Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Ames Straw Poll #s & WhereThey Leave The GOP

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2011 11:11:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The following is an in depth analysis of the results of the Ames Straw Poll: what they mean for the Republican Party and the campaigns of those involved, who loses and who gains from the results, and finally a very short evaluation of the 4 candidates I believe to be the only viable candidates with a real shot at the nomination at this point in the game. Essentially, where the GOP race is at right now, as of mid-August 2011.

Results of the top 3:

Michelle Bachmann - 4823 votes
Ron Paul - 4671 votes
Tim Pawlenty - 2293 votes

Following are Rick Santorum with 1657 and then Herman Cain with 1456.
After them are Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, with 718, 567, and 385 votes respectively. It's worth nothing that Perry was a write-in and that none of those three campaigned seriously in Iowa for the straw poll.

Ron Paul's total votes have tripled since last Ames straw poll.
Since immediately after the debate and up to at least right now (11:40 pm eastern) Ron is in the top #15 on google trends or whatever it's called. As I write this, Ron Paul 2012 is #3. Notably, Michele Bachmann is currently tending #1, but Ron Paul has been on the list for almost exactly 2 days now, while I believe Bachmann only started a few hours ago (presumably after the Straw Poll victory).

Since a solid amount of Ron Paul supporters say that they had no idea who he was until they did a google search of his name and read up/listened to some of his positions, this is amazing news for the Ron Paul Revolution. As Michael O Brien writes in an article for The Hill (http://thehill.com...), "Paul's finish in Ames makes Paul's candidacy look less like a longshot, and more like a realistic possibility. The straw poll is a good, if imperfect, indicator of Republicans choice to win next February's caucuses, and Paul's finish on Saturday makes it seem increasingly plausible that he could win those contests."

Rick Santorum's underwhelming (but expectedly so) numbers will undeniably put a dent in his already trivial and largely irrelevant campaign. This election is about the economy, and a campaign whose only semi-unique features are an extremely socially conservative agenda and an eagerness to continue engaging in needless, economy-draining foreign interventionism (which many in the GOP now advocate against, due largely in part to Ron Paul and Tea Party influence) isn't going to thrive in an election with a predominantly fiscal focus.

Tim Pawlenty's finish in a distant third might spell the end of his campaign, and certainly slows it down. He was always the boring candidate and everyone knows it - he doesn't display anything interesting that separates him from the other candidates and most view him as the loser of his debates-within the debate (Fox debate last Thurs.) he engaged in with Michele Bachmann. Remember, though Romney didn't even come close, he put literally a bare minimum amount of effort into this straw poll while Pawlenty put in an indispensable amount of time and cash, so this obviously has more of an impact on his campaign than it does on Romney's.

Herman Cain created a buzz a few months back, it died down soon afterward, and the results show in the straw poll. He has no experience in government. Simple as that. A retired pizza chain CEO and former chairman of the Federal Reserve of Kansas City with no experience in Congress has no shot at all.

Jon Hunstman and Thad McCotter placed abysmally low, with 69 and 35 votes respectively. McCotter never had a chance, simple as that. I mean, he has less of a chance than the candidates who are usually bashed in the media for not having a chance, and that's saying something.

And Hunstman didn't make a big splash at all in his first debate and is quickly fading into obscurity, at least within the 2012 race. People have made comparisons of Hunstman to a liberal Democrat what with his support of gay rights and same sex unions, and also due to the fact that he was an ambassador to communist China. Regardless of whether or not those comparisons are accurate, combined with his lack of a breakthrough in the last debate they spell the end of his chances of a mildly successful campaign before it ever really took off.

This leaves the only two people who were really positively affected by this straw poll: Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul.

Of course, Mitt Romney can always say - perhaps rightfully so - that this isn't an accurate representation of how he'd do in a real primary because he spent little to no time preparing for this event, and he's been labeled by most as the frontrunner up until now, so his low numbers don't hurt him at all.

Rick Perry's potential still remains to be seen. He's got several things working against him from the get-go - a) the late date which he's choosing to jump in the race b) his association with the Bilderberg group - look it up if you've never head of it c) most importantly, his image as a 2nd George W Bush. People haven't forgotten the horrendous George Bush presidency, even if Obama's was worse. To outwardly be a neoconservative Republican governor of Texas is not the best label to have only 3 years after GWB sat in the oval office. Regardless, Rick Perry hasn't had any mess-ups yet, and though he definitely hasn't had any real indications of success, he remains a wild-card.

