235 replies to this topic

[CDR]

That is the image all of these candidates are trying to sell. I care more about their stated policies, and even then, I give more weight to what policies they have realistic control over as opposed to everything they claim they are going to do. A lot of these candidates make claims that they can't realistically control because they are the purvey of Congress and not the President. This is why foreign policy figures bigger than a lot of domestic issues (including social issues) for me in a presidential candidate, since there are a lot fewer controls over what the President can do with foreign policy than on domestic matters where Congress has a lot more power.

True, but from what I've seen Santorum at least has the record to back up his claim to consistency, but that of course doesn't mean he'll govern in the same fashion. As far as social issues go, as a Catholic I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that approves of abortion or same sex marriage all else is pretty much up for grabs other than those two. On foreign policy I just can't get behind Paul's almost isolationist views on foreign policy. I know it may not be the best setup in the world but every nation throws around it's weight to accomplish goals that will benefit the nation and it's people, and it would be ridiculous for the US not to do the same.

[the sad clown]

True, but from what I've seen Santorum at least has the record to back up his claim to consistency, but that of course doesn't mean he'll govern in the same fashion.

I haven't seen enough of Santorum to know much of anything about his personal integrity. I have seen plenty to know what he is trying to portray about himself, although I don't give much credence to that. Unless he is a criminal, I give little regard to all of these "character" claims since it really does seem to be the most trumped up and over-rated quality in just about every election. How do you objectively evaluate a president on character issues unless he turns out to be Nixon or Reagan and just flat out lies and manipulates the government? I prefer evaluating policy positions. At least then I can judge a candidate on what they say they are going to do, and not just who they claim to be.

As far as social issues go, as a Catholic I can't in good conscience vote for a candidate that approves of abortion or same sex marriage all else is pretty much up for grabs other than those two. On foreign policy I just can't get behind Paul's almost isolationist views on foreign policy. I know it may not be the best setup in the world but every nation throws around it's weight to accomplish goals that will benefit the nation and it's people, and it would be ridiculous for the US not to do the same.

I don't see the problem. You can still practice your Catholicism with all of your conscience. I can see how you could have an argument about abortion, but same sex marriage is a matter between two consenting adults. If your faith doesn't approve of it, then don't do it.

As for what is ridiculous, have a look at our foreign policy for the last decade. We never should have been in Iraq, and the mission should have ended in Afghanistan a long time ago, essentially as soon as we failed to secure Osama Bin Laden (not to mention the resources we could have had early on in Afghanistan if we hadn't decided to take on a second war). We can't build nations and we shouldn't be trying. Given the choice between repeating these mistakes and isolationism, I'll take isolationism even if I don't always agree with it, since we'll be a lot less likely to make these mistakes and can focus on leading the world with our example instead of with our guns.

[CDR]

I haven't seen enough of Santorum to know much of anything about his personal integrity. I have seen plenty to know what he is trying to portray about himself, although I don't give much credence to that. Unless he is a criminal, I give little regard to all of these "character" claims since it really does seem to be the most trumped up and over-rated quality in just about every election. How do you objectively evaluate a president on character issues unless he turns out to be Nixon or Reagan and just flat out lies and manipulates the government? I prefer evaluating policy positions. At least then I can judge a candidate on what they say they are going to do, and not just who they claim to be.

I'll have to agree with you here. This exact kind of thing proved to be Gingrich's downfall, and it really shouldn't have factored into the equation as much as it did.

I don't see the problem. You can still practice your Catholicism with all of your conscience. I can see how you could have an argument about abortion, but same sex marriage is a matter between two consenting adults. If your faith doesn't approve of it, then don't do it.

Both are intrinsic moral evils, whether or not one is between consenting adults matters not.

As for what is ridiculous, have a look at our foreign policy for the last decade. We never should have been in Iraq, and the mission should have ended in Afghanistan a long time ago, essentially as soon as we failed to secure Osama Bin Laden (not to mention the resources we could have had early on in Afghanistan if we hadn't decided to take on a second war). We can't build nations and we shouldn't be trying. Given the choice between repeating these mistakes and isolationism, I'll take isolationism even if I don't always agree with it, since we'll be a lot less likely to make these mistakes and can focus on leading the world with our example instead of with our guns.

