Ron Paul Soars In GOP Race, But Foreign Policy Views Are An Albatross

IBD's Capital Hill ^ | 12/13/2011 | Sean Higgins

[Slyscribe]

Ron Paul is surging in Iowa according to the latest polls, but if the libertarian Texas Republican does become the flavor of the week, his foreign policy views will likely leave Republican voters with a sour taste.

The latest IBD/TIPP survey asked respondents which GOP presidential candidate they preferred on four issues: the economy, budget/taxes, health care and foreign policy. Paul is third behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, being the preferred choice by Republicans on the first three issues by margins of 9%, 10%, and 6%, respectively.

As today’s IBD story touched on, Paul is weakest on foreign policy, where he is the choice of just 4%, tying him with Jon Huntsman.

[TennTuxedo]

Who cares what Iowa does? It is one state.

[Talisker]

The problem with Paultards like you is that you think you can nicely dissect something good about Ron Paul and people will ignore all the rest. As if that is normal behavior. It is not. The fact that I have to tell you that means there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

"Paultards"? How childish. And as for the rest, what a tired reversal of exactly what I just pointed out you shills do. And then, of course, your signature accusation of insanity (which is particularly delicious here because your definition of insanity is - literally - based on the fact that someone disagreed with you PER SE. Tell that to a shrink! LOL!).

Tellya what, little man. I guarantee there is a fundamental - and permanent - difference between you and me.

Absolutely.

Positively.

(P.S. @rokkitapps - read, and learn.)

[DoughtyOne]

I am so sick and tired of reading comments about $1 trillion being spent on our ten year war efforts, as if it was going to bankrupt us.

During that same ten years, we spent $5 trillion on welfare.

Please link me to one place on this forum where you have addressed that $5 trillion, have lamented it, and have stated it couldn’t go on or it would destroy our nation.

[ejonesie22]

Um k...

You so eaisly prove why Paul and those who follow him should NEVER be trusted in leadership roles.

Yu obviously are not aware of the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction, that keep the Soviets at bay. They feared losing their life style and power as much as we did. Doesn't work with an insane and suicidal culture. The fact that Iran is closing on nukes as well as achieving orbit in their space program should strike fear into any sane American.

I won't even begin to address your “Military Adventurism” crap.

[rob777]

"If you persists and try to discuss the complexitites of Pauls economic arguments, the global effect of a strong American economy and a small federal government to reduce warfare and belligerency worldwide through economic dominance, these shills will not play - because they well know they'll get beat soundly."


I pretty much agree with Paul on a lot of this. There is no way we return to a limited government without reigning in our military commitment overseas. The problem is that Ron Paul is not the right spokesman for this cause with his statements about being friends with Iran and making the assumption that people like Bin Laden are only attacking us because of our interventionist foreign policy.

We need to maintain Aerospace and Naval supremacy, but most of our ground troops could be brought home. Terrorists could be fought with Special Ops and Intelligence forces if we did not insist in propping up governments and getting caught in counterinsurgency operations. China and Russia could be kept in check by cooperation with nations like Japan, India, South Korea, Poland, Taiwan, etc. If we started to withdraw our land based forces, they would step up the the plate and start providing their own defense. In fact, Russia and China might just start worrying about each other instead of uniting in an effort to block our power if we had less of an overseas military presence. In sum, I think that we could provide ourselves with the security we need at much less of a cost and threat to the principles of limited government.

[Talisker]

I am so sick and tired of reading comments about $1 trillion being spent on our ten year war efforts, as if it was going to bankrupt us. During that same ten years, we spent $5 trillion on welfare. Please link me to one place on this forum where you have addressed that $5 trillion, have lamented it, and have stated it couldn’t go on or it would destroy our nation.

Wow, just wow. You want a link? How about this very article. Because Paul would NEVER have allowed that $5 trillion for welfare, and he would have gotten rid of the NEED for it, too. That's what Paul STANDS for! Yet you try to use what he fights as some sort of denoucement of HIM? LOL!

Chutzpah - you've got it in spades, buddy.

[Berlin_Freeper]

You are a bit sensitive for talking trash on Freepers and then crying foul, aren't you Paultard?

But then I guess someone who is dumb enough to cheer Ron Paul about anything, would be.

[Berlin_Freeper]

>>(P.S. @rokkitapps - read, and learn.)

rokkitapps claims he just made one single positive post about Ron Paul and intends to vote for the Republican nominee.

Your clinging to him like a teddy bear is a bit nutty.

