Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[MOBIUS]

Hey Zevico, if you're so intent on stopping China from becoming a superpower - stop buying their consumer goods!

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can choose to man up and accept that or watch the world burn.

A lot of the world "burning" is due to US intervention. Take a look at Iran - direct result of the US's proping up of a crazed dictator known as the Shah.

[BeBMan]

I agree that the free, western world should retain a defensive edge. So how about the US cuts our spending in half and all you free-loaders double yours. Then we'll collectively be just as well armed but the rest of you guys will be paying your fair share.

Purely for defense Europe doesn't need to spend much more I'd think, except maybe for some specific scenarios (like Iran getting nukes). The low spending in Europe seems to be a factor mostly when it comes to offensive/power projection/over-regional policing capabilities.

To get more out of its money Europe would probably be better off when it had some seriously improved coordination/cooperation beyond the national level in that field, but I can hear people moaning already that this would constitute another superstate-like structure leading to a new Hitler or somesuch arising.

[Jon Miller]

I don't agree with many of his points/concerns, but this article gives a reasonable presentation of some of what I have been thinking the last month (that progressives should consider supporting Gary Johnson or even Ron Paul):

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

JM
(To be clear, Paul is retarded on the economy, and is a bigot/racist to boot... but his policies would probably be less racist than our current ones and as long as he didn't implement the gold standard I don't think he would do too much damage to the economy.)

[kentonio]

I think his reasoning is poor. He says that supporting Obama despite the anti-liberal things he's done is the same as supporting Paul despite his unpleasant beliefs. Obama may have done some things that are abhorrent to progressives, but Pauls entire agenda would lead to an America that would be completely unacceptable to any progressive worth the title. Paul's not talking changing direction, he's talking about fundamentally changing the entire structure of the US to something that no liberal would touch with a 9 foot pole.

[HalfLotus]

I thought progressives would be fond of Paul's anti-war and pro-civil liberty agenda.

[kentonio]

Real progressives don't generally want to live in a country based on an Ayn Rand wet dream.

[HalfLotus]

Care to express your view without demagogy?

[Jon Miller]

I think his reasoning is poor. He says that supporting Obama despite the anti-liberal things he's done is the same as supporting Paul despite his unpleasant beliefs. Obama may have done some things that are abhorrent to progressives, but Pauls entire agenda would lead to an America that would be completely unacceptable to any progressive worth the title. Paul's not talking changing direction, he's talking about fundamentally changing the entire structure of the US to something that no liberal would touch with a 9 foot pole.

The things that Obama has done are completely unacceptable to any progressive worth the title.

Paul has many positions which are exactly what progressives want, and he is currently the only nationally recognized politician that supports them (as I said, Gary Johnson is much much better).

I care about actions much more than personal beliefs. Or the fact that that he is crazy.

JM
(The thing which I am most concerned with Ron Paul about is his monetary positions, I would need to weigh the damage he could do there with all the good he would do in other places.)

[Jon Miller]

Real progressives don't generally want to live in a country based on an Ayn Rand wet dream.

I would rather live in a libertarian 'paradise' than a country where I can be locked away indefinitely without trial on an accusation (And tortured).

It could actually be argued (I would probably disagree), that ending the drug war would do more to help the disadvantaged in the country than ending the current 'progressive' tax system would cause harm.

And I just said 'consider', I didn't say that they should (although Obama lost my vote with NDAA).

JM

[kentonio]

The things that Obama has done are completely unacceptable to any progressive worth the title.

Paul has many positions which are exactly what progressives want, and he is currently the only nationally recognized politician that supports them (as I said, Gary Johnson is much much better).

I care about actions much more than personal beliefs. Or the fact that that he is crazy.

JM
(The thing which I am most concerned with Ron Paul about is his monetary positions, I would need to weigh the damage he could do there with all the good he would do in other places.)

Progressives deciding not to vote for Obama is perfectly understandable. Progressives voting for Paul is laughable. A lot of progressives have been tempted in because a few of the libertarian stances are also progressive ones, ending the drug war, ending foreign interventation, ending things like the Patriot Act are all things that any good progressive can support. The problem comes when you go beyond those surface level policies and start looking at what a Libertarian country would actually mean. All those little things like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security all gone. Civil Rights act: gone. Pollution controls: gone. Workers rights: gone.

Pauls vision of America would be a fantastical wonderland for the rich few while the poor masses slaved and died. That sounds like stupid hyperbole, but that is the Ayn Rand vision. A small elite of the 'strong' and the downtrodden masses doing their bidding. The idea that a progressive could support a man who thinks like that is ridiculous. When people say he's trying to turn the clock back to the 19th century, they aren't exaggerating that much. It won't happen of course, because despite Pauls apparent popularity Americans don't want what he's actually peddling.

[OzzyKP]

The main question with a Ron Paul presidency is what would he truly be able to accomplish? Which parts of his agenda would he be able to do, on his own as president, vs. what would he need legislation passed through congress.

Most of what progressives would find objectionable about Paul is his economic policy. Cuts to spending and such. Most of that would need to be approved through the House and Senate. As we have seen over the last year it is pretty hard for this stuff to pass. Even with all the sharp rhetoric about spending cuts, the cuts proposed by the 'radical' Republicans in the house were fairly modest compared to what Paul would actually like to do. No one seriously proposed cutting entire government agencies. And no one, certainly, was going to move us onto the gold standard. Doing so would be difficult to accomplish. So... vote Paul for president and vote for democrats for Senate and House.

While his domestic agenda might be stymied, Presidents (increasingly) have tremendous say over foreign policy. President Gingrich, President Santorum, President Obama, etc could easily bomb Iran without having to convince anyone else in the government. They can just go and do it. Ron Paul in the White House would make good on all his foreign policy promises, even if he is unable to achieve his domestic goals.

So if you like him purely or mostly for foreign policy, go for it.

[kentonio]

Oh and before I get accused of being a '****', heres a few quotes from the man himself..

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

“It would help the poor people who need jobs. Minimum wage is a mandate. We’re against mandates so why should we have it? It would be very beneficial.”

“The freer the market is and the more respect you have for private property, the better the environment is protected.”

[Jon Miller]

I think that Ron Paul would be able to drastically cut spending, after all the executive branch has a lot of freedom about how it implements the law.

I fail to see how he would remove the civil rights act, and while pollution controls and social services would be drastically reduced, I think that that would make people realize how important they are (And the one most likely to cause permanent harm here is the pollution controls).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Oh and before I get accused of being a '****', heres a few quotes from the man himself..

All of those, including the pollution one, are of less importance to me than civil liberties.

JM