|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
No vote cast for either of them isn't an endorsement of the other. I don't hold my vote so worthless as to cast it for a candidate just because their opponent is horrible.
If I cast no vote at all or cast it for a third party candidate, I'll have considered it a failure of the GOP nominee to convince me that the sanction of my vote was worth casting a ballot in their favor.
That's precisely how I feel. I'm not going to whore out my vote and send the message that I'm a willing participant in this political BS contest.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565 |
Of course it's not a perfect statistic, but it goes both ways -- if you talk to a California republican - you will probably be talking to someone more aligned with national democrats.
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 08/13/12 12:56 AM.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,521
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,521 |
Like I said, you guys can vote for who you want, I respect that.
Just remember, your vote isn't always for somebody. Sometimes it is to be against somebody.
In a ideal world you vote your principal. Yep, that indeed does sound great. The problem with Arch's comment about they will then get stuck with who they voted for is that you and I are stuck with it as well, and face it, it is you and I who are going to end up paying the highest price.
So again, you can do what you want, but you are dreaming if you don't think your vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't aiding the President.
I almost wish it was like some local elections where if one person doesn't gain at least 50% of the vote, you had a run-off election between the two top two candidates.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
So again, you can do what you want, but you are dreaming if you don't think your vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't aiding the President.
I have no such delusions. I'm hoping my vote will aid Ron Paul. What I don't want, is to aid the status quo political machine that is the current state of the Republican party. They are not getting the message that we are fed up with candidates like McCain and Romney being forced upon us, and my vote is one of the very few tools at my disposal to try and fix the problem. Losing to Obama twice just might get the message across.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
But Ron Paul isn't running. He said that he would not run as a 3rd party candidate, and he lost the primary badly.
I could vote for Rom Paul on a mot of matters, but his foreign policy ideas scare the hell out of me. The last time we withdrew as he proposes, we wound up in 2 World Wars. I don't want to see a third.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Times have changed. Our presence in some areas appears to be doing more harm than good. We have a better chance of ending up in another war with either Obama or Romney in office. This crap with Iranian nukes smells an awful lot like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction....and another excuse to go to war.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm voting for who I strongly feel would make the best president. Maybe next time the Republicans won't ignore a like minded candidtate. He got the shaft in this campaign. Even Jonathan Stewart noticed how he was totally ignored and unsupported by the party and the media.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
How did he get ignored? He was covered quite a bit for a guy who never was a factor in the race. When seemingly every candidate won a state here or there, all Paul won were non-binding caucuses, all early on, and none that really mattered.
He won Iowa, Maine and Minnesota ..... and got 73 (non binding) delegates out of his total of 158 delegates in those 3 states. He actually got a pretty fair amount of coverage until his campaign faded and Romney became inevitable.
I like a lot of Paul's positions, but I just cannot get past his "we'll just ignore everyone" foreign (lack of?) policy position.
I'm also not a big fan of his "legalize everything" drug position.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,643 |
I like Ron Paul, but im throwing another vote away. I did that last election, and now I feel like I didn't do my part to keep Obama out of office.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
That's generically not true - more voters identify democrat than republican (and also more "total adults" including non-voters)
Most voters probably identify Democrat because they heard in government class that we were a Democracy, so they assume that means they are Democrat. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Thanks for that. It's obvious that both parties were scared to death of Paul having an impact in this election, and with their control over the media they minimized him.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,032 |
Quote:
Thanks for that. It's obvious that both parties were scared to death of Paul having an impact in this election, and with their control over the media they minimized him.
I agree.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
do you find something funny about researching before commenting?
Not at all. I'm just betting that we're going to go through the same thing we did four years ago with this one.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711 |
Quote:
I could vote for Rom Paul on a mot of matters, but his foreign policy ideas scare the hell out of me. The last time we withdrew as he proposes, we wound up in 2 World Wars. I don't want to see a third.
