Presidential Election: 2012

[Danoff]

What Paul seems to be saying most times to gain the interest of voters is that he is more hesitant to be in war through methods of acting as the world Police. Yes Isolation isn't good in some aspects, but being in everyone's business has really done wonders for our economy and other issues. If Iran wants to retract their signature like NK then who are we to not allow this

...the people they entered into a contract with.

The thing is, you are assuming that a Paul administration is just going to pull the covers over its head and sit oblivious to the rest of the world while it fixes the economy. A reluctance to go to war does not mean that steps can't be taken to make sure the NPT is followed. And if it isn't, despite those steps taken, then it is appropriate to gather the rest of the state signatories and put a collective declaration of war on the table.

Paul has said nothing to make me think any of this is true. All he has done is apologize for Iran and suggest that it's none of our business whether they abide by the treaty they signed with us.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

...the people they entered into a contract with.



Paul has said nothing to make me think any of this is true. All he has done is apologize for Iran and suggest that it's none of our business whether they abide by the treaty they signed with us.

Well let's get back to a question that was asked earlier of you and you avoided like the best pundits. Who are you looking at voting for? Also if they wish to not follow the treaty, like we all have said that is their choice and their issue but we should be aware of them, not commanding or telling them how they should act. Us blowing smoke up our butts isn't going to make them change their position and this is what Paul sees as well. If Iran gave a crap about following international papers to a tee then we wouldn't be hear talking like this.

Omnis I also wanted to say you make a good point about us hanging with our allies, we went after Libya but not Bahrain or Syria for their actions which mirror Libya. It seems we only did it because the others seem to be friends of the administration.

 

[arora]

I wrote a rough response while preoccupied with my younger kid, so pick away if it makes no sense

You're not really listening to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that ignoring what the rest of the world is doing is not going to keep us safe or solve problems.

I agree with that(I'm not ignoring you). We need to clean up our unfair practices, thus eliminating the majority of said problems.

Ron Paul seems to think that we should just ignore our past treaties and let countries like Iran or North Korea acquire nuclear weapons (that they committed not to acquire) and that some how this will be better in the long run since we're leaving them alone.

We should conduct ourselves better on the world stage, maybe then not needing all these treaties. In case you somehow missed it, I am very conservative Because of that I want to see the U.S. self sufficient, or at least as much as reasonably possible. I agree with you that treaties in place should be upheld or ammended or desolved of properly. I believe we will be better off in the long run the less we engage with, or meddle with, other countries period.

I think that's incredibly arrogant and naive. These are not exactly parts of the world that recognize human rights. They cause enough problems without nuclear weapons.

Arrogant/naive in thinking we are not touchable by simply leaving everyone alone, I agree but I don't think that is what he is saying. The fact these countries do not recognize human rights is very troubling to say the least, and probably does indicate a more willingness to wage war. I don't have the answers in changing how they treat their citizens but don't believe it's the U.S. Gov's place to say. We don't do a very good job either if you think about it and it's getting worse. I would like to think leading our country better and being better people ourselves can have an infuence(now that is nieve )

Torching the NPT (as Ron Paul seems to want) will not only greatly increase the likelihood that one of these nukes will actually get used, but will weaken all active US treaties and undermine future foreign policy as well.

Perhaps, but the way we go about 'preventing' war is not that great atm. I would like the U.S. to pull out of all global organizations like the U.N. etc etc, so you know I'm way on the other side. Banding with others in the words of 'we are globel police and know what is best' is obserd to me. I'm afraid we are loosing our souvrenty and at the same time turning into the enemy we claim to fight. It's deffinatly true that we can't just say "we were only joking to see if you'd go for it, now carry on." You have to take a closer look at these countries motives and our forign policy track record.

The one thing I would never want to see is the U.S. Federal Gov reduce national defense, key word being defense, not all the other crap we keep pulling. I'm not with you guys on that part, stop pointless wars, stop funding the u.n., stop fighting for n.a.t.o, stop all of that, but don't weaken our military. It's the one thing the Fed is actually designed for ffs.

