarantee that the nukes would come out in any future global war anyway because of the wonders of second-strike. And the impracticalities of a military reliant on rockets and nuclear weapons were demonstrated quite graphically in the 1950s and 1960s anyway. Sure, if Poland and France had had nukes in 1939, they could've obliterated a few German spearheads and maybe turned the tide. But, you know, you need an actual army to take advantage of that, and they had one. Bombing a country into oblivion has literally never worked by itself, because people will always get around the bombs; you need boots on the ground to enforce your will.

 

[Archbob]

It depends on who the democrat is. And who cares, its not like he's going to win the republican primary anyways?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I tend to be a single issue voter on likelihood of getting us into a war.
So yes, I'll probably be voting for Ron Paul next year.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Entirely apart from the fact that modern armies - at least, American ones - have protocols for reducing the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons (and since the circumstances of how to fight a war have changed dramatically since the Second World War - one doesn't focus on breakthrough, for instance - you can't use tactical nuclear weapons for the purpose of blowing a hole in the enemy's lines because there are no lines), just think about normal dispersal of force; it would take a unrealistically large number of nuclear weapons to be able to hit everything.

That, and there's no guarantee that the nukes would come out in any future global war anyway because of the wonders of second-strike. And the impracticalities of a military reliant on rockets and nuclear weapons were demonstrated quite graphically in the 1950s and 1960s anyway. Sure, if Poland and France had had nukes in 1939, they could've obliterated a few German spearheads and maybe turned the tide. But, you know, you need an actual army to take advantage of that, and they had one. Bombing a country into oblivion has literally never worked by itself, because people will always get around the bombs; you need boots on the ground to enforce your will.

This sounds very much like wishful thinking.

 

[Berzerker]

Entirely apart from the fact that modern armies - at least, American ones - have protocols for reducing the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons (and since the circumstances of how to fight a war have changed dramatically since the Second World War - one doesn't focus on breakthrough, for instance - you can't use tactical nuclear weapons for the purpose of blowing a hole in the enemy's lines because there are no lines), just think about normal dispersal of force; it would take a unrealistically large number of nuclear weapons to be able to hit everything.

You mean armies and navies will try to hide from the nuclear onslaught? Kinda defeats the notion of being an army or navy... We're talking a world war, the nukes are flying from multiple source countries at anything strategic, especially an invading army and navy. What'll happen is the people who aint dead will be too busy with family and friends and survival to join "the army" and invade some distant country that was just nuked to smithereens too.

That, and there's no guarantee that the nukes would come out in any future global war anyway because of the wonders of second-strike.

The countries that invade with big armies and navies will be nuked by the countries that invested in nukes - regardless of 2nd strike, or 3rd, 4th, 29th... I dont see an ongoing world war without nukes being used, nor a govt convincing its people to invite a nuclear holocaust by sending the army and navy to invade other countries. Who needs a guarantee?

And the impracticalities of a military reliant on rockets and nuclear weapons were demonstrated quite graphically in the 1950s and 1960s anyway. Sure, if Poland and France had had nukes in 1939, they could've obliterated a few German spearheads and maybe turned the tide. But, you know, you need an actual army to take advantage of that, and they had one. Bombing a country into oblivion has literally never worked by itself, because people will always get around the bombs; you need boots on the ground to enforce your will.

The last world war was the II, we aint had a 3rd yet - nukes had something to do with that (and why the Cold War was...Cold). And France, Poland, Britain, and maybe a few more would have rained nukes on Germany - and the Germans would have known it, so they would not have even bothered.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

How would you reconcile his shrimp industry earmarks with your assertion that he stands by what he says?


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2007/08/06/ron-pauls-400-million-earmarks

Actually he brings forward the requests of his constituents to get those earmarks, but then always proceeds to vote against them.

 

[JollyRoger]

Mobby, my good friend, I am glad to see that we likely share similar views on Dr. Paul. As a token of my goodwill, I offer you a tip of the hat

I'm not sure who you are for in the GOP primary, but it looks like there are potential forum bets for you to collect on this cycle.

