Jump to content
Islamic Forum
SaracenSoldier

Us Elections 2012

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

I am a huge supporter of Ron Paul. I haven't discovered him until a few months ago. It is a little ridiculous to think that when US supports dictators and kills civillians, the Muslim people hate us because we're a free society. I also like him for this economic policy, social policies, and new monetary system. The US soldiers support Ron Paul as well.

 

Sadly most Americans think he's crazy. It's easier to say that Islamists are just crazy people then say that we are partly to blame for the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard he is a big supporter of israel.

 

He supports israel in the sense that the US should not interfere in what they do. If israel decides to go to War with Iran, we will not stop them, but we will not help them either. He is not a zionist, and because of that, he's even been accused of being anti-semetic sadly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard he is a big supporter of israel.

He's all for eliminating all foreign aid to EVERY country, including israel. It should not be the job of the United States to be the world's policeman nor be involved in nation-building. He would bring every last American soldier from 150 countries worldwide back home. As the saying goes, we need to get our own house in order before we can begin to say anything about other nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul would also legalize all drugs and prostitution, too. He's a nut job.

People should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and live with the consequences of those mistakes. The government should not be there to bail out everyone who makes a bad decision. Ron Paul personally does not condone such behavior, but believes that each individual should ultimately be responsible for their own lives and the choices they make. Besides, whenever you ban something, you end up just getting more of the undesired behavior and a whole host of other undesirable things that go with it. Such was the case when the 18th Amendment was passed which banned alcohol throughout the United States. The resulting situation prompted the passage of the 21st Amendment, which eliminated the ban.

 

Besides, prostitution is the oldest industry on the planet, and I really don't think you'll ever be able to stamp it out entirely. People will always find ways to circumvent the laws to get what they want. You cannot legislate morality.

 

The real nut jobs are the people who think it's just fine to keep on spending money we don't have on things we don't need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discuss. I like Ron Paul's policies, etc. Hoping to read what the Americans here think.

I won't vote for Ron Paul. I am not a libertarian, nor do I support many of his domestic policies and goals. I would like to see the United States stop using its military as a tool for foreign policy and to limit its foreign aid to humanitarian purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't vote for Ron Paul. I am not a libertarian, nor do I support many of his domestic policies and goals. I would like to see the United States stop using its military as a tool for foreign policy and to limit its foreign aid to humanitarian purposes.

 

Which policies don't you support? I'm no expert on economics or anything but his economic plan seems like something the USA NEEDS to implement.

 

Also I don't think any other candidate apart from Ron Paul wants a foreign policy that you mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which policies don't you support? I'm no expert on economics or anything but his economic plan seems like something the USA NEEDS to implement.

 

Also I don't think any other candidate apart from Ron Paul wants a foreign policy that you mentioned above.

Like I said, I'm not a libertarian. I would like to see universal healthcare. I don't want the elimination of the government departments like Education. I don't want programs like Supplemental Nutrition for women and children eliminated. Also, Ron Paul promises things he can't deliver on. He can't slash Congressional pay, since Congress sets its own pay. Also, how in the world is he going to guarantee entitlements like Social Security while simultaneously undercutting it by allowing workers to opt out of the program?

 

Essentially, Ron Paul wants to eliminate government assistance in as many areas as possible. There are reasons these were implemented. Until he recognizes the atrocious conditions that first inspired these programs and comes up with a plan to address them that isn't just a return the original conditions, I won't vote for him. Ron Paul's policies are a recipe for reducing American society to something like Lord of the Flies, where the have's use their resources to only further enrich themselves through the exploitation of the have not's. I'm not interested in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I'm not a libertarian. I would like to see universal healthcare. I don't want the elimination of the government departments like Education. I don't want programs like Supplemental Nutrition for women and children eliminated. Also, Ron Paul promises things he can't deliver on. He can't slash Congressional pay, since Congress sets its own pay. Also, how in the world is he going to guarantee entitlements like Social Security while simultaneously undercutting it by allowing workers to opt out of the program?

