Ron Paul

[Loknar]

I consider my self to be in the middle, though politicalcompass.org would have me believe by american standards I'm more left wing than anything...

OH but anyway, I was wondering what the consensus among the more left wing people on this forum is on Ron Paul. He is a republican who has spoken out against the corporations, the war in Iraqi, advocates less government (which is where I would think leftists would take issue) ect.

ronpaul2008.com has more info...

Though of all the candidates running, how do you feel about him? (I ask this to all forum members)

[Os Cangaceiros]

I consider my self to be in the middle, though politicalcompass.org would have me believe by american standards I'm more left wing than anything...

OH but anyway, I was wondering what the consensus among the more left wing people on this forum is on Ron Paul. He is a republican who has spoken out against the corporations, the war in Iraqi, advocates less government (which is where I would think leftists would take issue) ect.

ronpaul2008.com has more info...

Though of all the candidates running, how do you feel about him? (I ask this to all forum members)

I respect him for publicly denouncing the war. That's about it, though. I don't think that we need a laissez faire capitalist "philosopher king" on the throne, personally.

Then again, I don't think any of the clowns running should be in power, but that's just me.

[ArabRASH]

I respect him for publicly denouncing the war. That's about it, though. I don't think that we need a laissez faire capitalist "philosopher king" on the throne, personally.

Then again, I don't think any of the clowns running should be in power, but that's just me.

Agreed. He used to be a libertarian...That's not cool...he reminds me of those "anarcho-capitalists".

Yeah Ron Paul is a douche bag, and i like Ralph Nader alot, so why Nader endorsed Ron Paul is beyonnnnd me.

[apathy maybe]

Ron Paul. Racist creationist. Isn't that about it?

There is a thread on ScumFront (linked to from another thread on the reject somewhere around here) where most of them support him. Says something doesn't it.

[Dimentio]

If Ron Paul ever gets into power, he would be assassinated within weeks. The people cannot bear an emperor who is'nt providing bread'n'circus, and the army cannot bear an emperor who is cutting down costs.

Look how it went for the Roman Emperor Pertinax.

[freakazoid]

Ron Paul. Racist creationist. Isn't that about it?

lol, Ron Paul isn't a racist. No idea about his religious beliefs though.


Says something doesn't it.

Not really, try looking at why they support him, not just that they do.


Agreed. He used to be a libertarian

He still is.


I respect him for publicly denouncing the war. That's about it, though. I don't think that we need a laissez faire capitalist "philosopher king" on the throne, personally.

I respect him for a heck of a lot more than just that, for one he would turn the presidency back to what it was originally supposed to be, not the throne it is now. To begin with the president didn't really have any power, was never supposed to. Don't care for the whole laizzez faire thing, but it his many pluses really outweigh that.

[Zurdito]

Ron Paul serves the role which fascism has served at other times, i.e. to rally the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpens against the working class and immigrants/minorities, whilst simultaneously adopting a demagogic anti-elite stance to fill the vaccuum left by their failure.

I recommend comrades read Trotsky on fascism to understand more about this phenomenon.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

...

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.
The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism.

...

Any serious analysis of the political situation must take as its point of departure the mutual relations among the three classes: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (including the peasantry), and the proletariat.

The economically powerful big bourgeoisie, in itself, represents an infintesimal minority of the nation. To enforce its domination, it must ensure a definite mutual relationship with the petty bourgeoisie and, through its mediation, with the proletariat.

Nevertheless, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its basic social support, the petty bourgeoisie, does not at all rest upon reciprocal confidence and pacific collaboration. In its mass, the petty bourgeoisie is an exploited and disenfranchised class. It regards the bourgeoisie with envy and often with hatred. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, while utilizing the support of the petty bourgeoisie, distrusts the latter, for it very correctly fears its tendency to break down the barriers set up for it from above.


Ron Paul represent petty-bourgeois discontent with the bourgeoisie. In the final anlysis though:

Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois "democratic dictatorship" is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This is why Ron Paul, for all his anti-bourgeois rhetoric, is the most dangerous kind of filth. He is there to drive wedge between the petty-bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the result is, in the end, the restoration of the dominace of finance capital. We need to crush the whole Ron Paul movement.

[Dean]

I consider my self to be in the middle, though politicalcompass.org would have me believe by american standards I'm more left wing than anything...
Most people are. They just don't know it, because they are fed so much bullshit in the media. For most issues the politicians talk of to our faces, the common man wil agree and be in that authoritarian, right wing quadrant. But for the lion's share of the issues, the commoner stands in the far left libertarian quad. It's just the clearly moral way.