If you look at history, you will probably see that war has always destroyed a country and its economy. Peace brings prosperity. Our founding fathers knew this and encouraged treating others as we would like to be treated. Talk to them, trade with them, but don't involve ourselves with their problems. They also knew the importance of stable money.
One only has to look at Rome. They were unstoppable. Biggest economy, best military. Yet they expanded their empire too far, debasing their currency in the process. This lead to their inevitable fall.
When you say that you don't like his foreign policy you are basically saying you are for endless war and debt. You are certainly saying you are for big government too, because thats what war creates. Wars also mean a reduction of civil liberties as well.
Why can't this country just declare war if it is so important?
You talk about our 'isolationist' policies, and while i can't argue that we have had tariffs to protect us businesses over the years, staying out of wars unless we as a country are threatened should be the only priority.
Ron Paul is a "non-interventionalist" this is different than an "isolationist".
When you look at something like WWI everyone will talk about the Lusitania. That is certainly what I remember from school. There is a lot more to it when you look at the funding that we gave to certain sides. Bankers and US companies had a lot to lose if the war ended a certain way, and were making hefty profits selling stuff to those at war.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_1
There is tons of information out there as to why money, credit, and supplies played a part in our getting involved.
When you talk about WWII everyone will say Pearl Harbor, yet we were involved long before that. US companies were selling to both sides, then we stopped selling oil and scrap metal to Japan, and kept supplying the allies.
So Japan attacked us, then Germany and Italy declare war on us.
Those are acts of war. You help one side, then you are involved. Money, credit, and supplies were again the issue.
All of our problems always come down to one thing....money.
When President Eisenhower said "beware the military industrial complex" it should have been plain to see. Companies that profit off of war want to see war. Otherwise they have nothing to sell.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2
Bankers, credit, and US interests (companies) stood to gain/lose a lot based on the outcome of the war.
We've all been bamboozled by our national pride. This country is great. I'm patriotic. I still get goose-bumps when I hear the national anthem. If you speak up you are branded un-patriotic. Who wants that label?
I like Ron Paul because he simply states the truth, and if he loses because of it, then he is fine with it. We have our God given rights, he reminds us that they are ours.
It's OUR choice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being 'non-interventionalist' unless you loaned a bunch of money to the loser, or if nobody needs your product.
Spin war into a "patriotic" thing, or needed for "national defense" and you are set for life if you profit off of it. If your actually fighting, your probably dead.
This country ought to take a good hard look at how we won the cold war without firing a shot. Russia went broke. We are on that same path, with one small difference.
We print the money that is primarily used to pay for oil. Countries need alot of "dollars" to buy oil. You should go take a look at some of the countries that said they would use other forms of money to pay for oil. Iraq was one. Saddam was going to use Euros...Iraq is back to using dollars. Iran was taking gold as payment. What do you think is going to happen to them? China and Japan are going to make some trades in their own currencies.
You know whats going to happen if the world suddenly needs a lot less of a reserve in "dollars"? It means they won't need to finance our debt, and they won't need to hold so many dollars for oil. Our money will fast become worthless, and we'll be a third world country.
Then we won't have any 'defense', or prosperity. I think its about time we take care of our own people, other countries can take care of theirs.
Attitude is everything....FEAR THE ELF!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
Actually, I am not for war and more government. However, you need allies in the world if something happen ..... and it's hard to have allies if you refuse to ever support and/or cooperate with your allies when they need your help.
We went to war with Afghanistan because we were attacked. We went to war with Iraq because we believed that they were supporting terrorists, and because we had reason to believe that they could be a threat to us and/or our allies.
I don't have a huge problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the way we have gone about fighting wars. We should be fighting wars in a way that does the least amount of harm to our military members, wins the war in the quickest and most effective manner, does so in overwhelming and demoralizing fashion for the enemy, and then we get out. Our message should be "We destroyed this regime, and if another regime threatens us, we will destroy them as well. Destroying the regime is merciful, because frankly we could eradicate your country from the face of the earth."