 

Essentially, Ron Paul wants to eliminate government assistance in as many areas as possible. There are reasons these were implemented. Until he recognizes the atrocious conditions that first inspired these programs and comes up with a plan to address them that isn't just a return the original conditions, I won't vote for him. Ron Paul's policies are a recipe for reducing American society to something like Lord of the Flies, where the have's use their resources to only further enrich themselves through the exploitation of the have not's. I'm not interested in that.

We're bankrupt.

 

Ron Paul has stated that he would use savings from ending all the foreign aid and foreign wars to tide the dependent people on government assistance over while using part of the savings to pay down the debt. The foreign adventurism and police actions would be the easiest thing to cut as the Commander-in-Chief and would make us safer by not antagonizing people all around the world.

Edited by Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're bankrupt.

 

Ron Paul has stated that he would use savings from ending all the foreign aid and foreign wars to tide the dependent people on government assistance over while using part of the savings to pay down the debt. The foreign adventurism and police actions would be the easiest thing to cut as the Commander-in-Chief and would make us safer by not antagonizing people all around the world.

He wouldn't be able to pay down the debt if his policies cause an economic downturn. And who said anything about antagonizing people around the world. Foreign aid doesn't have to be military, it can be humanitarian. Unless you think the starving are antagonized by bread.

 

And we are not bankrupt. Make significant cuts to the military budget alone would solve our budgetary problems. Maybe you could throw in a change in taxes to where rates were when everything was "wonderful" like in the 50's or sixties. The rest of his program isn't cutting the debt, it is just shifting it to the individual instead of the government. That's fine if you can afford it, but it's tough luck if you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He wouldn't be able to pay down the debt if his policies cause an economic downturn. And who said anything about antagonizing people around the world. Foreign aid doesn't have to be military, it can be humanitarian. Unless you think the starving are antagonized by bread.

 

And we are not bankrupt. Make significant cuts to the military budget alone would solve our budgetary problems. Maybe you could throw in a change in taxes to where rates were when everything was "wonderful" like in the 50's or sixties. The rest of his program isn't cutting the debt, it is just shifting it to the individual instead of the government. That's fine if you can afford it, but it's tough luck if you can't.

The current policies caused this economic downturn. The government's idea to "fix" the economy is to do more of the same by bailing out corporations and banks that practiced bad business, essentially rewarding them for bad behavior while footing the bill to the taxpayer.

 

Currently, American military presence around the world, especially in the Middle East, has drawn the resentment of the people who live there. A drone controlled by an officer in a D.C. office blows away one terrorist while killing 10 innocent bystanders. Chances are pretty high in that situation that the friends and relatives of those innocent people will develop a rather unfavorable view of the country that sent that drone into their airspace and killed their family members, especially as they receive word of similar stories from others. Stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia during the 1990s was a mistake as it antagonized quite a few Muslims who became furious that, in their minds, "infidels" protected the holy land rather than devout Muslims. It is a huge mistake to think that it is the responsibility of the United States to be the world's policeman or that it should be involved in nation-building.

 

As for foreign aid, oftentimes it gets us into trouble. The U.S. government supported Mubarak's government for so many years, to the ire of the Egyptians who resented his rule. Mubarak received tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States from the time he attained power up until he was ousted recently. U.S. aid to israel is the greatest out of any single country, but aid to israel's enemies is even greater as a whole. Sending "aid" to corrupt governments more or less only strengthens dictators who then use the aid as a weapon to further oppress their people. On top of that, "aid" from the U.S. government is forcefully extracted from American citizens who have no real say as to where this aid will go. Despite that, the American public is more than generous when it comes to donating to starving people and providing disaster relief, and the amounts are usually greater than what the government provides during disasters. Americans would probably have even more to donate to causes of their choice if the government didn't forcefully take resources from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current policies caused this economic downturn. The government's idea to "fix" the economy is to do more of the same by bailing out corporations and banks that practiced bad business, essentially rewarding them for bad behavior while footing the bill to the taxpayer.

Yes, some of the current policies did contribute to the economic downturn. Unfortunately, I don't see the ones that caused it being addressed in Paul's rhetoric.