That leaves Perry, Romney, Bachmann, and Paul as the 4 real contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

Some quick thoughts about Perry and Romney:
- Perry: Remains to be seen. Hasn't had any real tests yet so nobody knows, though there are those 3 issues that I mentioned before that doubtlessly work to his detriment.
- Romney: Romney is a FRINO - front runner in name only. He's recognized by almost everyone as the weakest GOP "front runner" in recent years and that title is more or less up for grabs if Romney runs into one little slip up. He knows how to talk and look Presidential; nobody debates that. The question is: how much does his obviously shaky record which is replete with flip-flops on just about every topic, and of course the highly publicized "Obamneycare", play into the mind of the average Republican voter? Of all the candidates, Romney is the most typical politician. Last election cycle, America elected a sweet-talking and articulate politician who ended up flip-flopping on many issues and breaking many promises that he either couldn't live up to or just didn't care to. Will America vote for more of the same? Romney certainly represents the establishment Republican voter. Though he is the tentative "front runner" at the moment, the Republican party is becoming more influenced by the Tea Party each and every day, and Romney is the last candidate that a real Tea Partier would think of supporting. If that Tea Party, libertarian, staunchly anti-big government philosophy continues to infiltrate the Republicans, prepare to see Romney lose the spotlight and become exposed for the flip-flopping, hypocritical, in that regard, RINO (Republican In Name Only) politician that he truly is.

Bachmann is undeniably boosted by her victory and Ron by his near-tie. With Ron Paul's campaign gaining hope and momentum faster than it ever has, with Perry who has so much working against him without even really campaigning, with Romney who is a notorious flip-flopper from "liberal" to "conservative" on many issues and an obviously typical, insincere, more of the same career politician, and with Bachmann trying to be mere clone of Ron Paul - and not a very convincing one at that - the question is not whether or not Ron Paul will threaten to overtake the candidates as Republican frontrunner, but when.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 2:13:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Republican debate hurt Ron Paul's popularity among the more conservative of the voting base. His exchange with Santorum exposed a side of him most Republicans don't agree with.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 8:21:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The straw poll results may speed up the elimination of low-ranked candidates like Caine and Santorum by drying up contributions, but Romney and Perry can safely ignore it. They will be funded through at least the first few primaries.

Ron Paul has a core of ardent supporters that will keep him going forever, but I think his isolationist foreign policy will keep him from winning the nomination. His refusal to come out against polygamy isn't going to help, nor will drug legalization. His strong suit is the economy, and the economy is the most important issue so he's doing better now.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 8:21:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The straw poll results may speed up the elimination of low-ranked candidates like Caine and Santorum by drying up contributions, but Romney and Perry can safely ignore it. They will be funded through at least the first few primaries.

Ron Paul has a core of ardent supporters that will keep him going forever, but I think his isolationist foreign policy will keep him from winning the nomination. His refusal to come out against polygamy isn't going to help, nor will drug legalization. His strong suit is the economy, and the economy is the most important issue so he's doing better now.

Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism. I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone. That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.(I don't want to hear the tired argument that this was only meant for the context But I'd say Ron is a little less extreme - he usually just sticks with not blowing the crap out of random countries for no good reason.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 11:25:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:21:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The straw poll results may speed up the elimination of low-ranked candidates like Caine and Santorum by drying up contributions, but Romney and Perry can safely ignore it. They will be funded through at least the first few primaries.

Ron Paul has a core of ardent supporters that will keep him going forever, but I think his isolationist foreign policy will keep him from winning the nomination. His refusal to come out against polygamy isn't going to help, nor will drug legalization. His strong suit is the economy, and the economy is the most important issue so he's doing better now.

Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism. I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone. That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.(I don't want to hear the tired argument that this was only meant for the context But I'd say Ron is a little less extreme - he usually just sticks with not blowing the crap out of random countries for no good reason.

Sorry, for some reason some of my post got cut off - I meant to say that I don't want to hear the tired argument that the non-interventionist foreign policy advocated by the Founders was only meant for the time period in which they lived, i.e. with other European nations. That's a thinly veiled version of the "Oh, the Founding Fathers, they're sooo 1700s" "argument" you hear from people who want to wipe their rear ends with the Constitution and the advice of the wise men who wrote it.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:30:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:25:43 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:21:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The straw poll results may speed up the elimination of low-ranked candidates like Caine and Santorum by drying up contributions, but Romney and Perry can safely ignore it. They will be funded through at least the first few primaries.