OH but anyway, I was wondering what the consensus among the more left wing people on this forum is on Ron Paul. He is a republican who has spoken out against the corporations, the war in Iraqi, advocates less government (which is where I would think leftists would take issue) ect.
He's xenophobic and has a dangerous economic philosophy.


ronpaul2008.com has more info...

Though of all the candidates running, how do you feel about him? (I ask this to all forum members)
I think he is the most insidious. He represents a growing segment of the population with autistic views on humanity, and this is a frightening approach to governance. These people think that the government and economy are a game for their own stock market dream world, and I am glad that they are a negligible minority on the global scale.

[palotin]

Paul is an an extreme reactionary. His racist, homophobic, anti-semitic views are well documented. On the level of pure ideology, he is thoroughly committed to that peculiar American tendency of "libertarian" thought to wed a, entirely commendable, suspicion of the coercive power of the State and, to a considerably lesser extent, monopolistic capital with wholesale support for the deployment of authoritarian measures and extreme violence against those who actively challenge property or transgress too far against a conservatively understood moral order. Thus, Paul praises as 'true Americans' those who use lethal force arbitrarily in the defense of property, supports strong-arm methods in quashing civil disobedience on the part of civil rights protesters, and has no problem using police and guns to enforce his brand of sexual morality. Why reasonably well-educated tech guys have such a boner for him is beyond me.

[bootleg42]

I consider my self to be in the middle, though politicalcompass.org would have me believe by american standards I'm more left wing than anything...

Many people in the United States have NO IDEA what they are politically due to the terrible political environment in the country. My opinion, list to us your basic ideas and we'll give you a good idea where you are more or less. Tell us your opinion on:

1) the state, whether it should exist or not, what should be it's role should be if it exists, it's long term future, etc

2) economics, if the state exists then how would economics be, and if it does not exist how do you think the world will take their economic issues

3) social issues, sex, drugs, lifestyles, etc


OH but anyway, I was wondering what the consensus among the more left wing people on this forum is on Ron Paul. He is a republican who has spoken out against the corporations, the war in Iraqi, advocates less government (which is where I would think leftists would take issue) ect.



ronpaul2008.com has more info...

I'll take this on point to point:

1) Paul's beef with the corporations is that the government protects them economically (which is true). He wises to get rid of that protection. Whatever happens to the corporations after, he can care less.

Of course at the same time there are also labor laws that the state has (thanks to the labor movements from the 1890's-1950's that had a TON of workers killed). Paul wants to get rid of those labor laws too (minimum wage, worker's protection, etc) and that hurts the workers.

2) Paul's beef on the war is not so much about humanism but it's more of his love for his ideology. Paul hates when the state does anything other than enforce private property laws. When the state goes to war, it needs to expand. So because the state needs to expand, Paul hates the war. WE hate the war because innocent people are dying left and right, he hates it ONLY because the state is expanding. We both hate the war for different, us for humanist reasons, him for his ideology. If private companies had armed conflicts with each other, he probably wouldn't care as long as the state doesn't expand.

3) He advocates less government. It's true that we here all hate the government and the state itself. But we also recognize that the government can be POTENTIALLY democratic. Lets take the labor laws. Many labor laws (work hour limits, minimum wage, workers rights, etc) were made possible NOT by the people in the state but by the workers and people who created movements for them. They had to fight and do battle with the state. Finally after long struggle, SOME laws were made to create safety nets for people (social security, labor laws, etc). Paul WANTS TO GET RID OF THOSE SAFETY NETS AND THAT'S NOT COOL.

I believe that as long as the state exists, the laws that the people fought for that help the poor and workers needs to stay and be protected. Paul does not care for those programs and wants to leave all those issues to the free-market which would be mayhem for the poor.


Though of all the candidates running, how do you feel about him? (I ask this to all forum members)

He is horrible like all the candidate of the major two parties. He is even more dangerous because neo-fascists in the U.S. have fallen in love with him. There is a site called Stormfront (a neo-fascist site) that has ads for him and everyone in their forums love him.

Also his views can trick people. You don't know how many people online actually believed that he was left wing. He is right-wing free-market libertarian. The U.S. white suburban middle class could possibly fall for loving him since the current ruling class is looking more and more crazy everyday. This could lead to a dangerous movement that could create animosity from the U.S. white mid-to-upper middle class to the poor inner city directly (you'll see that the view is growing from the middle class that taxes are evil and that the poor are lazy, etc).

None of us revolutionary leftists, in our right minds, would ever vote for him. IF we vote, we vote to make sure nuts like him don't get in (ala some of the revolutionary left voting for Kerry ONLY to prevent Bush from continuing).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

How is someone who is anti-union, anti-corporate tax, and anti-national labor laws promoting anti-corporatism? Are you meaning to tell me Ron Paul believes sole proprietorships, partnerships, and cooperatives should replace corporations, because quite honestly all his record tells me is he wants to somehow get corporations to run on the principle of the invisible (magic) hand after they've been set up by the government.

