Ron Paul Responds to RJC in new Youtube Interview [Archive]

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 07:47 AM

Yuck, went from "even their own leaders are saying it's crazy to attack Iran" to "yeah, I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened". Obviously, his first answer can still apply in the second scenario, but the latter statement doesn't challenge conventional wisdom in any way.

Not really going to all that happy if more of his stances moderate so he can get elected. I want Ron Paul in office because he's a threat to the system. I don't want him in office if this is going to be the norm.

In short, I fell for Ron because he's been radical. I don't want moderate.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 07:49 AM

Yuck, went from "even their own leaders are saying it's crazy to attack Iran" to "yeah, I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened".

Not really going to all that happy if more of his stances moderate so he can get elected. I want Ron Paul in office because he's a threat to the system. I don't want him in office if this is going to be the norm.

His position didn't change. He always said Israel should be able to do what they feel is necessary for their national defense. He is just using much better rhetoric.

ShaneEnochs

12-08-2011, 07:51 AM

i hate the way hunter talks...

He talks like Rand.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 07:53 AM

His position didn't change. He always said Israel should be able to do what they feel is necessary for their national defense. He is just using much better rhetoric.

If by better rhetoric you mean "anything that will get him elected". There's no point in getting Ron elected if he doesn't change the national conversation. "I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened" is something every other candidate would say.

I'm all for him saying something like "I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination". Condoning attacks is something I'm not comfortable with.

ShaneEnochs

12-08-2011, 07:55 AM

If by better rhetoric you mean "anything that will get him elected". There's no point in getting Ron elected if he doesn't change the national conversation. "I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened" is something every other candidate would say.

No, they'd say that we'd be there attacking with them. Paul has always said that he is all for taking the chains off of Israel and letting them do what they will, and they should take responsibility for it. This would include attacking Iran.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 07:57 AM

If by better rhetoric you mean "anything that will get him elected". There's no point in getting Ron elected if he doesn't change the national conversation. "I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened" is something every other candidate would say.

And that's what he's been saying all along, you just didn't hear it. He isn't becoming a moderate.

Any other candidate would say "I'm fine with them attacking Iran, but for good measure I'll throw in some of our F-16s and some troops to help out. If Iran retaliates, we will occupy the entire Middle East to save our closest ally"

If Ron were asked what he would do if Iran retaliated to an Israel attack, he would say "nothing".

ghengis86

12-08-2011, 07:57 AM

If by better rhetoric you mean "anything that will get him elected". There's no point in getting Ron elected if he doesn't change the national conversation. "I'm fine with them attacking Iran if their national security is threatened" is something every other candidate would say.

I'm all for him saying something like "I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination". Condoning attacks is something I'm not comfortable with.

I think the other candidates have implied or outright said the US should attack Iran for Israel. RP said Israel can defend herself. That's still pretty radical in today's GOP

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:04 AM

And that's what he's been saying all along, you just didn't hear it. He isn't becoming a moderate.

Any other candidate would say "I'm fine with them attacking Iran, but for good measure I'll throw in some of our F-16s and some troops to help out. If Iran retaliates, we will occupy the entire Middle East to save our closest ally"

If Ron were asked what he would do if Iran retaliated to an Israel attack, he would say "nothing".

I've heard him say that type of statement, but it's been couched with statements like these:

"That's an impossible situation, for the Iranians to invade Israel"

"They're more likely to invade the moon than Israel"

Simply put, what he said in the interview was his position, without any of the thoughtfulness or intellect that leads to it.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 08:08 AM

I've heard him say that type of statement, but it's been couched with statements like these:

"That's an impossible situation, for the Iranians to invade Israel"

"They're more likely to invade the moon than Israel"

Simply put, what he said in the interview was his position, without any of the thoughtfulness or intellect that leads to it.

No, it's without the educational crap that will do nothing to help him win. He is improving the delivery of his message - the same message - to expand his support. He is NOT moderating his views or message in any way.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:08 AM

No, it's without the educational crap that will do nothing to help him win. He is improving his message - the same message - to expand his support. He is NOT moderating his views or message in any way.

Removing the thoughtfulness and intellect is moderating his message.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 08:10 AM

Removing the thoughtfulness and intellect is moderating his message.

Removing the educational crap is improving the delivery of his message. Nothing changed about the message, so how exactly is he moderating it?

Israel is a sovereign nation, they do what they want. You can say it in so many different ways, but only a few of those ways won't make the GOP see you as crazy.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:19 AM

Removing the educational crap is improving the delivery of his message. Nothing changed about the message, so how exactly is he moderating it?

Israel is a sovereign nation, they do what they want. You can say it in so many different ways, but only a few of those ways won't make the GOP see you as crazy.

Without a cultural or intellectual shift in the country, what good is a Ron Paul presidency? He'd be an absolute pariah, or he'd have to go along to get along, neither of which would be good at all.

