Real Hope & Change - Ron Paul 2012

[777 fixer]

That's a great question. I don't at this time have an answer. My guess would be minimal compliance with existing treaties. There are fully 166 Treaties in Place currently so the question would be which ones to get out of. If he attempted to end all foreign treaties he'd never get it done if he was President for 20 years. IMO, and I'm not sure exactly how you "Unratify" a treaty? Guess is with the advice and consent of Congress and that would be hard to do.

You're guess? If you are going to vote for him you should really get those kind of answers and not just guess.

 

[SparrowHawk]

You're guess? If you are going to vote for him you should really get those kind of answers and not just guess.

Actually I never gave it a thought as I want the US out of the Empire Building business by any means necessary. I think sending the UN packing to say Brussels would be an excellent start.

 

[xUT]

Actually I never gave it a thought as I want the US out of the Empire Building business by any means necessary. I think sending the UN packing to say Brussels would be an excellent start.

AMEN!

 

[Ms Tree]

How does changing the location of the UN solve anything. If you want out you would have to stop funding. Having them in a different country does not change anything.

 

[SparrowHawk]

How does changing the location of the UN solve anything. If you want out you would have to stop funding. Having them in a different country does not change anything.

It may not change a thing except the perception of the world. Ordering the rat b*stards who hate us and their criminal diplomats out and de-funding our involvement in the criminal enterprise known as the United Nation will send a powerful message.

Remember perception IS reality.

 

[Ms Tree]

Criminal enterprise?

 

[SparrowHawk]

Criminal enterprise?

Blood Diamonds
Mugabe
Rwanda
Somalia
Conflict minerals

All of this occurred under the watchful eye of the UN. But boyo boyo let the Jews go on the warpath and kick Hamas's ever loving ass across Palestine and there is Hell to pay. Corrupt? Without a Doubt Criminal? Corruption is a crime.

I would bet a substantial amount of money that if the UN and its agencies were investigated with the intensity of our investigations into the KKK or the Mafia you could find multiple violations of the RICO statutes in a heartbeat.

 

[Ms Tree]

Interesting argument.

I think the UN is a good idea in so far as a forum for smaller countries to ask for help and voice their opinions but I am not comfortable with their enforcement ability. On the other hand, if force is to be used I am in favor of multiple countries sending forces under a single title so long as those forces are proportional to the countries size.

I ave not really researched the issues so my views are open to change depending upon the evidence.

 

[777 fixer]

That's a great question. I don't at this time have an answer. My guess would be minimal compliance with existing treaties. There are fully 166 Treaties in Place currently so the question would be which ones to get out of. If he attempted to end all foreign treaties he'd never get it done if he was President for 20 years. IMO, and I'm not sure exactly how you "Unratify" a treaty? Guess is with the advice and consent of Congress and that would be hard to do.

What exactly is "minimal compliance"? What treaties should we get out of?

Would you want a President Paul to be able to make those decisions on his own? That would present quite a dilemma for all those Ron Paul supporters. On one hand they like to talk about a return to the Constitution. If that's the case then they would have to admit that a President should not have the power to enter in or withdrawal from treaties he sees fit. This of course would throw a wrench into their little Paul fest.

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Well when you can't win the argument, try to assassinate the character of your opponent. Typical and not surprising. Been this way since I was a poll watcher for a third party 35 years ago and the Republicrat Judge tried to make me move so far away as to be ineffective. That worked long enough for me to pull out a copy of the election code and a tape measure.

I demonstrated that I was EXACTLY ONE Inch over the minimum distance from the door and they went away. So I've been there, Done that and got the T-Shirt

LOL

So, I guess calling me names in your first posts doesn't count?

Go back to your Paul fantasy...but really, this time it will be different!!!!

 

[Ms Tree]

What exactly is "minimal compliance"?

It's like being kind of pregnant.

 

[SparrowHawk]

LOL

So, I guess calling me names in your first posts doesn't count?

Go back to your Paul fantasy...but really, this time it will be different!!!!

Well I've started research into the Constitution and how the US could end some of their foreign entanglements. So far it's as clear as mud. Thomas Jefferson has offered the following on treaties.