As other users have pointed out, no communist should/(probably would) support a xenophobic, anti-choice, heterosexist capitalist whose "state's rights" mantra would have meant the continuing existence of slavery and Jim Crow. Human rights before state's rights.

[EwokUtopia]

I think I stand with most of the worlds non-American population when I say that because of his isolationism, he is vastly better than any other candidates in the Republican feild. He is a huge anti-choice paleoconservative anus, but at the same time, he is an anus who wont go around bombing the rest of the world. Ron Pauls America will suck, but if he was president, at least the rest of the world would get 4 years of breathing space.

Its getting to the point where that is the best we can ask of American politicians.

[Faux Real]

I think I stand with most of the worlds non-American population when I say that because of his isolationism, he is vastly better than any other candidates in the Republican feild.
That isn't necessarily a good thing. If he were to be elected and act on his words, his isolationism would signal to every country the US has fucked over that it doesn't need to pay reparations.

[EwokUtopia]

That isn't necessarily a good thing. If he were to be elected and act on his words, his isolationism would signal to every country the US has fucked over that it doesn't need to pay reparations.


And you think that the strongly interventionist US ever would pay reparations? The US is like a sleazy used car salesman, your never going to get whats owed by them, best hope they simply suffer a fatal heart attack.

[bootleg42]

EwokUtopia, it's true the U.S. will not pay reparations for the shitload of crimes they commited to various poor countries in the world, but isolationism would be a form of ultra-nationalism and could make the domestic situation of the U.S. worse.

Most people of the U.S. today don't even know much about the world outside the country. That's why many of them fall into ethnocentric feelings (i.e. "America's the greatest country and the only freest country in the world and everything else is not free like us, etc). Such isolationism would increase nationalist feelings within the population (the white people in the suburbs basically who would be the ones who could vote for a Ron Paul type of person in the future). I doubt people in the inner city would become nationalist since most of us are latinos and we usually go back to our other countries a lot and African-Americans in the inner city would not fall for that bull shit either because of the way the state has treated them through history.

Also know that the U.S. actually has a few foreign policies that give food aid to poor countries. Of course this aid (like most laws here that help workers and poor people) was not done out the good heart of the statesmen, but it was done out of movements and pressure from forces outside the state. Paul would probably see this as "government getting too big, OMG" and he would cut that. As long as the state still exists, I don't want programs like those ended.

Though I see your point. If Paul was elected and if he kept his word, many parts of the world would have "breathing space" for 4 years. I don't know what that would be worth or what would happen. Don't forget Europe is still there and very imperialist even if Paul was to become president and end the imperialism. So shit wouldn't change anyway.

Also it's funny how those Ron Paul freaks try to pass themselves off as some sort of leftists. First they have "money bombs (big days to donate to his campaign)" on leftists days. They did it on Martin Luther King Jr. day. They use the "V for Vendetta" mask in his rallies when in fact that story had a leftist theme and not an ultra-right theme like they're using it for.

And everyone, get ready to laugh...............they're actually going to have a money bomb day on..............................MAY DAY. On a day to celebrate workers and poor people, they're going to use it to honor one of the more anti-labor people out there.

They got videos on youtube that use the word "revolution" and "manifesto" (sound familiar???). And every time you post a comment on youtube, maturely without insults, that point the way they try to pass themselves off as leftists, they delete your comments right away. It sickening how these right-wing free-market libertarian nuts try to pass themselves off as some sort of group of revolutionary leftists.

[Loknar]

Many people in the United States have NO IDEA what they are politically due to the terrible political environment in the country. My opinion, list to us your basic ideas and we'll give you a good idea where you are more or less. Tell us your opinion on:

1) the state, whether it should exist or not, what should be it's role should be if it exists, it's long term future, etc

2) economics, if the state exists then how would economics be, and if it does not exist how do you think the world will take their economic issues

3) social issues, sex, drugs, lifestyles, etc


First, let me say that it is a blanket statement; not all americans are ignorant of their political stance, however, when comparing my political stance on a UK poly based website I'm a little unsure.

However, I do thank you for your offer and I will state my beliefs.

1) The state should exist, however, as it only pertains to the constitution of the US. Less government is what I advocate; this includes state and local governments as well as federal. I feel more government is more harmful than helpful.

2) Free market capitalism. I will admit i am a cappy; I do believe in social programs though only ones which make sense and are needed. In my life time I have seen government cash put into waste. My own father and his family, from when i was very young, were on welfare. After paying their bills every month, it was 'how many 30-packs of old style can we buy.' Someone's weight is considered to be a disability and you can get a check on the 1st of the month.

