Ron Paul seems to be cool!

[Aeson]

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. That's half of being an isolationist.

The other half is being protectionist, which if he really does support free trade is definitely not the case. I'm not as sure as to what he considers free trade. I could accept that he feels the UN, WTO, and NAFTA aren't "free trade", but am not sure how he would go about promoting free trade if we withdraw so completely from the international community.

[SlowwHand]

Too bad ron paul has ZERO chance of being elected.

That's exactly what they said about Jimmy Carter.

[Pekka]

So how does this work? He needs to win ... what are they called, primers? Some kind of selection process so he will be the candidate for the party. How does this actually unfold?

The registered Republicans get to vote for their candidate in certain areas?

[Slade Wilson]

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. That's half of being an isolationist.

Sounds like to me he is saying that he isnt going to order military occupations of countries when things go south. Intervention is slang for occupation here

[Elok]

Originally posted by Pekka
So how does this work? He needs to win ... what are they called, primers? Some kind of selection process so he will be the candidate for the party. How does this actually unfold?

The registered Republicans get to vote for their candidate in certain areas?

Primaries. Each state holds 'em, in an order deeply set by tradition. That way once every four years we care what people in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc. think, while we're free to all but ignore them during actual elections due to their low electoral vote count (if you don't know about the electoral college, I'm sure as hell not going to explain it, just thinking of it gives me a headache). If a candidate doesn't do well in the earliest primaries he tends to just keep doing worse and worse, possibly because of all the reporters circling him and reminding him how terrible he's been doing. Him or her, I should say, though prior to this year the female candidates have been total jokes.

Speaking of total jokes, Ron Paul is pretty much one of those, along with Gravel, Kucinich, and a slew of other people too unimportant to remember. They enter after listening to one too many compliments from aides, absorb primary votes from crazy people who might have otherwise affected the election, and slough off like dead skin fairly quickly (SEE: Sharpton). In a way I suppose they play a vital role, but meh. There are also mid-tier crazies who get early attention that tapers off when people realize, hey, these people are crazy (Dean)! Then the national election comes, electron-microscope scrutiny is leveled on both candidates, and we realize they're both terrible human beings, if we didn't before.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson
Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. That's half of being an isolationist.

The other half is being protectionist, which if he really does support free trade is definitely not the case. I'm not as sure as to what he considers free trade. I could accept that he feels the UN, WTO, and NAFTA aren't "free trade", but am not sure how he would go about promoting free trade if we withdraw so completely from the international community.

We have a BINGO in the back row!

[Berzerker]

You might get a little bit annoyed with someone who says it isn't good enough when his side of a deal has bent your side of the deal over and is driving.

Obviously Paul is not enamored with trade deals you dont like either, so now you're arguing that he's an isolationist because he rejected a trade deal that is good for the USA and bad for Canada. We already know what deals Paul considers good, free trade agreements. Therefore deals that are anti-free trade are not good. Now you're attributing to Paul a desire to play the special interest game inherent to "managed" trade deals when in fact he opposes such trade deals. Apparently you think all Americans must be for trade deals you consider unfair or they are isolationists.

And I've said what I don't like about him. He is an isolationist. He doesn't say that, but that is what his proposed policies would amount to.

Free trade with all nations aint isolationism. Its the epitome of working together to advance economic prosperity. You just think the USA should police the world and anyone opposed to what you want is an "isolationist". You never answered my question: is Canada isolationist for rejecting bad trade deals? Thats the standard you've thrown at Paul...

I could accept that he feels the UN, WTO, and NAFTA aren't "free trade", but am not sure how he would go about promoting free trade if we withdraw so completely from the international community.

How did countries trade before NAFTA and the WTO? It aint rocket science, you want free trade with England, ask England for a free trade deal. Repeat, rinse and spit - and you have free trade agreements with other nations. How is this "withdrawing" from the world?

Sounds like to me he is saying that he isnt going to order military occupations of countries when things go south. Intervention is slang for occupation here

yup

Funny how the US is isolationist if it doesn't go around invading countries while our friends/allies are not isolationist as they decline to join in our ventures. Aside from the hypocrisy, is this "benevolent" imperialism?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Speaking of total jokes ... Kucinich

Seriously, though, Kucinich once appeared on NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me (a comedy show) and one of the hosts asked him why he was running for president. He said "to win, of course," followed by slightly restrained laughter from the audience. Not a good sign.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Obviously Paul is not enamored with trade deals you dont like either, so now you're arguing that he's an isolationist because he rejected a trade deal that is good for the USA and bad for Canada. We already know what deals Paul considers good, free trade agreements. Therefore deals that are anti-free trade are not good. Now you're attributing to Paul a desire to play the special interest game inherent to "managed" trade deals when in fact he opposes such trade deals. Apparently you think all Americans must be for trade deals you consider unfair or they are isolationists.