People do not attack other people who they respect or fear.
We should be building equal and fair trade throughout the world, Our trade agreements generally suck, because we allow everyone to cheat on us. We should have strict, fair trade agreements, and enforce the provisions of those trade agreements to the letter.
We have become somewhat weak in that we care more about trying to make people like us as opposed to respecting us.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
So again, you can do what you want, but you are dreaming if you don't think your vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't aiding the President.
If more people voted 3rd party instead of "voting against" someone, a 3rd party candidate could actually win. Only 60% of eligible voters actually voted in the 2008 presidential election. If even half of the people that were eligible to vote but chose not to vote went out to the polls and voted for a 3rd party candidate, a third party candidate could get 20% of the vote and would drastically change the national dialogue on the 2 party system.
Edit to add: Out of 50 states, about 40 of them don't matter in this election. California is going to go Democrat, Texas Republican, etc. It's for this reason I've always been in favor a proportional electoral college (which I would get rid of completely but is unlikely to ever happen). Therefore, if someone gets 55% of the vote in California they get 55% of the delegates. This would make the election matter for every state instead of just a handful of swing states.
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565 |
We're pretty close to having the vote for president be decided by nation-wide popular vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We're pretty close to having the vote for president be decided by nation-wide popular vote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
As I read that map, it appears that the vast majority of states still fall in the "failed" category... as in this has been voted on and not passed... or am I reading it wrong?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,555
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,555 |
Quote:
Quote:
do you find something funny about researching before commenting?
Not at all. I'm just betting that we're going to go through the same thing we did four years ago with this one.
Oh,, well, that shouldn't be a surprise.. except that at least this time, Obama isn't getting my vote.. and unless Romney and this guy do something really brilliant to change my mind, they aren't getting my vote either,.
I still feel as if my choice is between dumb and dumber.
But I'll read up on the VP candidate.. I don't think it will change my mind, but I'll do the reading to decide..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565 |
Sorry, close was a little too optimistic -- but they are about halfway there (you only need 270 electoral votes worth of states to agree to it)
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,521
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,521 |
Quote:
Times have changed. Our presence in some areas appears to be doing more harm than good. We have a better chance of ending up in another war with either Obama or Romney in office. This crap with Iranian nukes smells an awful lot like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction....and another excuse to go to war.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm voting for who I strongly feel would make the best president. Maybe next time the Republicans won't ignore a like minded candidtate. He got the shaft in this campaign. Even Jonathan Stewart noticed how he was totally ignored and unsupported by the party and the media.
So who are you going to vote for? Paul isn't running.
I am sure there will be a few other names on there.
Sorry J, you are delusional if you think voting for a 3rd candidate is going to make a positive difference. It isn't.
Not this year anyway.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
I have no clue why any small state would agree to that.
Campaign in the big states .... promise them the world ...... and ignore the little, "meaningless" states.
If certain states think that they are "flyover" now, wait till their minuscule populations are ignored, because they just don't matter.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,565 |
Quote:
I have no clue why any small state would agree to that.
Campaign in the big states .... promise them the world ...... and ignore the little, "meaningless" states.
If certain states think that they are "flyover" now, wait till their minuscule populations are ignored, because they just don't matter.
They probably wont (the big ones have a huge incentive to -- especially the big ones that that are relatively tilted to Reps/Dems (i.e. California/Texas/New York)
But this is not a constitutional amendment, you don't need 3/4 of the states to agree, you just need 270 of the electoral votes to agree. They are at 134 at the moment.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
Quote:
Times have changed. Our presence in some areas appears to be doing more harm than good. We have a better chance of ending up in another war with either Obama or Romney in office. This crap with Iranian nukes smells an awful lot like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction....and another excuse to go to war.
As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm voting for who I strongly feel would make the best president. Maybe next time the Republicans won't ignore a like minded candidtate. He got the shaft in this campaign. Even Jonathan Stewart noticed how he was totally ignored and unsupported by the party and the media.
