PDA

View Full Version : Ron Pauls Campaign.....



MMC
11-03-2011, 03:37 PM
Doobie Brothers*Taking it to the Streets*Ron Paul 2012 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvfndNQ1b_E#)

Looks Like Michael McDonald is backing Paul.

MMC
11-03-2011, 03:46 PM
Ron Paul ∞ Speaking at California GOP Straw Poll & Wins (1/2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThKgmFo7Z4#)

Here Paul talks about foreign policy after he won the Straw poll in California. Here he states Not in NATO. The UN not telling us when to go to war. No more Containment Wars.

MMC
11-03-2011, 03:48 PM
Ron Paul Wins California Straw Poll! CNN Puts its Typical Spin on it... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mfmWG9d8cE#)

Listen to how CNN talks about Paul.

Juggernaut
11-03-2011, 08:14 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.

Conley
11-03-2011, 08:20 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


What do you think about Rand Paul? I don't know much about his foreign policy views but he seems less out there than his dad.

wingrider
11-06-2011, 01:35 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


Ron Paul has a very sound foriegn policy

freindship, trade but no nation building and no intervention, If Iran is a threat to her neighbors then let Irans neighbors take care of iran,, it is none of our business,

Maybe Paul is more correct on his views than the media gives him credit for, The biggest obstacle that Paul faces is the media and its bias.

Mister D
11-06-2011, 01:41 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


RP's stance on immigration is typical of libertarians and is the one of the main reasons why I could not identify with libertarians.

Conley
11-06-2011, 01:54 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


RP's stance on immigration is typical of libertarians and is the one of the main reasons why I could not identify with libertarians.


What is his stance on immigration?

Mister D
11-06-2011, 01:56 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


RP's stance on immigration is typical of libertarians and is the one of the main reasons why I could not identify with libertarians.


What is his stance on immigration?


He's an open borders loon like most libertarians.

Conley
11-06-2011, 02:06 PM
RP doesn't have a chance because of his odd positions on immigration and foreign policy. He doesn't think Iran is a threat, maybe not to the US but clearly that regime needs to fall the same way Egypt did.

RP shouldn't retire though, he's a good voice on economic policy. Last term, farewell dude.


RP's stance on immigration is typical of libertarians and is the one of the main reasons why I could not identify with libertarians.


What is his stance on immigration?


He's an open borders loon like most libertarians.


Uhh...read these and I think you will find that you like him better:

Paul considers it a "boondoggle" for the U.S. to spend much money policing other countries' borders (such as the Iraq–Syria border) while leaving its own borders porous and unpatrolled;[33] he argues the U.S.–Mexico border can be crossed by anyone, including potential terrorists.

Paul believes illegal aliens take a toll on welfare and Social Security and would end such benefits, concerned that uncontrolled immigration makes the U.S. a magnet for illegal aliens, increases welfare payments, and exacerbates the strain on an already highly unbalanced federal budget.[54]

Paul believes that illegal immigrants should not be given an "unfair advantage" under law.[55] He has advocated a "coherent immigration policy", and has spoken strongly against amnesty for illegal aliens because he believes it undermines the rule of law, grants pardons to lawbreakers,[56] and subsidizes more illegal immigration.[57]

Paul voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, authorizing an additional 700 miles (1100 kilometers) of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico mainly because he wanted enforcement of the law and opposed amnesty not because he supported the construction of a border fence.[58]

Paul believes that mandated hospital emergency treatment for illegal aliens should be ceased and that assistance from charities should instead be sought because there should be no federal mandates on providing health care for illegal aliens.[58]

Paul also believes children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens should not be granted automatic birthright citizenship.[59] He has called for a new Constitutional amendment to revise fourteenth amendment principles and "end automatic birthright citizenship",[60] and believes that welfare issues are directly tied to the illegal immigration problem.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Borders_and_immigr ation

How do you like him now? :D

Mister D
11-06-2011, 02:21 PM
I don't because illegal immigration isn't the issue. RP, like most libertarians, is for an open border. It's part and parcel of how libertarians view the world. I'm not impressed by this talk of illegal immigration.

What would you make of the argument that in order to be in favor of free trade you ought to be in favor of free immigration?

Well, I guess there's a little bit to that, but I don't think it's an absolute. Trade is different from people coming in, especially when they get benefits and when they come in illegally. I guess you can say it's an ideal that you could work toward.

We've done pretty well with Canada over the years.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-i-believe-in-national-sovereignty

Read on. No way I'd trust a libertarian on this issue.

Mister D
11-06-2011, 02:23 PM
It's the usual libertarian spiel about getting rid of the welfare state.

Conley
11-06-2011, 02:28 PM
From the article:

So in many ways, I'm pretty moderate and mainstream. I'm not radical either way. I don't want to put tanks and shoot illegal immigrants as they come over, that's one extreme. The other is totally open borders—just let them flow in.

So he's not for open borders. He cites Canada as an example where edit: somewhat open borders have worked, but he says it is the job of the federal government to secure the borders. He wouldn't change immigration quotas and if we enforced the laws on the books that would be a huge step in the right direction. Compared to the stances of just about every other candidate who is for amnesty one way or another I would think he would win points for that.

Mister D
11-06-2011, 02:38 PM
From the article:

So in many ways, I'm pretty moderate and mainstream. I'm not radical either way. I don't want to put tanks and shoot illegal immigrants as they come over, that's one extreme. The other is totally open borders—just let them flow in.

So he's not for open borders. He cites Canada as an example where open borders have worked, but he says it is the job of the federal government to secure the borders. He wouldn't change immigration quotas and if we enforced the laws on the books that would be a huge step in the right direction. Compared to the stances of just about every other candidate who is for amnesty one way or another I would think he would win points for that.


Who has ever suggested shooting illegal immigrants? Hyperbole much, Ron? ::)

Anyway, the issue for me is that Paul, like most libertarians, sees immigration solely in terms of economics. Moreover, his views on legal immigration are what concerns me. I'll grant you that on illegals he has a better stated position than the other candidates. Here is a good review of his positions:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/ron-paul-on-immigration-the-good-the-bad-and-the-idiosyncratic

Conley
11-06-2011, 02:46 PM
"Hispandering"

:rofl:

Fair enough. When he says stuff like, "He told ABC's John Stossel that without the welfare state, legal immigration "would be a non-issue."" In my mind he is attributing the illegal immigration to the benefits that await Mexicans here. If you remove the benefits and thus the illegals, is there still a big problem with immigration?

Mister D
11-06-2011, 02:48 PM
"Hispandering"

:rofl:


:D I never heard the before either.

To wit, my language was too strong. You're right about that. I just don't trust libertarians at all. There are a few Europeans libertarians I like but no Americans. This guy is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Immigration

Conley
11-06-2011, 03:01 PM
Interesting guy...it makes sense to be leery of Libertarians regarding immigration since it seems the platform position would be wide open.