General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow about we put all of this Ron Paul stuff to bed right now
Paul is better than Obama on drugs and on the wars. There's no two ways around that. He wants to bring the troops home and he's amenable to relaxing drug laws.
Other than that he sucks. No DUers support him for the presidency. As for the Republican nomination, that's irrelevant, because no DUers are Republicans.
End of story. He's a wacky guy who has a few good ideas and will never be president, let alone the Republican nominee. In a couple months he will be irrelevant. Let's embrace the good ideas he has, thank him for that, and then say no thanks on everything else he stands for.
There's no need to have endless go-arounds on Ron Paul. He'll be done soon enough. Let's consider him done now and move forward.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)If Congress is willing to declare war, I think Ron Paul is more than willing to fight it. I do appreciate the fact that he wants it to be done constitutionally by declaration of war by Congress, but at least his campaign manager says that's his only real problem with the wars we wage.
Who knows? He is fiscally conservative... if Congress declared war, maybe he'd just drop a nuclear bomb to avoid spending money on an occupation.
RZM
(8,556 posts)But I imagine that's not his intention. He's an isolationist. My guess is that he'd be against any show of force. Were he president, i think his main thrust would be domestic policy. Were a major crisis to erupt, I think he would say 'fuck it' and let the rest of the world deal with it.
BTW, I don't think that's the right thing, either. I think the US has a global leadership role and needs to use it. That doesn't mean we need to bomb and invade other countries. But that does mean we shouldn't be a turtle that draws back into its shell whenever anything happens.
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)See, here's the thing about Ron Paul, too: what he's really got going for him that most people like is that they think he's this honest actor you can count on to do certain things. Like OK, if you make a deal with the devil, you elect Ron Paul as president, and he gets 4 to 8 years to attempt to dismantle the government, but he'll also roll back constitutional violations and international aggression.
But he's not as honest as he has the reputation for being. During the debate, when the people in the crowd famously shouted out with glee that people should be left to die if they can't afford health insurance, Ron Paul said that the church would take care of that guy. OK, so why don't they? People die all the time because of lack of insurance and there's nobody there to help them. Big government in the way? How so? They don't tax charities.
He has to know that's a lie. I think he's a damn liar, just like all the rest. Maybe not, I suppose, but if he really thinks that's true, it frightens me to think of someone controlling the nuclear football and the armed forces and the power to sign bills into law who suffers from that level of dementia or outright delusion.
Owlet
(1,248 posts)who doesn't think that the US should have troops stationed in over 100 countries. In that a lot of folks agree with him.
But it ain't gonna happen! 
leveymg
(36,418 posts)They want us to just shut up and go out and knock doors again, like we did in '08. Well, we would, gladly, if Obama had delivered the hoped for spirit of FDR instead of Herbert Hoover-style change.
Fool me once . . .
RZM
(8,556 posts)I didn't knock on a single door or give a dime. I knew what Obama was all about back then. That's why I voted against him in the primary. Not because I necessarily opposed him, but as a protest vote against 'Obamamania.' That was a truly ridiculous exercise in identity politics and projection.
But I still liked him better than McCain, so I got up at 6am on election day and stood in line to vote for him in the general. I'll do the same thing this November too.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)has been tough to bear. As for the "identity politics and projection" core of the '08 campaign, I agree. But, it worked. There doesn't seem to be any message or focus to this one, however, other than the GOP opponents are loonies and pinheads and the Dow Index is pretty much where it's been for the past decade.
Yes, I'll vote, and do my pollwatching DEPP as usual, but that's a civic duty. Wish he had some real accomplishment I could carry to another 4,000 doors, to follow-up on my last visit, just to be able to say, "See, he delivered." That would feel good. As there isn't, I don't think I'll be doing that again.
If we start another war with Iran and/or Syria, all bets are off, civic duty, or not.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)I know, FDR had a huge public mandate for change and Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress . . . oops.
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Not if he splinters off after he loses the Republican race and goes Third Party, which he hasn't ruled out.
RZM
(8,556 posts)But I wouldn't rule it out. I say it's 85-15 that he doesn't run as an independent.
lapislzi
(5,762 posts)As in, promise of cabinet post (good luck getting that through the Senate) or any and all manner of carrots.
They cannot afford a challenge from the predictably unpredictable right wing of their party.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Ron Paul's position on "the wars" is part of a general isolationist strategy that is dangerous and turns a blind-eye to human rights.
Ron Paul's position on drug control would produce chaos as claim at the very minimum thousands of lives from heroin and methamphetamine addiction.
Fuck Ron Paul.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Simultaneously advocating for single-payer. If we move to a single-payer HC system shouldn't we be advocating and discouraging the use of these drugs which put a HUGE strain on the HC system? I'm FOR the legalization/decriminalization of marijuana but please by all means keep meth and those other drugs that are a detriment to society illegal.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)His stance on the drug war still falls to states rights and that's not a federal programme to end the drug war. If anything it would escalate it as trafficking would be legal in one state and not in another, leading rise to cartels in no time.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)P.S. "programme" - 
this is America goddamnit, it's "program." Get with the program. 
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)But I left it 'cause it looked cooler, and it does refer to a "list of things." 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)should get a special pass.
Fuck Ron Paul!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184576
RZM
(8,556 posts)That's why I said 'wars' and not 'foreign policy.' And really, I should have said 'war' since our role in Iraq is as over as it's going to get (even if the conflict isn't). And no, I don't buy this '3/4/5/whatever wars Obama has got us in' stuff either.
But I do support reducing restrictions on all drugs, even the terrible ones like heroin and meth. They are out there now and people are using them now. I also understand that isn't realistic at this time. What is realistic is decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.
The larger point of the OP was that all of this Ron Paul stuff on DU is a tempest in a teapot. There are very few areas where people here agree with him, yet for some reason he's the cause of major arguments. I don't really see why. I say forget about him and move on.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I kid....I kid....
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)I would NOT say that Ron Paul is better than Obama regarding the wars - President Obama is DOING it, Paul is only 'talking' about it.
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts) woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Faux Freakout over Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002154246
ProSense
(116,464 posts)" The faux freakout over Ron Paul."
Calling out a racist running for the Republican nomination isn't a "faux freakout."