I can't say I'm a fan of reckless interventionism anymore than I'm a fan of isolationism. But going from one polar extreme to the other isn't the answer.

[Wanderer]

On foreign policy I just can't get behind Paul's almost isolationist views on foreign policy. I know it may not be the best setup in the world but every nation throws around it's weight to accomplish goals that will benefit the nation and it's people, and it would be ridiculous for the US not to do the same.

Dr. Paul adheres to the "Just War Theory" put forth by St. Augustine ((you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Just_war_theory"]source[/url]), which lays out four conditions that must be met before a nation engages in warfare :

1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3) There must be serious prospects of success;
4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The main gripe he has against current policy is that there isn't enough debate among the people through their representatives on the merits of going to war; rather, the entire nation is dragged into wars on the whims of the president. The U.S. Congress, according to the U.S. Constitution, has the sole authority to declare war, but hasn't done that since World War II. The president is not allowed to declare war and may not use military force unless the United States is in imminent danger (as in, there will be an attack within hours or days).

A vote on warfare should be a heavily weighed decision as lives and treasure most certainly will be lost in such a conflict, and should be one of the most important votes a congressman or senator may make. If Dr. Paul were President of the United States, he would by no means be a pacifist, but also wouldn't want to carelessly get involved in armed conflicts around the world. If some catastrophic event in the world occurred that could potentially harm the security of the United States, he would go to the Congress and then ask them to deliberate whether or not there is indeed a genuine threat that cannot be solved through diplomacy, and if the Congress decided that it was and voted to declare war with specific objectives to achieve, then as the Commander-in-Chief, he would carry out those objectives as quickly and judiciously as possible to minimize bloodshed and destruction. Most importantly, soldiers should not linger after the objectives have been achieved and "nation-building" should not be engaged in.

The use of force and violence should be the absolute last resort to solving any problem. Pre-emptive is quite the opposite of that viewpoint.

[the sad clown]

Both are intrinsic moral evils, whether or not one is between consenting adults matters not.

Meh, I've seen Catholics describe contraception as an intrinsic moral evil too. It is still a matter between the person and God, and not for a legislative body to impose on others.

I can't say I'm a fan of reckless interventionism anymore than I'm a fan of isolationism. But going from one polar extreme to the other isn't the answer.

And yet one extreme costs a lot less and doesn't get our military personnel killed as much. Besides, Wanderer seems to think you have misunderstood Paul. Either way, I think a less militaristic policy is a must if we are to have any moral credibility in the world, and that is the sort of world power I would like to see the US have, credibility.

[CDR]

Meh, I've seen Catholics describe contraception as an intrinsic moral evil too. It is still a matter between the person and God, and not for a legislative body to impose on others.

Which it is, and trust me given the choice and the practical means to do so I'd ban contraception as well. Gay marriage though is different from that because the government has a practical investment and interest in stable couples raising stable law-abiding children and same sex couples simply aren't anywhere near as effective at that as heterosexual couples are. Also I would say that the government has an interest in promoting moral standards for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

And yet one extreme costs a lot less and doesn't get our military personnel killed as much. Besides, Wanderer seems to think you have misunderstood Paul. Either way, I think a less militaristic policy is a must if we are to have any moral credibility in the world, and that is the sort of world power I would like to see the US have, credibility.

True, but Paul is the type of president that wouldn't approve of a pre-emptive strike if needed, and pre-emptive strikes have the possibility to save many more lives than they take. Iran with a nuclear weapon and the intent top use it being the big one here.

[the sad clown]

Which it is, and trust me given the choice and the practical means to do so I'd ban contraception as well. Gay marriage though is different from that because the government has a practical investment and interest in stable couples raising stable law-abiding children and same sex couples simply aren't anywhere near as effective at that as heterosexual couples are. Also I would say that the government has an interest in promoting moral standards for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

But there is no more practical method for banning homosexuality than there is contraception. Thus just allow it and keep your faith community informed of its immorality.

True, but Paul is the type of president that wouldn't approve of a pre-emptive strike if needed, and pre-emptive strikes have the possibility to save many more lives than they take. Iran with a nuclear weapon and the intent top use it being the big one here.