Ron Paul has a core of ardent supporters that will keep him going forever, but I think his isolationist foreign policy will keep him from winning the nomination. His refusal to come out against polygamy isn't going to help, nor will drug legalization. His strong suit is the economy, and the economy is the most important issue so he's doing better now.

Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism. I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone. That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.(I don't want to hear the tired argument that this was only meant for the context But I'd say Ron is a little less extreme - he usually just sticks with not blowing the crap out of random countries for no good reason.

Sorry, for some reason some of my post got cut off - I meant to say that I don't want to hear the tired argument that the non-interventionist foreign policy advocated by the Founders was only meant for the time period in which they lived, i.e. with other European nations. That's a thinly veiled version of the "Oh, the Founding Fathers, they're sooo 1700s" "argument" you hear from people who want to wipe their rear ends with the Constitution and the advice of the wise men who wrote it.

I'd hate for anyone to touch the founder's words on the fugitive slave clause or 3/5 appropriation clause.

The founders (on paper) never intended for the bill of rights to apply to states. We're past the point of "shape it exactly like the founders would."

And yes, as shocking as this may be to you, foreign policy at the time of the signing was important. America was a weak little state caught between colonializing superpowers (France/Spain/Dutch/Britian) that used our continent as playing cards.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 9:34:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Michele Bachmann is a Sarah Palin without the national realization of her stupidity. Should she be the GOP's pick, they'd practically be lending the election to Obama.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2011 10:33:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 9:30:30 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:25:43 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 8/14/2011 8:21:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The straw poll results may speed up the elimination of low-ranked candidates like Caine and Santorum by drying up contributions, but Romney and Perry can safely ignore it. They will be funded through at least the first few primaries.

Ron Paul has a core of ardent supporters that will keep him going forever, but I think his isolationist foreign policy will keep him from winning the nomination. His refusal to come out against polygamy isn't going to help, nor will drug legalization. His strong suit is the economy, and the economy is the most important issue so he's doing better now.

Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism. I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone. That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.(I don't want to hear the tired argument that this was only meant for the context But I'd say Ron is a little less extreme - he usually just sticks with not blowing the crap out of random countries for no good reason.

Sorry, for some reason some of my post got cut off - I meant to say that I don't want to hear the tired argument that the non-interventionist foreign policy advocated by the Founders was only meant for the time period in which they lived, i.e. with other European nations. That's a thinly veiled version of the "Oh, the Founding Fathers, they're sooo 1700s" "argument" you hear from people who want to wipe their rear ends with the Constitution and the advice of the wise men who wrote it.

I'd hate for anyone to touch the founder's words on the fugitive slave clause or 3/5 appropriation clause.

The founders (on paper) never intended for the bill of rights to apply to states. We're past the point of "shape it exactly like the founders would."

And yes, as shocking as this may be to you, foreign policy at the time of the signing was important. America was a weak little state caught between colonializing superpowers (France/Spain/Dutch/Britian) that used our continent as playing cards.

A few things I must correct. First, the 3/5ths compromise was actually proposed by the north, therefore it was the North that advocated for slaves being less than human. They could have pushed for them to be recognized as taxpayers but they didn't. Also, the Framers knew that they weren't perfect and allowed for amendments but overall the truths they have in the Constitution are timeless. The US has throughout history more often than not been non-interventionist up until WWI.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 12:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tim Pawlenty dropped out the day of the straw poll.

@RoyLatham

Now now, Ron Paul is not an isolationist and you know it.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 12:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 12:46:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Tim Pawlenty dropped out the day of the straw poll.

@RoyLatham

Get your a$$ out of your head, Ron Paul is not an isolationist and you know it.

By comparison of any mainstream candidate he would be considered an isolationist. I actually heard (someone i respect) call him a left winger because of his isolationist views.

Now, i think the truth is, if you aren't pro adventurism you are an isolationist (which of course is false), and there is nothing inherently conservative about the reckeless use of our resources in the quest of international adventurism. IN fact i would contend that the prudent use of our resources in such endeavors is far more conservative, and in line with the principles of our founding fathers.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:32:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to see the difference. Paul said that in Iraq we should have let Saddam build nukes and whatever he wanted and that was none of our business until he attacked us. Similarly, we have no business siding with Israel or any other democracy. Their problems are not ours in his view. Isolationism allows a military response once attacked and it allows diplomatic prancing around, but no siding or preemption.