 

[Dachs]

This sounds very much like wishful thinking.

You must have a very odd idea of what I wish for, then! I certainly don't recall ever wishing that nuclear deterrence wasn't a sure thing. It'd be nice to not have to deal with the possibility of global war, and it'd be even more nice to not have to deal with the possibility of billions of people being killed or crippled on a half-hour's notice.

You mean armies and navies will try to hide from the nuclear onslaught? Kinda defeats the notion of being an army or navy... We're talking a world war, the nukes are flying from multiple source countries at anything strategic, especially an invading army and navy. What'll happen is the people who aint dead will be too busy with family and friends and survival to join "the army" and invade some distant country that was just nuked to smithereens too.

No, I'm not talking about hiding, I'm talking about tactical dispersal. A nuclear weapon is not an instant I Win Button. It does not destroy everything ever everywhere. It does not even destroy everything ever in the vicinity of the location of detonation. And it takes a lot of nukes to even be kind of sure about doing any of that. It's not the same as dropping a nuke on a city where hundreds of thousands of people are relatively tightly packed in (and even then, a nuclear weapon again doesn't destroy everything or kill everyone). Of course, that doesn't really matter to most people, who have this crazy apocalyptic conception of nuclear warfare that involves everybody aboveground being slaughtered, with only a few survivors emerging later to take stock of urban wastelands and mutants.

The rest of your post involves similar cognitive closure, and frankly I haven't the interest in addressing it; this is ostensibly a Red Diamond thread (though you wouldn't know it from the OP), where higher standards are supposed to apply in terms of both topic choice (this is off of it) and discussion quality (you declaring that deterrence would work just because you think so does not make for a fruitful discussion; the whole world thought that way in 1914 and look what happened). Plus, I'm distracted by vast quantities of insects flying into my window at high speeds and making incredibly annoying rattling noises.

 

[Berzerker]

No, I'm not talking about hiding, I'm talking about tactical dispersal. A nuclear weapon is not an instant I Win Button. It does not destroy everything ever everywhere. It does not even destroy everything ever in the vicinity of the location of detonation. And it takes a lot of nukes to even be kind of sure about doing any of that. It's not the same as dropping a nuke on a city where hundreds of thousands of people are relatively tightly packed in (and even then, a nuclear weapon again doesn't destroy everything or kill everyone). Of course, that doesn't really matter to most people, who have this crazy apocalyptic conception of nuclear warfare that involves everybody aboveground being slaughtered, with only a few survivors emerging later to take stock of urban wastelands and mutants.

The rest of your post involves similar cognitive closure, and frankly I haven't the interest in addressing it; this is ostensibly a Red Diamond thread (though you wouldn't know it from the OP), where higher standards are supposed to apply in terms of both topic choice (this is off of it) and discussion quality (you declaring that deterrence would work just because you think so does not make for a fruitful discussion; the whole world thought that way in 1914 and look what happened). Plus, I'm distracted by vast quantities of insects flying into my window at high speeds and making incredibly annoying rattling noises.

I said nukes make armies and navies obsolete in a world war and you responded with this nugget:

No, they don't.

And now you're complaining about a lack of quality in this discussion? I've explained why, you're just too distracted and now you're getting obnoxious... again.

 

[civ_king]

He's an honest to God nutcase who never violates his principles except when he does

 

[Berzerker]

yup, I saw him try to defend that on some show and he looked very much like a politician - a politician who has stayed in office for years by bringing home the bacon.

His defense was basically, the people paid the money and should get it back... Why send it in the first place? But the people aint getting it back, special interests are getting a good chunk of it.

 

[Arriaga II]

I'll probably vote for Dr. Obama over Dr. Paul.