Sorry, but that is exactly what I am hoping to avoid, some sort of preemptive strike on Iran to stop their "nuclear weapons" program, only to discover it is as baseless as the WMD's of Iraq. I'd rather err on the other side of that equation. Everyone acts like Iran is a bunch of crazy people who, if they only had the bomb, would immediately vaporize something. If the world has survived North Korea having a nuclear weapon then it can survive Iran having it, and so far they have disavowed any intention to develop a bomb, so what in the world would justify a preemptive strike?

[Wanderer]

On foreign policy I just can't get behind Paul's almost isolationist views on foreign policy.

Isolationism is totally cutting yourself off from the rest of the world. The best example of an isolationist state today is North Korea, which basically cuts itself off from all trade and basically refuses to engage with any nation diplomatically or otherwise. Ron Paul is far from an isolationist: he wants to engage in diplomatic and trade relations with all nations that wish to have them. What he doesn't want to do is to spread our military thinly around the world inciting hatred against us. I certainly would resent any foreign power occupying our land as I'm sure people around the world feel about U.S. military presence in their lands. The Golden Rule should apply in foreign policy just as it should in personal conduct. This is called "non-interventionism," or neutrality; we should not get involved in the internal affairs of other nations. Places like Switzerland and Canada seemed to have benefited well from non-interventionism, and they are far from "isolationists."

Here's a good analogy I found floating around,

"Calling Ron Paul an isolationist is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn't come on your property and break your windows."

[Wanderer]

Iran with a nuclear weapon and the intent top use it being the big one here.

Why would Iran want such a weapon? Could it be because they would feel threatened and backed into a corner and feel it is the only way to get people to back off from them? They saw the effects of pursuing a nuclear weapon (North Korea) and the effects of giving up on building such weapons (Libya). Now if you were placed in that position, you would know that North Korea isn't being threatened with invasion whereas Libya was bombed by NATO and Gaddafi killed. Based upon those outcomes, which path would you be more likely to pursue to ensure your own survival?

Here is another thing to think about: What are the three holiest cities in Islam (Shia and Sunni)? If you've been around here long enough, you would know that those cities are Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. Now if Iran is a super-crazy-Islamofascist theocracy with an extreme religious zeal, do you really think that they would risk destroying the third holiest city of their faith, which is located in israel?

Consider this also: israel is far from helpless when it comes to military capability. Recently, Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed on the floor of Congress that israel does NOT need American troops because israel can defend itself, as it has shown several times in its history ((you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_youtu.be/51-KA-Nc3_k"]YouTube: Benjamin Netanyau: We defend ourselves[/url]). israel has one of the most modern militaries in the world, and is also one of the nations that has hundreds of nuclear weapons it would most certainly use if it truly felt its survival were threatened. It also has the capability to launch those weapons into the heart of Iran; an attack on israel would be national suicide for Iran.

[Wanderer]

Ron Paul has won 2nd in the New Hampshire primary tonight at 24% of the vote compared to Romney's 37%. His speech afterward was fantastic (in my opinion)! I still don't know why the YouTube tags aren't working for me...

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_youtu.be/nJ_sLDWZdc8"]Ron Paul's Speech after taking 2nd in New Hampshire[/url]

[the sad clown]

Ron Paul has won 2nd in the New Hampshire primary tonight at 24% of the vote compared to Romney's 37%. His speech afterward was fantastic (in my opinion)! I still don't know why the YouTube tags aren't working for me...

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_youtu.be/nJ_sLDWZdc8"]Ron Paul's Speech after taking 2nd in New Hampshire[/url]

Congratulations, on Ron Paul exceeding expectations. Did Romney lose some steam? I thought I remember him polling @ around 40%? I don't remember the margin of error though, so maybe the results are within that.

[the sad clown]

I thought about posting a separate thread for each primary, but this is better, keeping them all within this thread I think.

[Wanderer]

Congratulations, on Ron Paul exceeding expectations. Did Romney lose some steam? I thought I remember him polling @ around 40%? I don't remember the margin of error though, so maybe the results are within that.