 

[Danoff]

Well let's get back to a question that was asked earlier of you and you avoided like the best pundits. Who are you looking at voting for?

Dunno. Perhaps someone who hasn't entered the race yet. The election is not exactly soon.

Also if they wish to not follow the treaty, like we all have said that is their choice and their issue but we should be aware of them, not commanding or telling them how they should act.

In this one regard we get to tell them how to act (because they signed a contract). If they ignore us, we get to make threats, and we even get to back them up if we so choose. We need to consider the message we send to others when we allow a country not to follow a treaty they signed with us.

I agree with that(I'm not ignoring you). We need to clean up our unfair practices, thus eliminating the majority of said problems.

No doubt that's true. But Paul wants to pull out of everything immediately. He has said so. It's an irresponsible desire and statement.

 

[Omnis]

Again, in Paul's defense, he has also alluded to dealing with these kinds of situations in the same way we dealt with the Soviets and the Chinese. So it definitely isn't a run and hide plan of action.

This is definitely something that should be addressed in greater detail as I've said before. I think we will have to hear a more detailed response the closer we get to election time, especially since so many votes (like Danoff's) are likely being hesitantly held from being cast for Paul based solely on this one issue. That would be the responsible thing for the media to do. Then again, we may not hear anything because the media just wants to ignore Paul. Useless bastards...

 

[ChaosStar79]

The one thing I would never want to see is the U.S. Federal Gov reduce national defense, key word being defense, not all the other crap we keep pulling. I'm not with you guys on that part, stop pointless wars, stop funding the u.n., stop fighting for n.a.t.o, stop all of that, but don't weaken our military. It's the one thing the Fed is actually designed for ffs.

I agree with you on so much, but I don't think his plan would weaken our defense, I actually think it would make us much stronger because we would have enough manpower located here in the states to police our borders and concentrate on being ready for more immediate threats to our nation.

Again, in Paul's defense, he has also alluded to dealing with these kinds of situations in the same way we dealt with the Soviets and the Chinese. So it definitely isn't a run and hide plan of action.

This is definitely something that should be addressed in greater detail as I've said before. I think we will have to hear a more detailed response the closer we get to election time, especially since so many votes (like Danoff's) are likely being hesitantly held from being cast for Paul based solely on this one issue. That would be the responsible thing for the media to do. Then again, we may not hear anything because the media just wants to ignore Paul. Useless bastards...

I was about to post the same clip. Oh well, here is an alternate link to the same vid but on The Daily Paul RonPaulFlix, in case that one gets taken down. They have been trying to cleanse the internet of this one already so I wouldn't be surprised if something did happen.

 

[FoolKiller]

This is not a small blemish. This guy is on record as saying the first thing he would do in office is call back all US military personnel. Not trusting the guy with foreign policy is kindof a big deal. I like the domestic policy, but the foreign policy needs major work.

Doesn't matter, he won't be the on republican ticket anyway.

Does not answer the question, which is quite unlike you, so take this next statement with the humor I intend.

Do you know my wife?

It appears you think I am trying to catch you on something and make Ron Paul appear better, but I'm not. I understand your concerns regarding Iran and if security is high on your list of priorities I can't argue you out of your decision. Personally, I feel we have lost too much in the name of security and the last thing we need is another war, or a president who talks like that is even his decision to make.

Dunno. Perhaps someone who hasn't entered the race yet. The election is not exactly soon.

That would be a "No" then.

Ron Paul seems to think that we should just ignore our past treaties and let countries like Iran or North Korea acquire nuclear weapons (that they committed not to acquire) and that some how this will be better in the long run since we're leaving them alone.

Do you think that we should be going after NK too?

This is definitely something that should be addressed in greater detail as I've said before. I think we will have to hear a more detailed response the closer we get to election time, especially since so many votes (like Danoff's) are likely being hesitantly held from being cast for Paul based solely on this one issue. That would be the responsible thing for the media to do.