 

[classical_hero]

Considering that he is a libertarian, that generally means bad news to the rest of us. The current financial mess is a result of libertarian nonsense and I would not want to see that go any further. Thankfully most of the world rejects this nonsense of a political philosophy.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm politically libertarian, so ideologically I'm closer to Ron Paul than any of the other candidates except possibly Gary Johnson. The one (massive) area in which I disagree with him is his desire to completely change US monetary policy via "ending the Fed" and similar measures. I'm no economist, and my knowledge of monetary policy is average at best (and that's merely man-on-the-street average, not CFC-OT average). I don't know if he's right or not, but I'm unwilling to risk the global economy on it either way. So I would cast a tie-breaker vote for Gary Johnson for president , but if it was Ron Paul vs any of the likely 2012 winners and it was my call, I'd probably go for the other person.

All that aside, I was (and am) disheartened by the shrimping earmarks. I still consider him more honest than almost any other politician, but no longer the absolute "money where his mouth is" guy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

He's an honest to God nutcase who never violates his principles except when he does

I haven't really looked into this case (Or whether or not his defense is valid, in fact, I've never heard of it before) but it is unfair to call him a "Nutcase" for one issue.

Besides the fact that, interestingly for you or I in particular to keep in mind is he's the only actual pro-life politician.

Considering that he is a libertarian, that generally means bad news to the rest of us. The current financial mess is a result of libertarian nonsense and I would not want to see that go any further. Thankfully most of the world rejects this nonsense of a political philosophy.

I can't think of a libertarian president we've had since Jefferson, and he definitely ain't responsible for this

I've seen people blame Bush, Obama, or even FDR, but I have NEVER heard the Libertarians blamed, and for good reason...

The minor detail that they are never in power.

 

[IglooDame]

I haven't really looked into this case (Or whether or not his defense is valid, in fact, I've never heard of it before) but it is unfair to call him a "Nutcase" for one issue.

Besides the fact that, interestingly for you or I in particular to keep in mind is he's the only actual pro-life politician.

I don't know about that - sure he's delivered some hundreds of babies, but arguably Michele Bachmann with her foster children has at least as much claim to being "actual pro-life".

 

[GhostWriter16]

Of course, his consistency seems to be chipped a bit by how he supported DOMA; you cannot claim constitutionalism when you blatantly are urinating on the full faith and credit clause! Either all marriage is not recognised, or all is. Choose!

Which part of DOMA? States don't have to recognize anything that they don't want to recognize. As for Federal recognition, I don't think Paul has stated an opinion on that.

I don't know about that - sure he's delivered some hundreds of babies, but arguably Michele Bachmann with her foster children has at least as much claim to being "actual pro-life".

I don't know anything about Bachman actually, though I do know most people think she's "Crazier" than Paul.

That said, I was more thinking of Mccain, Romney, and Palin all having caveats in their "Pro-life" philosophy, and they also (Except possibly Palin) have changed their stance at "Conveinient" times. Paul's stance stays the same.

 

[downtown]

Jon Huntsman might actually have the strongest Pro-Life credentials, interestingly enough (although Bachmann has certainly walked the walk).

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Some comments:

It depends on who the democrat is. And who cares, its not like he's going to win the republican primary anyways?

If you don't care, you don't have to post. Please provide something more substantive than this in future.

This sounds very much like wishful thinking.

You should expand on why it sounds like wishful thinking, rather than leaving it hanging like this.

I said nukes make armies and navies obsolete in a world war and you responded with this nugget:

And now you're complaining about a lack of quality in this discussion? I've explained why, you're just too distracted and now you're getting obnoxious... again.

No need for it to start getting personal. Here you aren't addressing the points brought up.

Either way, @Berzerker & Dachs- the tangent you were on is rather off-topic, so no need to continue on it.

He's an honest to God nutcase who never violates his principles except when he does

Links are nice, but it's not good if people have to click on them to know what you're talking about. Please paste relevant sections of the article, and even better, make your point in your own words. Substantiate.

I'll probably vote for Dr. Obama over Dr. Paul.

That's nice to know, but please expand on the point you're making.

You're allowed to think opinions are ridiculous. That's fine. But this smiley generally isn't going to be very conducive to civil or productive discussion. Express your disagreements with derision, please.