Speech from the 2011 CPAC Straw Poll Winner...
VINNY GOOMBA
Posts: 1,818
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
VINNY GOOMBA
Posts: 1,818
Comments
I like Paul, but this wasn't a great speech. He has good ideas - ending the Fed, stopping foreign aid, ending our support of dictators, ending the wars, U.S. bases on foreign soil, etc - but if in office will he be able to implement these ideas?
Obama wanted to end the wars; he "got us out of" Iraq, but we are still in Afghanistan. Paul is right, the economic expenditure of these wars and the amount spent on foreign aid has crippled us and will continue to do so. Paul comes across as an isolationist, which is fine, but it would be interesting to see if he would be able to sell is agenda.
i like paul, but i think he does not have a chance against obama. if paul were to win, how would he unite the congress to pass any of his initiatives? obama had a majority in the senate and near veto proof majority in the house and could not get his entire agenda to pass. he had to compromise on everything, and could not even get his own party in line to vote for what he wanted. if paul wins and the gop holds the house and the dems hold the sentate, we will get what we have right now...NOTHING....paul would have to compromise too much because the people in congress are bought and paid for by these things paul is wanting to cut. if he cuts forign aid and military spending he will be putting a huge target on his head because he will be leaving so many countries out to dry. do you think cutting aid to israel is really going to fly? what about cutting aid to our other allies? won't happen....what about cutting medicaid? won't happen as too many people rely on it to live. so i am sorry to go bursting any bubbles, but even if paul wins the nomination a majority of people would not vote for his sweeping libertarian-esque changes, and his son's ties to the tea party make him virtually unelectable to many in this country today. these are just my observations.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
What's funny to me is that most people's only dig against him is that not enough people in DC will go along with his agenda. I think within my lifetime we can change this two party stranglehold our country has been under control of for way too long.
I didn't know much about Paul before 2008, and I think having him out there educating people is the most important thing he can do.
Judging by the amount of momentum that Paul and the liberty movement has gained since November of 2007, I think that given another year and a half till the November 2012 election that Paul could be a very viable candidate. Within that time the current administration is likely to keep going the course that they have been: spending more money in attempt to get the economy going, all while escalating overseas affairs. If the people actually want "CHANGE," this will be it. There is also the potential for Congress to become far more libertarian-minded come that same election in 2012 if this past congressional election is any gauge of how the country is trending.
I think Paul has a lot of ways to unite the congress and country. Freedom is a popular idea. Conservatives love economic freedom, liberals love social freedom. This guy stands for both. What if, for the first time in American history the Congress compromised on giving us both? As it stands, liberals will compromise on more warfare spending when conservatives will compromise on more welfare spending-- a compromise where everyone loses. What if it was finally realized that more agencies, rules, and bureacracy only make things worse? I think it already has been realized, and that the youth of this country see it, and all revolutions start with the young people.
If our economic situation continues to worsen by then, Obama will have a much harder time trying to blame it on the past administration. Even if he could, what REAL comparisons could anyone draw between Dr. Paul and W.? Oh yeah, they're both white guys from the Northeast who made their homes in Texas
I think Dr. Paul's biggest competition within the Republican Party is probably Mitt Romney, unless they decide to go REALITY STAR. That would be either Palin or Trump. I think Palin has laughed herself out of contention. Trump has already stated that Ron Paul has "ZERO CHANCE" of being elected, and he did it at CPAC this past weekend. I think he's scared of my guy
Seriously if you like this guy at all, the worst thing you can do is call him un-electable-- especially now since his influence HAS grown so much since the 2008 election, and more and more people out there are starting to say exactly what Ron Paul has been saying for 30 years. Even if you believe it to be true-- it's best not even mentioning. Once people feel like a candidate has no shot, they stop listening or paying attention to that candidate's message all together. The more the message fades, the less of a chance that some other similar person will be less likely to actually change the course of this country someday. Look at it this way... Even if the good doctor can't unite the Congress for passing (or hopefully repealing) more laws, he still has power as president. Power to veto bad legislation, and as commander in chief power to draw down troop levels EVERYWHERE. Now there's a good start.
The "I" word-- It's a killer. He's not an isolationist, but gets painted that way. He's a Non-interventionist. An isolationist wouldn't want to have any dealings with anyone outside of his country. Paul is all for trading with other nations, but staying out of their domestic affairs. Keeping trade flowing between countries helps promote peace-- afterall why go to war with someone you do regular business with?
that is very true.
Whether he could ever hold the presidency is irrelevant to me. I love him and will support for sure, but more importantly as was said before the ideas on foreign policy and especially the FED are getting out there.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yeah, in my opinion Trump is more of an isolationist than Paul. Just listening to Trump's speech at CPAC further solidifies that in my mind. He's all about Protectionism of the industry...his industry. To me, that is the very definition of isolationism: cutting industry off from free trade with others.
I missed Trump's speech, other than the clip where he talks about admittedly liking Paul, but denouncing his chances of winning. Was it any good?
You're right. Thanks
From what I gather his speech was basically this:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-o ... /id/384427
It can be watched here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7mjFg6dh5I
His speech touches on issues regarding protectionism of American industry when it comes to trading with other countries. Things like taxing imports so that they are too expensive to purchase. He talks a bit about free trade and how he loves open markets but then in the same breath says he doesn't like it when other countries manipulate their market (i.e. China repressing the purchasing power of its currency). So it seems to me that he wants to manipulate the market to counter the manipulations of the market? I'm wondering how it is he can still be an advocate of free trade when he is stumping for protectionism of an industry? That to me seems isolationist in a sense.
From what I gather, isolationism has two core parts to it; protectionism and non-interventionism (think Great Wall era China). Donald Trump has essentially met both those conditions. Whereas Ron Paul is in favor of non-interventionism (i.e. not policing the world), he is against protectionism of the markets, allowing for free trade. Donald Trump; however, has stated that he is in favor of taxes on imports and in favor of non-interventionism.