I have actually found a lot of voters that were hesitant to vote for him over numerous issues that were not understood until they read his books. And I think that is an important bit of education for voters. He doesn't write his books as his memoirs, but as his political thoughts.

 

[Danoff]

Do you think that we should be going after NK too?

Yes.

Do I think we need to go to war with Iran and NK? No. But we need to be firm with them and hold them to their commitments. Certainly we need to have the will to fight for our treaties.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes.

Do I think we need to go to war with Iran and NK? No. But we need to be firm with them and hold them to their commitments. Certainly we need to have the will to fight for our treaties.

But North Korea exited the treaty by following the exit clause of the treaty. They are officially, and legally, no longer a member of the treaty. They are no more in violation of it than India or Pakistan.

And how much firmer are you thinking we need to be with Iran that doesn't involve military action?

 

[Danoff]

But North Korea exited the treaty by following the exit clause of the treaty. They are officially, and legally, no longer a member of the treaty. They are no more in violation of it than India or Pakistan.

And how much firmer are you thinking we need to be with Iran that doesn't involve military action?

North Korea exited legitimately? Or simply announced that they were going to ignore it...

Actually I don't think we need to do anything with Iran until we find them in violation of the NPT - which we haven't. They got in trouble with inspections a while back, but I think that's been resolved.

This whole conversation is predicated on the notion that Iran would like to violate the NPT and will eventually be caught doing something nasty - at which point we need to have the will to act.

 

[FoolKiller]

North Korea exited legitimately? Or simply announced that they were going to ignore it...

Announced their intent on January 10, 2003, exited on April 10, 2003. A 90 days notice given as per the exit clause, despite disagreement between NK and other NPT nations that because North Korea had announced their exit in 1993 and stopped after 89 days that they only required one days notice. Their reason for leaving was because of US accusations in October of 2002. Because their reason for leaving was due to possibly being caught violating NPT (by CIA, not IAEA mind you) it could be argued that they are in violation, but during the six-party talks in 2005 it was acknowledged that they had left NPT and they were asked to join on again.

 

[Danoff]

Their reason for leaving was because of US accusations in October of 2002. Because their reason for leaving was due to possibly being caught violating NPT (by CIA, not IAEA mind you) it could be argued that they are in violation

Yea, that's dubious.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/16/ron-pauls-new-ad-the-one-who-can-beat-obama/

The One

Ron Paul one minute campaign video.

 

[Keef]

Probably the most epic campaign ad of all time.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes.

Do I think we need to go to war with Iran and NK? No. But we need to be firm with them and hold them to their commitments. Certainly we need to have the will to fight for our treaties.

Yeah that's done quite alot in the past. Once again Israel will make sure Iran has many problems with their nuclear arms. NK on the other hand doesn't seem to be able to get missiles over the sea of japan and the issue with their nukes is something to take up with Pakiston, since the evidence shows they were the ones that gave NK the start up. So we should just start going after nuclear nations then that aren't the main 5 or top tier that is? You seem to have this idea that if we're the nagging wife they'll some how care at the end of the day, that seems pretty naive. I'm not saying your wrong but just unrealistic and more of an idealist. Sactions dont matter to them so what else do you purpose?

Yea, that's dubious.

What side exactly?

 

[Keef]

Jon Stewart is rad.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah that's done quite alot in the past. Once again Israel will make sure Iran has many problems with their nuclear arms. NK on the other hand doesn't seem to be able to get missiles over the sea of japan and the issue with their nukes is something to take up with Pakiston, since the evidence shows they were the ones that gave NK the start up. So we should just start going after nuclear nations then that aren't the main 5 or top tier that is? You seem to have this idea that if we're the nagging wife they'll some how care at the end of the day, that seems pretty naive. I'm not saying your wrong but just unrealistic and more of an idealist. Sactions dont matter to them so what else do you purpose?