So who are you going to vote for? Paul isn't running.
I am sure there will be a few other names on there.
Sorry J, you are delusional if you think voting for a 3rd candidate is going to make a positive difference. It isn't.
Not this year anyway.
Delusional is kind of harsh, isn't it? I really believe that my vote has value, and I'm not whoring it out to vote for some out of touch hypocrite because he's the lesser of two evils. I do like Ryan (there are some great videos out there of him undressing both Obama and Romney), but the VP is nothing more than a figure head. I also believe that being a conservative and refusing to accept whatever the Republican party forces down my throat does indeed send a message.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Of course it's not a perfect statistic, but it goes both ways -- if you talk to a California republican - you will probably be talking to someone more aligned with national democrats.
There aren't many Republicans left in California and any conservative ones are relics of a great bygone era.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Like I said, you guys can vote for who you want, I respect that.
Just remember, your vote isn't always for somebody. Sometimes it is to be against somebody.
In a ideal world you vote your principal. Yep, that indeed does sound great. The problem with Arch's comment about they will then get stuck with who they voted for is that you and I are stuck with it as well, and face it, it is you and I who are going to end up paying the highest price.
So again, you can do what you want, but you are dreaming if you don't think your vote for a 3rd party candidate isn't aiding the President.
I almost wish it was like some local elections where if one person doesn't gain at least 50% of the vote, you had a run-off election between the two top two candidates.
You could always ask that we use the Australian system. Take all the candidates and rate them from 1 to however many there are. Then, if your choices are just the main two parties (the Liberals - which are the conservatives, and Labor (no, they don't add the 'u' - which are the leftists), which of them would you prefer. They call it the 'two party preference'.
If it came to that, I would have to choose the Republicans over the Socialists Coalition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
But Ron Paul isn't running. He said that he would not run as a 3rd party candidate, and he lost the primary badly.
I could vote for Rom Paul on a mot of matters, but his foreign policy ideas scare the hell out of me. The last time we withdrew as he proposes, we wound up in 2 World Wars. I don't want to see a third.
You and me both, YTown. If I were to cast a vote solely on economic matters and had no concerns about foreign policy (sadly, we have to have those concerns), Ron Paul would probably get my vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Times have changed. Our presence in some areas appears to be doing more harm than good. We have a better chance of ending up in another war with either Obama or Romney in office. This crap with Iranian nukes smells an awful lot like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction....and another excuse to go to war.
Would you favor a pre-emptive strike? Would you support a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Iran? I might. I only have to take the leaders of Iran at their word for a casus belli against them.
Quote:
As far as Ron Paul goes, I'm voting for who I strongly feel would make the best president. Maybe next time the Republicans won't ignore a like minded candidate. He got the shaft in this campaign. Even Jonathan Stewart noticed how he was totally ignored and unsupported by the party and the media.
Ron Paul has always been on the fringe because he's dangerously a pacifist when it comes to war. Even the Founding Fathers knew that war was necessary from time-to-time. It was Thomas Jefferson that declared war against the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
Quote:
Times have changed. Our presence in some areas appears to be doing more harm than good. We have a better chance of ending up in another war with either Obama or Romney in office. This crap with Iranian nukes smells an awful lot like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction....and another excuse to go to war.
Would you favor a pre-emptive strike? Would you support a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Iran? I might. I only have to take the leaders of Iran at their word for a casus belli against them.
I dunno if I want to do anything about Iran, but I'd surely tell Israel that I won't interfere with anything they do with that country. While I believe Israel's government is oppressive toward the Palestinians, I can't believe that they will allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. All that would need to happen is some revolution to go down, and the weapon in the process to get moved to Hezbollah (which is supported by Iran).
Then things would really hit the fan. Can't imagine Israel allowing something like that to occur. As much as I hate their government, they do what they think is best for themselves and their people. And I don't think they're going to let us keep them from protecting themselves. They understand that, that overall, you have to look out for yourself.