No, I consider him an isolationist because he wants to pull the US out of every major international agreement and organisation the US is part of.

Your willful blindness to the point I have stated repeatedly is cute though.

Free trade with all nations aint isolationism. Its the epitome of working together to advance economic prosperity. You just think the USA should police the world and anyone opposed to what you want is an "isolationist". You never answered my question: is Canada isolationist for rejecting bad trade deals? Thats the standard you've thrown at Paul...

He says he's for free trade. That's like claiming you love babies.

Meanwhile, he wants to slash funding for pedeatric wards (NAFTA) and thinks that funding to decrease infant mortality rates is a waste (WTO).

He's a politician. He's lying through his teeth with the blue skies (loves free trade) and demonstrating his real intentions in the details (never saw a deal he likes).

How did countries trade before NAFTA and the WTO? It aint rocket science, you want free trade with England, ask England for a free trade deal. Repeat, rinse and spit - and you have free trade agreements with other nations. How is this "withdrawing" from the world?

What major agreement with anybody other than Arkansas is he in favour of?

Is he going to overturn 60 years of international institutions and have them usefully replaced in one presidency simply because he is the temper tantrum and the rest of the world better damn well pay attention?

[notyoueither]

Here's a clue. The US is more likely to be told to go **** yourselves at this point in history.

That makes a simpleton like Paul all the more dangerous assuming he ever came close to being a serious candidate.

[Agathon]

Q. Hey, what's the difference between Libertarians and Communists?

A. Communism has succeeded in actually producing stable, if not rich, societies. Libertarianism is so kooky that no-one's ever going to go for it.

[Berzerker]

No, I consider him an isolationist because he wants to pull the US out of every major international agreement and organisation the US is part of.

We dont have any free trade agreements? Paul wants free trade, therefore he wants free trade agreements. If we dont have free trade agreements now, that aint his fault nor does it make him an isolationist. You've cited the UN, WTO, NAFTA and NATO - two are trade agreements you apparently dont support, so stop with the hypocrisy. One served its Cold War purpose, and the other is a corrupt bureaucracy that the US props up with blood and treasure. Would you be happy if Canada took over our role at the UN? Canadians get to go overseas and bleed and the rest of us wont call Canadians "isolationists".

Your willful blindness to the point I have stated repeatedly is cute though.

Or maybe I dont think its isolationism. You want the USA to be in bad deals but complain when Canada is in a bad deal? Your double standards are a lousy foundation to accuse others of isolationism.

He says he's for free trade. That's like claiming you love babies.

Oh BS, there's lots of people who oppose free trade. You criticize Paul for taking positions but now he doesn't really believe in free trade? Your argument just keeps changing, maybe he doesn't really want to get out of these int'l organizations either. He's a liar when you want him to be a liar and he's honest when you want him to be honest...? Who is dishonest?

Meanwhile, he wants to slash funding for pedeatric wards (NAFTA) and thinks that funding to decrease infant mortality rates is a waste (WTO).

What does NAFTA have to do with pediatric wards? And the WTO funds infant mortality prevention in the US? What do either have to do with isolationism? You just keep making **** up while accusing Paul of lying.

He's a politician. He's lying through his teeth with the blue skies (loves free trade) and demonstrating his real intentions in the details (never saw a deal he likes).

Go right ahead and show us all these lies.

What major agreement with anybody other than Arkansas is he in favour of?

He's a member of Congress (the House), he doesn't get to write trade treaties. But he has said he believes in free trade so if you have evidence of him rejecting a free trade deal, put up or shut up.

Is he going to overturn 60 years of international institutions and have them usefully replaced in one presidency simply because he is the temper tantrum and the rest of the world better damn well pay attention?

Now you're projecting - you're the one with the nasty temper. Paul has a pretty calm demeanor...

Here's a clue. The US is more likely to be told to go **** yourselves at this point in history.

That makes a simpleton like Paul all the more dangerous assuming he ever came close to being a serious candidate.

You mean the "interventionists" (what do you want to be called?) have gotten us into a big mess and Paul is dangerous because he wouldn't have gotten us into this mess. BRILLIANT!!!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Paul wants free trade, therefore he wants free trade agreements.

I didn't read past this ****.

Good night. I might come back tomorrow.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




Seriously, though, Kucinich once appeared on NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me (a comedy show) and one of the hosts asked him why he was running for president. He said "to win, of course," followed by slightly restrained laughter from the audience. Not a good sign.

He was on a comedy show, he told a joke and ... ?

[Agathon]

One served its Cold War purpose, and the other is a corrupt bureaucracy that the US props up with blood and treasure.

You mean NATO and the WTO, right?