Romney was near 50% only a couple of weeks ago, but has been beaten down since then. The next two states, South Carolina and Florida, may be interesting indeed as they lean more neo-con and hawkish than Iowa or New Hampshire. Perry will be making his last stand in SC, Huntsman has been polling near zero in every state outside NH, and Gingrich and Santorum may or may not make it beyond Florida. I believe Ron's next best state may be Nevada at the beginning of February.

Edited by Wanderer, 11 January 2012 - 03:39 AM.

[the sad clown]

Romney was near 50% only a couple of weeks ago, but has been beaten down since then. The next two states, South Carolina and Florida, may be interesting indeed as they lean more neo-con and hawkish than Iowa or New Hampshire. Perry will be making his last stand in SC, Huntsman has been polling near zero in every state outside NH, and Gingrich and Santorum may or may not make it beyond Florida. I believe Ron's next best state may be Nevada at the beginning of February.

How well does Paul have to do in South Carolina and Florida? I read that Florida basically lost half of their convention delegates for messing with the primary schedule.

[Wanderer]

How well does Paul have to do in South Carolina and Florida? I read that Florida basically lost half of their convention delegates for messing with the primary schedule.

Expectations aren't very high for either state. If he could manage a strong 3rd in South Carolina, a hotbed of neo-conservative war hawks, we'd consider that good. Florida is a different animal because it is winner-take-all. Only Romney has been saturating the airwaves in that expensive media market with his ads, and it doesn't exactly seem cost-effective to spend too much official campaigning there as even losing by 1 vote to 1st place means that no delegates will be awarded to 2nd place, which is just as good as being last. These will be the first states with relatively large numbers of delegates to be awarded.

Most states after Florida will have their delegates awarded proportional to the vote totals for each candidate, which works better in Paul's favor.

Edited by Wanderer, 11 January 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[the sad clown]

Most states after Florida will have their delegates awarded proportional to the vote totals for each candidate, which works better in Paul's favor.

Yeah, but I feel nervous conceding too much to Romney. Elections have a way of building momentum behind a candidate and this makes it difficult to overcome them in later contests (which is part of the reason that Texas rarely figures into the determination of a parties candidate.)

[Wanderer]

Yeah, but I feel nervous conceding too much to Romney. Elections have a way of building momentum behind a candidate and this makes it difficult to overcome them in later contests (which is part of the reason that Texas rarely figures into the determination of a parties candidate.)

In the last election, most states were winner-take-all, which enabled John McCain to basically have the nomination wrapped up by March. Things may be drawn out longer this time around due to the rules change, and Ron Paul's grassroots will, as they say, "crawl over broken glass naked in a blizzard" to vote for him. Romney's support is sort of...blah at best.

[the sad clown]

In the last election, most states were winner-take-all, which enabled John McCain to basically have the nomination wrapped up by March. Things may be drawn out longer this time around due to the rules change, and Ron Paul's grassroots will, as they say, "crawl over broken glass naked in a blizzard" to vote for him. Romney's support is sort of...blah at best.

That is encouraging to hear. I didn't realize this change had been made to the Republican primary.

Was the change put in place because of something that happened in 2008?

[ParadiseLost]

Why would Iran want such a weapon? Could it be because they would feel threatened and backed into a corner and feel it is the only way to get people to back off from them? They saw the effects of pursuing a nuclear weapon (North Korea) and the effects of giving up on building such weapons (Libya). Now if you were placed in that position, you would know that North Korea isn't being threatened with invasion whereas Libya was bombed by NATO and Gaddafi killed. Based upon those outcomes, which path would you be more likely to pursue to ensure your own survival?

Well said, that is the basis of Realpolitik. States (countries) balance against the most powerful state, they don't just sit back and wait to be taken over. Of course Iran feels threatened when they are on the 'axis of evil' list.

[the sad clown]

Well said, that is the basis of Realpolitik. States (countries) balance against the most powerful state, they don't just sit back and wait to be taken over. Of course Iran feels threatened when they are on the 'axis of evil' list.

While that is true, I still don't believe we even have a good basis for thinking they are seeking nuclear weapons to "balance" anything. I have to admit that while I don't always find what the Iranian government says to be credible, I think on this point they are probably a more trustworthy voice than the neoconservatives in the USA.