Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (461403)	12/18/2011 12:11:01 PM
From: Honey_Bee	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794356

I don't know exactly which "ideas are winning," but I TOTALLY disagree that Ron Paul's economic philosophy has gone "mainstream." And if a Ron Paul, with his foreign policy outlook, ever gets elected, we can kiss this country (and Israel) good-bye. So God help those who are here "decades" from now if it happens. My opinion is that the guy is a total lunatic who is a Trojan Horse inside the Republican Party. . .

To: LindyBill who wrote (461403)	12/18/2011 12:29:44 PM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794356

People complained about Sarah Palin's voice quality. I have the same problem with Ron Paul, shallow as that is. His voice just rubs me the wrong way. I like many of his ideas, but his delivery scares me. Suppose he had the communication brilliance of Ronald Reagan: "Well, are you better off now than you were four years ago?" "Here's my philosophy on that: We win, they lose." etc. Numerous examples, and my point is the delivery, not the principles. Flesh the ideas out, not just state them. Reagan explained his positions; Ron Paul just declares them. John Stossel expresses libertarian ideas much better, in my opinion. I agree with your second paragraph, with some exceptions allowed for good people who haven't figured that out yet. People are now more willing to buy the basic economic position. We are still decades away from a guy like Paul winning, but the ideas are winning. And this is how you do win. Look at the Dems. The Communists were a fringe and now they run the Left. The Dems are no longer a party. They are now a criminal enterprise.

To: LindyBill who wrote (461403)	12/18/2011 1:29:28 PM
From: MrLucky	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794356

<People are now more willing to buy the basic economic position> That might be. But, for me, the jury is still out on his economic ideas. Why? Paul's problem, which he conveniently avoids, is the "how" of his ideas. Politics is not like a Harry Potter movie where you wave the wand and $h_it happens. He talks about ending the Fed. I have no issue with a significant change to the Fed. It is the how that he avoids. He tends to use the bumper sticker stuff versus substance. Pull the troops out Germany. Okay. How and then what? He tends to avoid the law of unintended consequences. If his how is: Isolationism for America, he has lost perspective of the world today The globe has become smaller, not increased in size. Close out various cabinet level departments. Okay, then what? I can agree with re-sizing Energy, Transportation, and Interior. I can agree with dumping Education. But it always gets back to what is next? While his idea opposing the UN is good for me. He needs to be more detailed in his presentations. He is not. If he asked me for advice (of course, that is a pipe dream on my part); I would tell him to spend a couple days in a locked room with John Bolton. When he left the room he would have gained a very good conservative understanding in how to deal with foreign policy and the UN and he would be equipped in how to provide a substance to his foreign policy positions which has been sorely lacking. Just repeating over and over that bringing the troops home from Germany, South Korea, Japan, Kuwait, etc. without any rationale is not helpful. Why not add something like: "The first thing I will tell (fill in the country) after my election as president, is we are pulling out of your country unless you pay our costs for being there". That would at least, make his argument more presentable to voter. I would add that most of the other GOP candidates are little better in providing substance. Mjchelle Bachman and her commitment to end obamacare. Okay. How? Gingrich, Santorum and Huntsman on creating new energy. Okay. How? Perry on his half year congress. How? They toss out the idea to see if it will stick. The media does nothing with it. They are too damn lazy. Those of us who pay pretty close attention to politics understand that a president cannot get it done alone. These candidates talk as if their magic wand will cause it to happen and, the audience sitting in on the debate, clap and clap as if the candidates proclamations are true and will be executed immediately in January 2013. Look at obama. Without total control of congress his obamacare would be now gathering dust in pelosi's and waxman's closets. Look at obama now. He has accomplished little. He doesn't know how to work with the other side and still win. Ron Paul's commentary suggests to me that he would go down the same obama path and then blame the congress for not shutting down his half dozen cabinet positions as he claimed he would do in some earlier year debate session. Paul and some of the others in the GOP field are not ready for prime time in my view.