I figured action would already have taken place this summer.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
Would you favor a pre-emptive strike? Would you support a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Iran? I might. I only have to take the leaders of Iran at their word for a casus belli against them.
That's scary. If you're taking people at their word, then I guess you were all for us going to war with Iraq, or maybe we ought to invade Venezuela?
Quote:
Ron Paul has always been on the fringe because he's dangerously a pacifist when it comes to war. Even the Founding Fathers knew that war was necessary from time-to-time. It was Thomas Jefferson that declared war against the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli.
I don't think he's dangerously pacifist. He's stated that he'd have no problem responding to an immediate threat to United States territory.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
I dunno if I want to do anything about Iran, but I'd surely tell Israel that I won't interfere with anything they do with that country. While I believe Israel's government is oppressive toward the Palestinians, I can't believe that they will allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. All that would need to happen is some revolution to go down, and the weapon in the process to get moved to Hezbollah (which is supported by Iran).
Then things would really hit the fan. Can't imagine Israel allowing something like that to occur. As much as I hate their government, they do what they think is best for themselves and their people. And I don't think they're going to let us keep them from protecting themselves. They understand that, that overall, you have to look out for yourself.
I figured action would already have taken place this summer.
I don't really care for Israel or anyone else, but like you, I wouldn't fault any nation for doing what they think is right for their own protection against nations that openly state that their intentions are to eliminate the Jewish state.
As for the Palestinians, they live on Israeli territory, and like it or not, they aren't oppressed. Look at the conditions of Palestinians that live in Israel compared to those that live in the neighboring Arab states or in the 'Palestinian' areas of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. To make it even a more profound comparison, look at those that live in the West Bank as compared to those in Hamas-governed Gaza Strip.
As for them all, I wouldn't care if they blew each other off the map. It would solve a lot of friction in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
Would you favor a pre-emptive strike? Would you support a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Iran? I might. I only have to take the leaders of Iran at their word for a casus belli against them.
That's scary. If you're taking people at their word, then I guess you were all for us going to war with Iraq, or maybe we ought to invade Venezuela?
Not quite. Venezuela doesn't have the ability to do much harm. A radical Islamist state with nukes can do a great deal of harm.
We've been to war with Iraq. We still have troops there.
As for my foreign policy, it would simply be this:
The United States reserves the right to act militarily against any aggressor nation (as it deems) who attacks any other nation. We may, or may not, exercise this right, based upon our interests, the facts of the situation or whatever other criteria deemed appropriate. If the United States decides to use military force, our first option is to use nuclear weapons. It would only take one such instance for our resolve to be understood globally.
Quote:
Ron Paul has always been on the fringe because he's dangerously a pacifist when it comes to war. Even the Founding Fathers knew that war was necessary from time-to-time. It was Thomas Jefferson that declared war against the Barbary States of Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli.
Quote:
I don't think he's dangerously pacifist. He's stated that he'd have no problem responding to an immediate threat to United States territory.
What does he consider United States territory? And what does he consider an immediate threat to it? What about our nation's interests in commerce abroad and keeping the routes of trade open?
For example, would he be willing to send American troops into Egypt to secure the Suez Canal? Into Panama to secure the Panama Canal? What would he be willing to do to protect American interests (no, I don't care about our alliances and I'm not referring to them). Would he send troops into Africa to secure supplies of rubber? What would he be willing to use military force to do, not to protect American soil, but American interests across the globe?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,247 |
Quote:
Not quite. Venezuela doesn't have the ability to do much harm. A radical Islamist state with nukes can do a great deal of harm.
We've been to war with Iraq. We still have troops there.
As for my foreign policy, it would simply be this:
The United States reserves the right to act militarily against any aggressor nation (as it deems) who attacks any other nation. We may, or may not, exercise this right, based upon our interests, the facts of the situation or whatever other criteria deemed appropriate. If the United States decides to use military force, our first option is to use nuclear weapons. It would only take one such instance for our resolve to be understood globally.