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent.

The last sentence is rather troubling if anyone thinks backing out of 166 treaties is going to be easy. I've not read anything other than vague general statements from Dr. Paul regarding treaties. A lot of this depends just how strict a constructionist you are Constitutionally as to what's required. For example consider this opinion regarding the United Nations.

Since treaties are compacts between/among " the powers of the earth" of "separate and equal station" as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.

Consequently, for at least these two reasons --- 1) because the U.S. Senate in 1945 ratified the United Nations (UN) Charter as a treaty and the UN is not a sovereign nation, and 2) because membership in the UN makes the U.S. inferior to the UN --- U.S. "membership" in the United Nations is unconstitutional, FORBIDDEN, and thus declared null and void. Ditto for the World Court and the nebulous entanglements of the New World Order.

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)

In spite of all of the obvious above, some people doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end. Some even boast of having made an end run around the Constitution.

At its conception and inception, America was founded as a Constitutional Republic under the Rule of Law. In a Republic, law prevails until changed as per a stipulated process, even if a majority of, or 150 percent of the Congress, or 200 percent of the people vote otherwise. (Don't giggle: LBJ was "elected" to Congress with 110 percent of all of the issued ballots in his Texas district "cast" for him!)

@ HPearlyretiree,
As the leading Doug Parker apologist here your opinions have no credibility with me as you are judged by the company you keep and old DUI Doug is no one I'd want my name associated with. Dr Paul has more honor, integrity and credibility sound asleep than either you or DUI Doug will if the 2 of you live to a thousand years old. BTW, any truth to the rumor one of the US execs was S---Faced coming back from Europe and got cut off by the flight attendant? I figure you'd know since your lips are squarely planted on their collective arses? I just wonder if you kiss both cheeks or do have a preference?

 

[HPearlyretiree]

Well I've started research into the Constitution and how the US could end some of their foreign entanglements. So far it's as clear as mud. Thomas Jefferson has offered the following on treaties.



The last sentence is rather troubling if anyone thinks backing out of 166 treaties is going to be easy. I've not read anything other than vague general statements from Dr. Paul regarding treaties. A lot of this depends just how strict a constructionist you are Constitutionally as to what's required. For example consider this opinion regarding the United Nations.



@ HPearlyretiree,
As the leading Doug Parker apologist here your opinions have no credibility with me as you are judged by the company you keep and old DUI Doug is no one I'd want my name associated with. Dr Paul has more honor, integrity and credibility sound asleep than either you or DUI Doug will if the 2 of you live to a thousand years old. BTW, any truth to the rumor one of the US execs was S---Faced coming back from Europe and got cut off by the flight attendant? I figure you'd know since your lips are squarely planted on their collective arses? I just wonder if you kiss both cheeks or do have a preference?

Same old blather, you have no problem disparaging the alzheimers, and the disabled. Personal attacks is all you have.

BTW, how did Ron do in every single primary he ran in? Lost...every one of them. He has a very small but dedicated and deluded base of rabid fanboys, but that is it. So, hey Charlie Brown, this time Lucy won't pull the ball away, honest!

LOL

(hint, if you want someone to listen to your debate, don't call them names or use pejorative nicknames as part of your argument, why, when you do that...you end up with 5% of the vote....

LOL

 

[SparrowHawk]

Same old blather, you have no problem disparaging the alzheimers, and the disabled. Personal attacks is all you have.

BTW, how did Ron do in every single primary he ran in? Lost...every one of them. He has a very small but dedicated and deluded base of rabid fanboys, but that is it. So, hey Charlie Brown, this time Lucy won't pull the ball away, honest!

LOL

(hint, if you want someone to listen to your debate, don't call them names or use pejorative nicknames as part of your argument, why, when you do that...you end up with 5% of the vote....

LOL

How about if I just stick to disparaging you? would that be OK?

For the record I'll disparage anyone I want, when I want. I do not need or seek your approval.