>>I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone.

That's lame. You can argue they are doing it all wrong, but clearly they are engaged, not disengaged.

>>That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

Is that why the Founders refused French aid in the American Resolution? Oh, wait ... It's perfectly sound to advise "don't overextend," but that's not the same as "let 'em build nukes and wait until it's a problem."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 12:46:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Tim Pawlenty dropped out the day of the straw poll.

@RoyLatham

Get your a$$ out of your head, Ron Paul is not an isolationist and you know it.

Reported your violation of the terms of service to DDO.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:46:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:32:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to see the difference. Paul said that in Iraq we should have let Saddam build nukes and whatever he wanted and that was none of our business until he attacked us. Similarly, we have no business siding with Israel or any other democracy. Their problems are not ours in his view. Isolationism allows a military response once attacked and it allows diplomatic prancing around, but no siding or preemption.

I don't see how siding with Israel in foreign diplomacy and invading Iraq can be considered the same thing. One action is the mutual friendship between two countries that have similar views. The other is a preemptive strike on a country we don't like or understand.

>>I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone.

That's lame. You can argue they are doing it all wrong, but clearly they are engaged, not disengaged.

>>That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

Is that why the Founders refused French aid in the American Resolution? Oh, wait ... It's perfectly sound to advise "don't overextend," but that's not the same as "let 'em build nukes and wait until it's a problem."

They are their own country, what right do we have to say that they can't have their own nuclear weapons? Just because we got nukes first doesn't mean we can just call dibs on it.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:49:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 12:53:25 PM, innomen wrote:

Now, i think the truth is, if you aren't pro adventurism you are an isolationist (which of course is false), and there is nothing inherently conservative about the reckeless use of our resources in the quest of international adventurism. IN fact i would contend that the prudent use of our resources in such endeavors is far more conservative, and in line with the principles of our founding fathers.

That's just saying that anyone who disagrees with you on intervention is reckless. The analysis by conservatives is case-by-case. It was the mainly the Republicans who wanted Obama to report on the reasons for being in Libya, allied with Dennis Kucinich and some of the Left. There are a bunch of conservative ex-military types, they appear on Fox News, who support Biden's idea of withdrawing to a few bases in Afghanistan and using drones to strike terrorist camps. Going back, most of the opposition to intervention in Bosnia was from Republicans. Vietnam, of course, was Kennedy/Johnson.

The US has valid interests worth defending militarily. I think there is no alternative to a case-by-case consideration of the circumstances of each.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:53:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:36:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/15/2011 12:46:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Tim Pawlenty dropped out the day of the straw poll.

@RoyLatham

Get your a$$ out of your head, Ron Paul is not an isolationist and you know it.

Reported your violation of the terms of service to DDO.

1. I didn't violate the Terms of Service.
2. It's futile and not a worthy endevour on your behalf to try to get me banned because I'm not a problem on this site but rather a veteran who has contributed a lot.
3. Man up and don't get your feelings hurt by an intentionally light-hearted jab hence the miswording of the common phrase.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:56:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
when you say things like "get your head out of your a$$" that annoys people, you'd be annoyed too if someone said that to you. Treat others how you would like to be treated.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 1:58:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:46:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:32:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to see the difference. Paul said that in Iraq we should have let Saddam build nukes and whatever he wanted and that was none of our business until he attacked us. Similarly, we have no business siding with Israel or any other democracy. Their problems are not ours in his view. Isolationism allows a military response once attacked and it allows diplomatic prancing around, but no siding or preemption.

I don't see how siding with Israel in foreign diplomacy and invading Iraq can be considered the same thing. One action is the mutual friendship between two countries that have similar views. The other is a preemptive strike on a country we don't like or understand.

>>I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone.

That's lame. You can argue they are doing it all wrong, but clearly they are engaged, not disengaged.

>>That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

Is that why the Founders refused French aid in the American Resolution? Oh, wait ... It's perfectly sound to advise "don't overextend," but that's not the same as "let 'em build nukes and wait until it's a problem."

They are their own country, what right do we have to say that they can't have their own nuclear weapons? Just because we got nukes first doesn't mean we can just call dibs on it.