"The facts of the situation or other criteria deemed appropriate"? Who deems them appropriate.....the same people who deemed Saddam's weapons of mass destruction appropriate? We saw the bickering that went on with that. There's such animosity in our government between the parties right now they'd rather win the argument than do what's right. They're making decisions to please the interests of lobbyists. I don't want these bozo's deciding whether or not to nuke somebody.
Quote:
What does he consider United States territory? And what does he consider an immediate threat to it? What about our nation's interests in commerce abroad and keeping the routes of trade open?
For example, would he be willing to send American troops into Egypt to secure the Suez Canal? Into Panama to secure the Panama Canal? What would he be willing to do to protect American interests (no, I don't care about our alliances and I'm not referring to them). Would he send troops into Africa to secure supplies of rubber? What would he be willing to use military force to do, not to protect American soil, but American interests across the globe?
We're bankrupt. Those situations will affect other countries also. Maybe they can shoulder some of that load. How has our intervention in the middle east affected the price of oil? How has our meddling in Egypt and Libya helped our interests? That's the type of military intervention Paul was talking about.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
As for the Palestinians, they live on Israeli territory, and like it or not, they aren't oppressed. Look at the conditions of Palestinians that live in Israel compared to those that live in the neighboring Arab states or in the 'Palestinian' areas of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. To make it even a more profound comparison, look at those that live in the West Bank as compared to those in Hamas-governed Gaza Strip.
The point isn't about their living conditions at all. It's the fact that they aren't even citizens on their own land. Living on the Westbank, can they vote in an Israeli election? No.
Had they been allowed to vote, Israel never would have existed in the first place.
Some group of people invade your land and all of a sudden take over. What would you do? Some 18 year old kid degrades you at a check point you have to go through to get around your own land. Would you feel oppressed? The government bulldozes your mom's house looking for "tunnels", would you not feel oppressed?
The economic state of Palestinians in Gaza verses that of those in the West Bank doesn't matter. They can do whatever they want and I won't blame them. That land is theirs.
Do I condone suicide bombing and other extreme measures, nope. But do I get it? Of course. We'd do the same thing in this country in different ways had it happened to us. And that's the argument some country is gonna give "But we've provided a better economic life for you". Were they ever asked to provide a better economic life? And how about the Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes decades ago, still living in refugee camps. Explain that one?
We obviously have different views on "oppressed". Oppression is a lot more than material things, and West Bank and Gaza is both poor anyway. Sure, Gaza is a hell hole, but it doesn't change the fact that those in the West Bank are certainly oppressed.
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,958 |
That entire area has been up in the air as far as "ownership" following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
There was no Palestine until the League of Nations created it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,336 |
Quote:
That entire area has been up in the air as far as "ownership" following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.
There was no Palestine until the League of Nations created it.
May be as far as politcally, but those same people (the ones we call "palestinians") have been there far longer than the breakup of the Ottoman Empire
UCONN HUSKIES 2014 Champions of Basketball
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
"The facts of the situation or other criteria deemed appropriate"? Who deems them appropriate.....the same people who deemed Saddam's weapons of mass destruction appropriate? We saw the bickering that went on with that. There's such animosity in our government between the parties right now they'd rather win the argument than do what's right. They're making decisions to please the interests of lobbyists. I don't want these bozo's deciding whether or not to nuke somebody.
If they were following my doctrine, deeming the criteria appropriate would be decided by the president of the United States and the Congress of the United States.
Quote:
We're bankrupt. Those situations will affect other countries also. Maybe they can shoulder some of that load. How has our intervention in the middle east affected the price of oil? How has our meddling in Egypt and Libya helped our interests? That's the type of military intervention Paul was talking about.
You won't get any argument from me about the state of the nation's finances. We are bankrupt - in more ways than one.
But, you didn't answer the question about what would be determined to be U.S. territory with Ron Paul. So, I ask again, what would be considered U.S. territory worth defending under Ron Paul's administration?