[ejonesie22]

First: Ouch...

LOL...

Second, don't ya just love the Paulitard arrogance...

Why I used to call them the Paulinati, they are so much smarter than us...

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Ron Paul Soars In GOP Race, But Foreign Policy Views Are An Albatross

An ALBATROSS? AN ALBATROSS?!!!!! More like a 100 ton anchor! Between his foreign policy and blaming the U.S. for 9-11, this guy couldn't win dog catcher. Then again, the Paulites are, well,....

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Well, Paul got booed off the stage in Tampa for saying what you say he didn’t say! Nutjobs are sane compared to him!

[Berlin_Freeper]

I do real good at ignoring them. I can’t even remember the last time I posted against one of them. But when I see the US getting blamed for Iran then the line is crossed.

[phillyfanatic]

Overall, Ron is not going to defeat Obama. Here we go again, the Pubs like Hugh and the DNC is the RNC to keep destroying our own. Newt has not fallen on his face as Hugh and the Dems have said. The smears have apparently worked via Paul and Mitt. Wow. So we lose again as a 76 yr. old nutter decides he is a ....what???

[phillyfanatic]

Overall, Ron is not going to defeat Obama. Here we go again, the Pubs like Hugh and the DNC is the RNC to keep destroying our own. Newt has not fallen on his face as Hugh and the Dems have said. The smears have apparently worked via Paul and Mitt. Wow. So we lose again as a 76 yr. old nutter decides he is a ....what???

[phillyfanatic]

Overall, Ron is not going to defeat Obama. Here we go again, the Pubs like Hugh and the DNC is the RNC to keep destroying our own. Newt has not fallen on his face as Hugh and the Dems have said. The smears have apparently worked via Paul and Mitt. Wow. So we lose again as a 76 yr. old nutter decides he is a ....what???

[ejonesie22]

They are always worth a little entertainment....

[Berlin_Freeper]

[DoughtyOne]

This is what I responded to:

True point, and I don’t think Paul is right about everything, but with the debt that we have, we can’t have a trillion dollar conflict over every threat.

Who said this?  Oh that's right, it wasn't Ron Paul.  It was Rokkitapps on this thread.  As such I have every right to ask him to please show me where he has shown the same level of concern about the $5 trillion we have spent on welfare.  Here's what I said in response.

I am so sick and tired of reading comments about $1 trillion being spent on our ten year war efforts, as if it was going to bankrupt us. During that same ten years, we spent $5 trillion on welfare. Please link me to one place on this forum where you have addressed that $5 trillion, have lamented it, and have stated it couldn’t go on or it would destroy our nation.

Then you come up with this brillance.

Wow, just wow. You want a link? How about this very article.  Did Rokkitapps write this article?  Did he choose to address welfare or our war effort?  He chose to address our war effort, even though it was 20% of what our Welfare expenses were over the same period.  Evidently you think I am unfair.  Well, I stridently disagree.  All Rokkitapps had to do, was link me to where he chose to spout off about Welfare spending instead of "war effort" spending.   Seems an easy enough challenge to me.

Because Paul would NEVER have allowed that $5 trillion for welfare, and he would have gotten rid of the NEED for it, too.  Did I single Ron Paul out?  No, I didn't did I.

That's what Paul STANDS for!  What has that to do with what Rokkitapps elected to focus on?  What has it to do with just about every Ron Paul defender here?  They spout off endlessly about our war effort costs, and hardly every mention Welfare here.  If you can scour the forum and find one place where the ten year (approximately) $5 trillion in Welfare spending has been addressed (with the same attempt at precise numbers you folk spout off about war spending), I'll be shocked.  And you get bonus points if you can tie them specifically to a charge that those welfare expense are going to bankrupt this nation, something always charged when we're talking about the war effort expenses.

Yet you try to use what he fights as some sort of denoucement of HIM? LOL!  I did not address Ron Paul.  I addressed Rokkitapps, and when I did I addressed his comments, not Ron Paul's or Ron Paul's beliefs.

Chutzpah - you've got it in spades, buddy.  Well, my response is this.  My level of chutzpah is probably reasonably matched by your level of comprehension skills on this matter.

[Plummz]

and don’t forget, happily let Iran get nukes and wipe Israel off the map!

*Ron Paul is a freaking nut, what would get us all killed*

I'm confused; are you in Israel, or in Texas?

[Plummz]

the background chant of crazy, crazy, crazy will be kept up

Have you noticed that this is a classic Alinskyite Communist polarization tactic? Something to contemplate.