This is pretty similar to the debate surrounding the purpose of the Libertarian Party. If the purpose is to appear electable, you defeat the purpose of even running.

I just don't think that pushing this type of candidacy will accomplish our goals of limited government. That's going to require a shift in the electorate.

I guess to wrap it up, I'm kind of confused as to why this whole video was even made. Taxation is theft, government can do nothing but steal from you at the point of a gun, why couldn't we have arrested bin Laden, nobody will do heroin because it's made legal, Blessed are the Peacemakers, if Israel feels threatened from Iran I'm okay with Israel striking first.

All of those are from this cycle, and one of them is not like the others.

ShaneEnochs

12-08-2011, 08:21 AM

Removing the thoughtfulness and intellect is moderating his message.

He's just removing the disclaimer.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:26 AM

He's just removing the disclaimer.

A massive part of his appeal has been the disclaimer. How many people would have jumped on board had he answered Giuliani with:

"I want to hunt down those who attacked us and punish them to the fullest extent of the law" instead of discussing blowback? He wouldn't be abandoning his position, but that illustrates my point better than my other ramblings.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 08:30 AM

Without a cultural or intellectual shift in the country, what good is a Ron Paul presidency? He'd be an absolute pariah, or he'd have to go along to get along, neither of which would be good at all.

This is pretty similar to the debate surrounding the purpose of the Libertarian Party. If the purpose is to appear electable, you defeat the purpose of even running.

I just don't think that pushing this type of candidacy will accomplish our goals of limited government. That's going to require a shift in the electorate.

I guess to wrap it up, I'm kind of confused as to why this whole video was even made. Taxation is theft, government can do nothing but steal from you at the point of a gun, why couldn't we have arrested bin Laden, nobody will do heroin because it's made legal, Blessed are the Peacemakers, if Israel feels threatened from Iran I'm okay with Israel striking first.

All of those are from this cycle, and one of them is not like the others.

There is no time for a cultural or intellectual shift in the next month before voting begins. You want him to run an educational campaign to set the path for Rand, I want Ron to win and become the President. He has a shot, and needs to overcome the foreign policy obstacle. I love the change in delivery of his message - it proves he is serious about winning.

You sound very interventionist when you imply that Ron shouldn't be okay with Israel striking first. There's nothing he can do about it, and he advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, which means no getting involved in their business, and no dictating to them what they can or can not do. It's not like he wants death and destruction, but he recognizes their sovereignty, and their right to strike when they feel their national security is threatened.

He said "The conditions are similar (to Iraq in the 80s), and that should be their decision and not ours". How is that any different to what he said about not condemning them in the 80s? You're overreacting.

unknown

12-08-2011, 08:30 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZpL8F4FgU

credit to politico morningscore

1981...

Ron Paul isnt human. Ron Paul has been programmed to not lie and to be morally decent and consistent from day one...

He's a moral, consistent cyborg.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:38 AM

There is no time for a cultural or intellectual shift in the next month before voting begins. You want him to run an educational campaign to set the path for Rand, I want Ron to win and become the President. He has a shot, and needs to overcome the foreign policy obstacle. I love the change in delivery in his message - it proves he is serious about winning.

You sound very interventionist when you imply that Ron shouldn't be okay with Israel striking first. There's nothing he can do about it, and he advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy, which means no getting involved in their business, and no dictating to them what they can or can not do. It's not like he wants death and destruction, but he recognizes their sovereignty, and their right to strike when they feel their national security is threatened.

He said "The conditions are similar (to Iraq in the 80s), and that should be their decision and not ours". How is that any different to what he said about not condemning them in the 80s? You're overreacting.

If I'm raising my eyebrow because he's moderating his message in some aspect, why would I want Rand?

I've also said nothing about running a strictly educational campaign. Just like in political theory, there are more than two choices. You can win while also educating.

"I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination"

I said that earlier in the thread, and that's hardly interventionist. That's pretty darned neutral. I haven't called for Ron to condemn an attack on Iran.

If there isn't going to be a cultural or intellectual shift to elect Ron, what good is getting him elected? I'm not being negative here, I'm honestly wondering what the point of getting him elected is, other than changing the direction of the country. He can't change the direction of the country by himself.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 08:45 AM

I've also said nothing about running a strictly educational campaign. Just like in political theory, there are more than two choices. You can win while also educating.

Not in this case.

"I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination"

That is essentially what he said.

I said that earlier in the thread, and that's hardly interventionist. That's pretty darned neutral. I haven't called for Ron to condemn an attack on Iran.

Not supporting their sovereignty and their right to do what they want isn't neutral. The only neutral course of action is to stay out of it completely without taking sides.

If there isn't going to be a cultural or intellectual shift to elect Ron, what good is getting him elected? I'm not being negative here, I'm honestly wondering what the point of getting him elected is, other than changing the direction of the country. He can't change the direction of the country by himself.