We have a (short) history of invading and occupying countries that violate our treaties. I think we should just ask them to stop... carefully. At this point, the should listen.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

We have a (short) history of invading and occupying countries that violate our treaties. I think we should just ask them to stop... carefully. At this point, the should listen.

We also have a history of putting in rulers we deem fit hence why Iran dislikes us in the first place. Either way the U.S. isn't a innocent victim in all this like you make us out to be Danoff.

 

[Danoff]

We also have a history of putting in rulers we deem fit hence why Iran dislikes us in the first place. Either way the U.S. isn't a innocent victim in all this like you make us out to be Danoff.

I'm not making us out to be anything except the holder of a contract with interests in the contract.

 

[Nicksfix]

Michele Bachmann 👍

 

[DK]

^ I honestly believe that if Bachmann were to run for office in Europe, she would be not allowed to do so on account of her being clinically insane.

 

[Omnis]

Well your european politicos aren't exactly god's gift to humanity despite what they may think.

 

[DK]

^ I'm well aware of that, but I seriously can't trust anybody who thinks the Earth's age is in the quadruple-digits to control a superpower.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm not making us out to be anything except the holder of a contract with interests in the contract.

Just saying we seem to have a big issue with it but the other four main powers don't really care besides the UK. China and Russia don't have much issue with it and France has been known to help these types of countries start nuclear power. I agree with you in an aspect though you have a point they made a deal with us.

^ I'm well aware of that, but I seriously can't trust anybody who thinks the Earth's age is in the quadruple-digits to control a superpower.

Funny and true, I also like when Cobert called Rick Perry Yosemite Sam. That was hillarious.

 

[disinfected]

Obama approval is down to 38%...I'll vote Hulk Hogan 2012 at this point to get him out of there.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Obama approval is down to 38%...I'll vote Hulk Hogan 2012 at this point to get him out of there.

I heard Snoopy is running a good campaign early on

 

[Northstar]

Obama approval is down to 38%...I'll vote Hulk Hogan 2012 at this point to get him out of there.

It's better than the Congress' approval rate, last I heard it was around 10%.

 

[YSSMAN]

Obama approval is down to 38%...I'll vote Hulk Hogan 2012 at this point to get him out of there.

If approval ratings are the best way to determine who should or should not be President, W. Bush should have been out of there early on.

Observing the cluster funk that is GOP Primary, we're unlikely to see a reasonable, electable candidate emerge as long as the lunatics are in charge.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I just saw this story posted on FB about Perry and his rallies. It is truly terrifying to me to think what the world would be like if these "God-goons" manage to take control at this point in history. I don't have (much of) a problem with someone having some religious affiliation, but these fools are trying to directly make this country a theocracy, and the media is supporting it! The religious right in this country needs to be stopped before they make the world any worse, and sadly most people just hear the part that he is a x-tian and assume that he is a good guy without doing any research or having any independent thought on the matter.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I just saw this story posted on FB about Perry and his rallies. It is truly terrifying to me to think what the world would be like if these "God-goons" manage to take control at this point in history. I don't have (much of) a problem with someone having some religious affiliation, but these fools are trying to directly make this country a theocracy, and the media is supporting it! The religious right in this country needs to be stopped before they make the world any worse, and sadly most people just hear the part that he is a x-tian and assume that he is a good guy without doing any research or having any independent thought on the matter.

Yosemite Sam isn't a good guy at all obviously and neither is Bachman. Yet they're running the same kind of campaign the obnoxious student counsel runners did in High School they need votes and attention so they promised outlandish things and persuading people with a circus. Bachman at the straw poll in Iowa was a bit insane with the peting zoo, buying the tickets for people, and a big old BBQ. I wonder what she'll do at the RNC come this time next year is she is still around. Paul and Huntsman have more logic than the "top tier" of people. Yet they'll most likely get interviews once or twice and not really be spoken about. To me with the help of media it seems people would rather vote for catch phrases or circus shows, then we wonder why everything is crap. It's fine to have some religion I agree or if you just believe in god that fine as well, but using it to catapult your agenda for the american public is sad and stupid.