You already know what MY foreign policy would be. Would I intervene? Probably, and I'd do it according to MY foreign policy.
I think, after one implementation of MY foreign policy, there wouldn't be a lot of nations clamoring to challenge us again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,370 |
Quote:
Quote:
As for the Palestinians, they live on Israeli territory, and like it or not, they aren't oppressed. Look at the conditions of Palestinians that live in Israel compared to those that live in the neighboring Arab states or in the 'Palestinian' areas of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. To make it even a more profound comparison, look at those that live in the West Bank as compared to those in Hamas-governed Gaza Strip.
The point isn't about their living conditions at all. It's the fact that they aren't even citizens on their own land. Living on the Westbank, can they vote in an Israeli election? No.
I don't care, really. I really don't. But, in answer to your question, yes, they do.
Quote:
Had they been allowed to vote, Israel never would have existed in the first place.
Israel was created by the United Nations in 1948. Jordan was created in the same fashion in 1946. Syria was created in 1946 in the same way. Lebanon was created the same way in 1943 (during WW2). Iraq was created the same way in 1932.
I don't know what your intended point is about whether Israel would existed or not and who would have voted for it. I'm sorry to tell you, but that's just showing your historical ignorance.
Quote:
Some group of people invade your land and all of a sudden take over. What would you do? Some 18 year old kid degrades you at a check point you have to go through to get around your own land. Would you feel oppressed? The government bulldozes your mom's house looking for "tunnels", would you not feel oppressed?
I'm not a defender of Israel by any stretch, but I can't stand false statements trying to be put out as the truth.
Israel was attacked by it's neighbors and won the ensuing wars. In the peace agreements that followed these wars, Israel gained control of the territory. It happens. Ask the Germans in Poland what they think of it? How about the Germans in Russia (yeah, there still there)? Yeah, the Kaliningrad Oblast on the Baltic Sea were ethnic Germans prior to WW2. Now, they represent just 1/2 of 1 percent of the population. Maybe the Russians should give it back. Most of western Poland was also German territory. Borders change and they always will.
Quote:
The economic state of Palestinians in Gaza verses that of those in the West Bank doesn't matter. They can do whatever they want and I won't blame them. That land is theirs.
It absolutely matters because the Palestinians in the West Bank have chosen a more peaceful route with Israel and those in the Gaza Strip have chosen a belligerent one. See the statement above about your idiotic (yes, it's idiotic) statement about 'the land is theirs.'
Quote:
Do I condone suicide bombing and other extreme measures, nope. But do I get it? Of course.
Then I take it that you do, in fact, condone suicide bombing.
Quote:
We'd do the same thing in this country in different ways had it happened to us. And that's the argument some country is gonna give "But we've provided a better economic life for you". Were they ever asked to provide a better economic life? And how about the Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes decades ago, still living in refugee camps. Explain that one?
I don't care what their reasons are for anything they do. Israel's policies are their own business. I could get into the expelling of Palestinians from Syria, Jordan, and most every adjacent Arab state.
...from Syria.
...from Jordan.
Quote:
We obviously have different views on "oppressed". Oppression is a lot more than material things, and West Bank and Gaza is both poor anyway. Sure, Gaza is a hell hole, but it doesn't change the fact that those in the West Bank are certainly oppressed.
Obviously we do. I feel oppressed by the United States government and it's the only one which I care about the policies of, whether they are domestic or foreign policies. Why should I give a crap about Israel's policies, Myanmar's policies, Sudanese policies, et al, unless they have an effect on U.S. policy? I really don't care about other nations policies. Sure, there are humanitarian tragedies played out across the globe - and I feel bad for those that suffer with them, but I cannot concern myself with them. I don't think you should either. It sucks to be them and you can pray to God (or not) about taking care of them, but should we do care about them? No.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Romney To Announce VP Saturday @
8:45 AM
|
|