He can educate and shift the nation both culturally and intellectually once he is President, where he isn't debating a bunch of warmongers with 30 second soundbites and 89 seconds to speak.

musicmax

12-08-2011, 08:56 AM

Without a cultural or intellectual shift in the country, what good is a Ron Paul presidency? He'd be an absolute pariah, or he'd have to go along to get along, neither of which would be good at all.

This is pretty similar to the debate surrounding the purpose of the Libertarian Party. If the purpose is to appear electable, you defeat the purpose of even running.

I just don't think that pushing this type of candidacy will accomplish our goals of limited government. That's going to require a shift in the electorate.

I guess to wrap it up, I'm kind of confused as to why this whole video was even made. Taxation is theft, government can do nothing but steal from you at the point of a gun, why couldn't we have arrested bin Laden, nobody will do heroin because it's made legal, Blessed are the Peacemakers, if Israel feels threatened from Iran I'm okay with Israel striking first.

All of those are from this cycle, and one of them is not like the others.

He demonstrated thirty years ago that he was "okay with Israel striking first" when he voted against the Osirak condemnation resolution discussed in this video.

The wording of your statement sounds like you want him to say that he's NOT okay with Israel striking first, which is a rather interventionist position. What would you have him do if Israel strikes first - defend Iran?

I hope he runs an ad in Florida, NYC and other "Israel-first" strongholds with the Netanyahu clip, the points about the foreign aid disparity, his vote against the Osirak condemnation, and the borders language from this video.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:56 AM

Not supporting their sovereignty and their right to do what they want isn't neutral. The only neutral course of action is to stay out of it completely without taking sides.

I slightly disagree that's he staying completely neutral, because he's treading on iffy waters on the border issue. The borders aren't up to Israel; there is another group of people who have proclaimed their autonomy in the equation. In all honesty, I probably take greater issue with that statement than I do the Iran statement now that I think about it.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 08:58 AM

The wording of your statement sounds like you want him to say that he's NOT okay with Israel striking first, which is a rather interventionist position. What would you have him do if Israel strikes first - defend Iran?

If Iran hadn't struck first or had any sort of capability to strike, I wouldn't want him to side with Israel, no. My position is hardly interventionist. "I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination" is the line, as far as I'm concerned.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 08:59 AM

I slightly disagree that's he staying completely neutral, because he's treading on iffy waters on the border issue. The borders aren't up to Israel; there is another group of people who have proclaimed their autonomy in the equation. In all honesty, I probably take greater issue with that statement than I do the Iran statement now that I think about it.

What he means is that Obama was trying to dictate where the border should be for them. What he means is that it's down to them to negotiate, not us. Watch the whole interview again.

bluesc

12-08-2011, 09:01 AM

If Iran hadn't struck first or had any sort of capability to strike, I wouldn't want him to side with Israel, no.

He wouldn't be siding though, he would simply not get involved and not dictate to them what they should do.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 09:02 AM

What he means is that Obama was trying to dictate where the border should be for them. What he means is that it's down to them to negotiate, not us. Watch the whole interview again.

I'm aware.

I guess I'm just not cut out for politics.

EBounding

12-08-2011, 09:03 AM

Even if Paul's rhetoric is "moderated" to appeal to a wider disagreeable audience, the contrast is still stark:

Ron Paul: Treat Israel as an independent country and let them defend themselves.

Everyone Else: Give Israel as much foreign aid as it wants and we will defend them no matter what.

That's still a significant shift if you ask me.

Travlyr

12-08-2011, 09:30 AM

If I'm raising my eyebrow because he's moderating his message in some aspect, why would I want Rand?

I've also said nothing about running a strictly educational campaign. Just like in political theory, there are more than two choices. You can win while also educating.

"I'm not the President of Israel, it's not my determination"

I said that earlier in the thread, and that's hardly interventionist. That's pretty darned neutral. I haven't called for Ron to condemn an attack on Iran.

If there isn't going to be a cultural or intellectual shift to elect Ron, what good is getting him elected? I'm not being negative here, I'm honestly wondering what the point of getting him elected is, other than changing the direction of the country. He can't change the direction of the country by himself.
As "Commander in Chief" he brings the troops home. The economy starts booming again when competing currencies are legalized. Non-violent offenders are released from cages. For those who don't already see it, cultural and intellectual shifts come from understanding first hand how suppressed they were.

Feeding the Abscess

12-08-2011, 09:35 AM

As "Commander in Chief" he brings the troops home. The economy starts booming again when competing currencies are legalized. Non-violent offenders are released from cages. For those who don't already see it, cultural and intellectual shifts come from understanding first hand how suppressed they were.

I'm totally down with all of that. Hell, I've even argued that the income tax would be effectively ended due to pardons and lack of prosecution. I guess I'm just being pessimistic and intransigent.