 

Currently, American military presence around the world, especially in the Middle East, has drawn the resentment of the people who live there. A drone controlled by an officer in a D.C. office blows away one terrorist while killing 10 innocent bystanders. Chances are pretty high in that situation that the friends and relatives of those innocent people will develop a rather unfavorable view of the country that sent that drone into their airspace and killed their family members, especially as they receive word of similar stories from others. Stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia during the 1990s was a mistake as it antagonized quite a few Muslims who became furious that, in their minds, "infidels" protected the holy land rather than devout Muslims. It is a huge mistake to think that it is the responsibility of the United States to be the world's policeman or that it should be involved in nation-building.

I agree with you. I am all for scaling back the United States military. Unfortunately, Paul seems more willing to cut social welfare programs than the military, which his website claims he will keep the same budget-wise.

 

As for foreign aid, oftentimes it gets us into trouble. The U.S. government supported Mubarak's government for so many years, to the ire of the Egyptians who resented his rule. Mubarak received tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States from the time he attained power up until he was ousted recently. U.S. aid to israel is the greatest out of any single country, but aid to israel's enemies is even greater as a whole. Sending "aid" to corrupt governments more or less only strengthens dictators who then use the aid as a weapon to further oppress their people. On top of that, "aid" from the U.S. government is forcefully extracted from American citizens who have no real say as to where this aid will go. Despite that, the American public is more than generous when it comes to donating to starving people and providing disaster relief, and the amounts are usually greater than what the government provides during disasters. Americans would probably have even more to donate to causes of their choice if the government didn't forcefully take resources from them.

I would like to see the U.S. end military aid as well. But I don't see Ron Paul making a distinction between military aid that often hurts our image abroad, and humanitarian aid, which enhances our image and helps thousands, if not millions of people in need. I sincerely doubt Americans giving would offset what the American government could do if it channeled money from military aid into humanitarian purposes and economic assistance. Popular charity lacks long term planning and so is good for sudden acute matters of humanitarian disasters, but is lousy for long term situations like the flooding in Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, some of the current policies did contribute to the economic downturn. Unfortunately, I don't see the ones that caused it being addressed in Paul's rhetoric.

He harps on the Federal Reserve bailing out American banks as well as foreign banks (including Libya's until the fall of Gaddafi) to the tune of $16 trillion at almost 0% interest through the expansion of the money supply. Increasing the money supply is a cause of price inflation, and I don't know about you, but I've noticed the price of food has increased quite a bit in the past few years. The bailouts of "too big to fail" corporations and banks under both Both and Obama, as alluded to earlier, is also a target of his criticism as they are a moral hazard by essentially rewarding bad business practices instead of letting these companies fail, which would have sent a signal to the rest of the market that they should not engage in the same risky behavior, lest they befall the same fate.

 

Regulations by unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch hamper business growth and are essentially enforced as laws, which is in violation of the U.S. Constitution since only Congress may write laws, and not the Executive branch. There has been a proposal that every regulation proposed by a government agency would have to be go through Congress and the President, like any other law. The people currently have no representation under this current mode of operation.

 

I agree with you. I am all for scaling back the United States military. Unfortunately, Paul seems more willing to cut social welfare programs than the military, which his website claims he will keep the same budget-wise.

His "Plan to Restore America" would end all funding for the current wars by bringing every last soldier from every country home. The military budget would be cut down to $500,000,000. He admits that even this isn't enough, but it is a start. They called him "radical" when he suggested returning the budget back to 2000 levels in 2007.

 

I would like to see the U.S. end military aid as well. But I don't see Ron Paul making a distinction between military aid that often hurts our image abroad, and humanitarian aid, which enhances our image and helps thousands, if not millions of people in need. I sincerely doubt Americans giving would offset what the American government could do if it channeled money from military aid into humanitarian purposes and economic assistance. Popular charity lacks long term planning and so is good for sudden acute matters of humanitarian disasters, but is lousy for long term situations like the flooding in Pakistan.