As to Dr Paul and his electability. What many don't understand is he doesn't have to win to be effective, he just has to garner enough votes to frighten the mainstream Republicans and Democrats into acting on some of his issues to keep his base from growing. In this respect he is like a 3rd party candidate. He has already been successful in raising questions about the Fed and why it's never been audited.

When you get Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich & Barney Frank to vote on the same side of a resolution regarding our unlawful incursion into Libya I'd argue that a little Dr Paul goes a long way as he has been harping on our foreign policy for 30 years. Now that the country is in the crapper people are taking notice of this Congress Critter from TX.

The classic case of a loser influencing the winning candidate is Howard Stern's aborted run for Governor of NY. His platform consisted of exactly 3 issues.

One way tolls into NYC
Construction done at night to speed rush hour traffic.
Re-institute the Death Penalty

Within 18 months of Gov. Patacki's administration all three items be came law and Stern went back to making million with boob jokes. Ross Perot was another. It was no accident to me that Clinton ultimately balanced the budget as Ross Perot was the first to sound the debt alarm.

If you look throughout our history there are a great many candidates that help frame the agenda for the ultimate winner. I've always liked Ron Paul and I'm really getting excited by Herman Cain. I want to see the Empty Suit and Cain debate who's the Blackest black man, it will be a hoot, Cain will beat him like a red headed stepchild in a debate. Failure is pretty easy to argue against. Ron Paul would eat him for dinner as well. Obama can out slick Romney and he's nimble enough to crush Palin and likely Bachmann as well. Pawlenty I figure is a draw debate wise as is Huckabee. Trump would tell him to go F himself LOL

In order for Ron Paul to have a shot he has to hit a home run in Iowa & South Carolina and I don't think he can. He's to Libertarian for the conservative Christian Republican base that votes in huge percentages in their respective primary's. The weird thing is NH, Paul didn't do well there and they actually have elected Libertarian legislators.

This just in!

CNN Poll: Ron Paul Stands Best Chance Against Obama
Written by Michael Tennant
Friday, 06 May 2011 01:00

“Ron Paul cannot get elected” President, declared Donald Trump at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Trump, who has never run for office, let alone won an election, may want to reconsider his parroting of this common refrain: A new CNN poll finds that, of all the Republicans being discussed as potential presidential candidates, the longtime Texas congressman has the greatest chance of beating Barack Obama, while The Donald comes in dead last.

In a hypothetical match-up between Paul and Obama, Obama beats Paul by only seven percentage points (52 to 45 percent). Meanwhile, Obama bests former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee by eight points, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by 11 points, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich by 17 points, former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin by 19 points, and Trump by a whopping 22 points. (The poll, by the way, was taken April 29 – May 1 and completed before Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.)

 

[777 fixer]

Well I've started research into the Constitution and how the US could end some of their foreign entanglements. So far it's as clear as mud. Thomas Jefferson has offered the following on treaties.



The last sentence is rather troubling if anyone thinks backing out of 166 treaties is going to be easy. I've not read anything other than vague general statements from Dr. Paul regarding treaties. A lot of this depends just how strict a constructionist you are Constitutionally as to what's required. For example consider this opinion regarding the United Nations.



@ HPearlyretiree,
As the leading Doug Parker apologist here your opinions have no credibility with me as you are judged by the company you keep and old DUI Doug is no one I'd want my name associated with. Dr Paul has more honor, integrity and credibility sound asleep than either you or DUI Doug will if the 2 of you live to a thousand years old. BTW, any truth to the rumor one of the US execs was S---Faced coming back from Europe and got cut off by the flight attendant? I figure you'd know since your lips are squarely planted on their collective arses? I just wonder if you kiss both cheeks or do have a preference?

You sound like an awful lot of Ron Paul supporters. Ron Paul makes some vague statments, you get excited and break out the check book but forget to ask important questions. Like, can he do that?

In the case of treaties with other countries questions like which treaties he would scrap and which ones would he keep. Or more more importantly does he have the power. What would happen if President Paul starts terminating treaties and congress deicides to intervene? A bit of irony there consider Ron Paul in the past has said congress needs to play a more active role in foreign affairs.