If someone says "I want to shoot and kill you," do you let them go to the store, buy a gun, go through the waiting period, and come back armed with a loaded gun and point it at you before you do something about it?

I'm perfectly fine with pretty much anyone having nukes, so long as the people that say "I really want to nuke so and so" aren't the ones getting. Those with the intent to use nukes aggressively are the ones that shouldn't get them (they should really be denied any military power that can be denied if they plan on being aggressive with them). If they plan on being defensive with them, go for it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:09:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:56:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
when you say things like "get your head out of your a$$" that annoys people, you'd be annoyed too if someone said that to you. Treat others how you would like to be treated.

No, I wouldn't be. I don't care if people insult me. They can call me every name in the book and degrade me and I will still be amused.

The only thing that is annoying is being falsely accused which is something I don't partake in.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2011 2:12:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 1:58:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:46:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:32:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 8/14/2011 11:11:27 AM, jat93 wrote:
Come on Roy, you're smart enough to differentiate between isolationism and non-interventionism.

No, I'm not "smart enough" to see the difference. Paul said that in Iraq we should have let Saddam build nukes and whatever he wanted and that was none of our business until he attacked us. Similarly, we have no business siding with Israel or any other democracy. Their problems are not ours in his view. Isolationism allows a military response once attacked and it allows diplomatic prancing around, but no siding or preemption.

I don't see how siding with Israel in foreign diplomacy and invading Iraq can be considered the same thing. One action is the mutual friendship between two countries that have similar views. The other is a preemptive strike on a country we don't like or understand.

>>I mean, surely you see that the establishment neoconservative imperialistic, nation-building wreck of a foreign policy leads to so much foreign hatred and blowback that it is the neocons who should be labeled isolationists, if anyone.

That's lame. You can argue they are doing it all wrong, but clearly they are engaged, not disengaged.

>>That's why accusations of Ron Paul's isolationism are so greatly ironic. Ron Paul more or less advocates the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.

Is that why the Founders refused French aid in the American Resolution? Oh, wait ... It's perfectly sound to advise "don't overextend," but that's not the same as "let 'em build nukes and wait until it's a problem."

They are their own country, what right do we have to say that they can't have their own nuclear weapons? Just because we got nukes first doesn't mean we can just call dibs on it.

If someone says "I want to shoot and kill you," do you let them go to the store, buy a gun, go through the waiting period, and come back armed with a loaded gun and point it at you before you do something about it?

I'm perfectly fine with pretty much anyone having nukes, so long as the people that say "I really want to nuke so and so" aren't the ones getting. Those with the intent to use nukes aggressively are the ones that shouldn't get them (they should really be denied any military power that can be denied if they plan on being aggressive with them). If they plan on being defensive with them, go for it.

So while you suggest shooting this person who has made a thus far empty threat, I suggest trying to work things out. Instead of a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, I would be more on the side of trying to understand why that person wants to shoot me and hopefully change their mind.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 1:05:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. Isolationism does not allow free trade. Guess which one Ron Paul is?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2011 4:39:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/15/2011 2:12:48 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:58:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/15/2011 1:46:23 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
They are their own country, what right do we have to say that they can't have their own nuclear weapons? Just because we got nukes first doesn't mean we can just call dibs on it.

If someone says "I want to shoot and kill you," do you let them go to the store, buy a gun, go through the waiting period, and come back armed with a loaded gun and point it at you before you do something about it?

I'm perfectly fine with pretty much anyone having nukes, so long as the people that say "I really want to nuke so and so" aren't the ones getting. Those with the intent to use nukes aggressively are the ones that shouldn't get them (they should really be denied any military power that can be denied if they plan on being aggressive with them). If they plan on being defensive with them, go for it.

So while you suggest shooting this person who has made a thus far empty threat, I suggest trying to work things out. Instead of a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality, I would be more on the side of trying to understand why that person wants to shoot me and hopefully change their mind.

That's not even close to the mentality anyone is suggesting.

Obviously
1) talk with them find out why they want to shoot you and try to work it out.
2) If it can't be worked out, inform them that if they continue to persue a gun to kill you with, you will shoot them before they get that gun.
3) Just before they receive the gun, you shoot them.

At no point is there a "shoot first ask questions later" mentality, and at no point is there a "let them have a gun that they said they want to shoot us with" mentality.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"