More often than not, aid given by one government to another isn't about altruism and genuine concern for the people of the suffering foreign land. It's more about rewarding friends, buying influence, or asserting control over the recipient nation. There are myriad problems here in the United States; we ought to get our house in order before we go off and send strings-attached cash to other nations. On another level, government aid is essentially money taken from the citizenry through force (taxation) and then given to others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regulations by unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch hamper business growth and are essentially enforced as laws, which is in violation of the U.S. Constitution since only Congress may write laws, and not the Executive branch. There has been a proposal that every regulation proposed by a government agency would have to be go through Congress and the President, like any other law. The people currently have no representation under this current mode of operation.

But those same regulations are what keeps the U.S. from looking like this: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/show.php/showtopic/737551.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/show.php/showtopic/737551.html[/url]

 

More often than not, aid given by one government to another isn't about altruism and genuine concern for the people of the suffering foreign land. It's more about rewarding friends, buying influence, or asserting control over the recipient nation. There are myriad problems here in the United States; we ought to get our house in order before we go off and send strings-attached cash to other nations. On another level, government aid is essentially money taken from the citizenry through force (taxation) and then given to others.

I don't care what the motivation is if it helps people. And a dollar in Somalia helps a lot more than it will here in the U.S. Besides, do you really think the answer to politics being mixed with humanitarian aid is to cut humanitarian aid?

 

And I have no sympathy for people who complain about taxation being money "taken" from them by force. That is an argument for the elimination of all taxation and the dissolution of the government, something I have no interest in seeing. Ron Paul instead wants to reduce taxes so the government can't fund things that help poor and disadvantaged people while retaining money for social structures that reinforce the economic advantages the wealthy have over them. If we are going to be taxed, and any government at all is going to mean taxation, then I would rather have enough taxes to help everyone in society, and not just those who already have an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But those same regulations are what keeps the U.S. from looking like this: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/show.php/showtopic/737551.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/show.php/showtopic/737551.html[/url]

What I'm saying about that is let the Congress pass laws like it's supposed to. I'm concerned about any breaches in the separation of powers between the branches of government. The Legislature is charged with making the laws; the executive with enforcing them. Concentrating power in the hands of the executive is bad news, in my opinion.

 

I don't care what the motivation is if it helps people. And a dollar in Somalia helps a lot more than it will here in the U.S. Besides, do you really think the answer to politics being mixed with humanitarian aid is to cut humanitarian aid?

 

And I have no sympathy for people who complain about taxation being money "taken" from them by force. That is an argument for the elimination of all taxation and the dissolution of the government, something I have no interest in seeing. Ron Paul instead wants to reduce taxes so the government can't fund things that help poor and disadvantaged people while retaining money for social structures that reinforce the economic advantages the wealthy have over them. If we are going to be taxed, and any government at all is going to mean taxation, then I would rather have enough taxes to help everyone in society, and not just those who already have an advantage.

Ron Paul's top priority right now is ending these wars and militarism; I see him as the only candidate that will even attempt to do such a thing as Obama has shown he has no real interest in stopping all of this foreign adventurism. Ron Paul actually respects the Constitution, which means he believes that the Executive cannot legislate through executive orders or any other means; as President, he would have control over the military, and could order all of them home and can close the foreign bases.

 

On the domestic side, even if he were to be elected President, unless there is a corresponding change in the makeup of Congress, you could probably expect that a lot of his domestic agenda will be hampered by two political parties that seethe with rage at the mention of his name. I would imagine that Congress would suddenly remember all of its responsibilities under the Constitution and would probably block as much as they could of his agenda. But he has the authority over the military; Congress may declare war and provide funding, but they cannot command the military.

 

If he ended these wars (and I trust he would 100%) and was not able to accomplish anything else in 4 years, we would still be better off than we would be with the other candidates who wouldn't cut a penny out of the military budget. I wouldn't expect him to run for re-election, either.

Edited by Wanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some good points. Maybe I should reconsider Ron Paul. My only concern is that I have serious doubts about Congress legislating many of the regulations that I think are deservedly in place, even if they represent an over extension of Executive power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are some good points. Maybe I should reconsider Ron Paul. My only concern is that I have serious doubts about Congress legislating many of the regulations that I think are deservedly in place, even if they represent an over extension of Executive power.

