Saturday, March 3, 2012

I might be able to hold my nose and vote Ron Paul.

No, I don't like his foreign policy leanings--I think he'd cause the stupid goat fuckers to assume withdrawal = surrender = weakness, and launch an attack that would make 9/11/01 look like a fireworks display. 

I do, however, like this: '“I just don’t like the government in this business,” Paul told Piers Morgan. “I’m stronger in believing the market works these things out…”'

Amen.  Now, if he'll just go sane on the stuff that scares the bat crap out of me, he'll have my vote.

2 comments:

  1. There's a lot of people who agree with his idea of foreign policy (or non-policy as the case my be).

    I'm not a fan of the U.S. picking one foreign leader over another. We have a horrible track record in that regard - it ALWAYS comes back to bite on on the arse.

    As I've said before - I'm not a big fan of foreign aid (by the government). So in that respect, and on most economic issues I'm (mostly) on board.

    I'm not sure there'd be a lot of confusion about "weakness" vs the U.S. Government telling everyone else to basically shove-off. The scary part for me, would be what he might do with the military vis-a-vie our foreign bases. If he starts pulling everyone home, that could be bad, as think we'd see a lot of terrorist movement in countries we consider to be alies.

    The other part I find a bit scary is how China would react - in that they own most of our debt at this point. That could have some nasty economic consequences. Although I keep hoping that they're smart enough to realized if they screwed up our economy the way they could - the'd be putting their best customer out of business. (long live Rational Self Interest).

    Given the nature of the beast - I'm not sure he could pull it off for very long before the U.N. (read China/Russia) started making a mess of things to the point where it would adversely affect national security (more than normal that is).

    He is probably the only person running that might actually not take a poll before making a decision (which I view as refreshing).

    I really doubt that he'll get the nomination anyway - as he's the least likely to be a tool for the Republican party - and they like their tools to toe the line.

    Normally I don't worry too much about a president because they don't really initiate all that much - mostly they take credit for things they didn't do, and get blamed for things they have little if any control over. But in this case, if you really don't like his foreign policy, I'd look elsewhere as that's one of the few areas where a President really has power. That and this stupid idea of executive orders (goes back a ways), and more recently Czars - pretty weird name from a group that is so obviously in favor of socialism. Both of which are an attempt to Govern by regulation rather than the rule of law (which is a really bad idea). I think most of the communists refer to them as Peoples Commissars which is oddly similar to Czar, even though they claimed to hate the Czars. I think what they really hated was not being the Czar.

    Insanity = Voting Republican or Democrat and expecting change. (Yeah I know - not a lot of other options). But don't fall for the big lie they both tell - you know, how voting for an independent/libertarian/green/whatever is a vote for the other party. It's not - it's a vote for the person you think is the right one - or least wrong one, (in my case anyway)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the sane, civilized part of the world would see us as weak--but the Middle East is neither sane nor civilized, would see a withdrawal as a surrender, and think we were running scared from them.

      I'd like us to start saying "we're not backing either of you--you're both corrupt s.o.b.s," to any and every world leader. I don't think it's a good idea, not with the load of debt the country is carrying with people who'd call it due in a heartbeat.

      The reason I'd be willing to vote for Ron Paul despite his foreign policy would be because he wouldn't hesitate to use the Presidential Veto, and neither party carries a majority to override it. I'd be willing to bet he'd start dismantling the mess of bureaucracies created to get in our business (ex., Department of Education, EPA, etc.)and fold other bureaucracies back into the organizations they belong in (Department of Homeland Security back into Defense, etc.). I suspect he'd also push to fix Social Security (if not dismantle it), and the tax code.

      I don't vote the party--never have. I vote on candidates, either for one or against the other.

      I hate politicians. I'd love to see the nation starting to reject anyone who actually wanted the office. I really wish we had term limits at the Federal level--Missouri already has them at the state level.

      Delete