A compromise with that would be to allow current regulations to sunset after a year or so and introduce a bill in Congress to renew current regulations (or add/delete more) as a block. After all, Congress seems to have no problem renewing 1000+ page legislation year after year (Patriot Act) nor any problem funding the current military adventurism (even by supposed anti-war members) year after year. Current regulations could just become just another one of those "procedural votes" undertaken every year, unless the public screams about particular problems with certain regulations (or lack thereof).

 

If we care enough about the issue of executive regulations, then an amendment to the Constitution should be proposed in order to have a long debate about the implications of expanding Executive power. It was done to ban alcohol in the United States, and was also done to later repeal that ban. Fundamentally changing the power structure in government is a very serious issue and should be dealt with rather delicately and deliberately, else we risk slipping into a dark version of America that I, at least, would want no part of.

 

Speaking of darkness, Ron Paul has also championed civil liberties and has consistently voted against the Patriot Act and other bills that would have diminished the Constitutional rights of citizens. As president, he would do his best to prevent abuses to the First and Fourth Amendments by federal law enforcement agents. With the Obama administration explicitly asking Congress to remove language in the NDAA bill regarding exempting American citizens on American soil from being detained indefinitely without being charged, I don't hold much hope for Obama to uphold those cherished parts of the Constitution any more than the GOP warmongering candidates (sans Ron Paul).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are some good points. Maybe I should reconsider Ron Paul. My only concern is that I have serious doubts about Congress legislating many of the regulations that I think are deservedly in place, even if they represent an over extension of Executive power.

Asking me to choose between all these canidates is like asking me how do I want to die with an axe, knife or gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't seem to have much of a chance of getting the Republican nomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that America sees israel like their blessing from God. They believe if they bless israel God will bless them and if they turn their back and curse them, God will do the same to America. They use the Scripture to back this up, but there are many that feel it would be best to let israel completely fend for themsleves. America is actulaly in a catch 22 situation in regards to israel. The Jews own all the major garment centers in NY and all the major diamond exchanges so they have a lot of money and pull in America. You could almost say America is israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, Ron Paul doesn't seem to have much of a chance of getting the Republican nomination.

We're working on it. He's in a statistical tie for 1st in Iowa, and is in 2nd in New Hampshire. He's been steadily creeping up in the polls all season. One thing about him is that he loses very little support once he gains it. He has tremendous crossover appeal to Democrats and Independents that none of the other candidates can claim. Republicans love him on domestic and economic issues, but they seem to falter on his foreign policy. It seems, though, that the economy is a greater issue than the foreign policy for GOP caucus-goers and primary voters. The other thing that endears him, despite his foreign policy, is his consistent voting record that none can touch. His immense integrity in both his oath to the Constitution and his 54 year marriage with his wife attracts many in the Republican party, and may just be enough to push him over the top.

 

We'll see what happens come January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that America sees israel like their blessing from God. They believe if they bless israel God will bless them and if they turn their back and curse them, God will do the same to America. They use the Scripture to back this up, but there are many that feel it would be best to let israel completely fend for themsleves. America is actulaly in a catch 22 situation in regards to israel. The Jews own all the major garment centers in NY and all the major diamond exchanges so they have a lot of money and pull in America. You could almost say America is israel.

israel seems like a sticky situation for the United States. We should simply treat them as any other country and not interfere in their internal affairs; likewise, we shouldn't tolerate any meddling they'd have in ours. If I remember right, Benjamin Netanyahu recently stated that israel doesn't need democracy because they already have it, israel doesn't need aid because they are a developed country, and israel doesn't need military support from the U.S. because they can defend themselves. I think it would be wise to simply honor the fact that another country wants to run its own affairs and deal with the consequences of its own actions.

 

America's founding fathers warned us about engaging in entangling alliances with other nations. I see israel as one such alliance. We should try to be friends with all nations and seek peace, commerce, and honest friendship. With regard to Biblical passages, what is called "israel" in Genesis is not necessarily the "state of israel" today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×