Here where I live, senior citizens now get free rides from our public transportation system...this means the wealthiest general in human history gets a free ride.

Oh but no corporate welfare. I would eliminate it 100% because the free market must steer us into a proper course; if a company can not adapt and overcome then why keep it afloat?

Now as to healthcare; I believe people should pay it on their own at very reasonable prices. I pay $20 a month to my union for PPO grade insurance and I believe it is a fair system.

3)FOr social issues

sex: should be done when in a committed relationship. Teenagers should not be having sex. Abortion should be allowed but discouraged (i believe it is morally wrong; hell my mother was a perfect candidate to have an abortion yet she had me; how could i ever support it?). Teens shouldnt be having sex, school, career planning are far more important and why risk pregnancy? Sure it comes off as religious lunaicy however, morals aside, dont they have a good point because of the problems it would help teens avoid?


Drugs: Weed. Salvia, Estacy, schrooms ect should be legal. Heroine, meth ect (the heavy stuff) should not be. have smoked week 3 times in my whole life; i simply dont enjoy it due to the intense paranoia I feel. However, if I did like it I would do it every now and then. I have no moral objection to it.

Life styles: I have gay friends, in fact, one is really kind to me and compliments me. I actually fine it flattering. I have no objection to their lifestyle. As a straight man, I have been to gay clubs several times and never had issue with it.

Anyway, hope i gave you enough to work with. Id like to hear from your perspective...


1) Paul's beef with the corporations is that the government protects them economically (which is true). He wises to get rid of that protection. Whatever happens to the corporations after, he can care less.

Of course at the same time there are also labor laws that the state has (thanks to the labor movements from the 1890's-1950's that had a TON of workers killed). Paul wants to get rid of those labor laws too (minimum wage, worker's protection, etc) and that hurts the workers.

On this issue I would oppose him. I my self am no fan of the union. They are leeches who take $30 a month out of my pay check and never give anything in return. Ive worked for 2 years in a grocery store and only 2 times have I EVER seen a union rep. bother to come, visit and ask if there were any problems. The culture is such that only crazy and lazy employees actually bother to call the union for the minorist infraction (always brought on by other employees never management). The unions began well, however in this day and age they are merely another form of business. Many people my age (teens early 20s) only see the 30$ that disappears. Other companies, with no unions, will pay me almost double what I make and include benefits. (I make 7.85 an hour)

Plus, what ever more terrible,the Union will defend scum bags who steal. They save the jobs of the most useless people. If I was paid by work merit, I would be doing pretty well; however, because of our contract, I can not exceed my current pay rate for any reason. So, when a lazy worker works, does nothing, they get the same amount of pay I get even though I work harder. It isnt fair and this is why there is disillusionment with unions.



2) Paul's beef on the war is not so much about humanism but it's more of his love for his ideology. Paul hates when the state does anything other than enforce private property laws. When the state goes to war, it needs to expand. So because the state needs to expand, Paul hates the war. WE hate the war because innocent people are dying left and right, he hates it ONLY because the state is expanding. We both hate the war for different, us for humanist reasons, him for his ideology. If private companies had armed conflicts with each other, he probably wouldn't care as long as the state doesn't expand.
[quote]
He is horrible like all the candidate of the major two parties. He is even more dangerous because neo-fascists in the U.S. have fallen in love with him. There is a site called Stormfront (a neo-fascist site) that has ads for him and everyone in their forums love him.

Yes I saw that as well, however it wouldnt help sway my opinion. but he should condem them.


Also his views can trick people. You don't know how many people online actually believed that he was left wing. He is right-wing free-market libertarian. The U.S. white suburban middle class could possibly fall for loving him since the current ruling class is looking more and more crazy everyday. This could lead to a dangerous movement that could create animosity from the U.S. white mid-to-upper middle class to the poor inner city directly (you'll see that the view is growing from the middle class that taxes are evil and that the poor are lazy, etc).

Im not sure I agree. The middle class works hard in this country. In fact, the so called poor do not pay taxes and the second we have a flat tax, poor and middle class will be paying more. I my self made 9,000 last year. I am getting about 800 back which is a nice chunk of change (i wouldnt get as much if i were not a student). A co worker, who makes $14 per hour, is getting about half of what I got back which to me seems unfair because he paid way more in taxes than I did.

Plus, you have household in this country who are on generational welfare. In the case of my fathers family, and a friends family (weight is an issue so they get food stamps every month). Sometimes, yes, the poor are very lazy. This isnt always the case, however, even in my own family i have seen the cause for poverty was because of lack of ambition mixed with government enabling an abusive lifestyle.

[Phalanx]

And you think that the strongly interventionist US ever would pay reparations? The US is like a sleazy used car salesman, your never going to get whats owed by them, best hope they simply suffer a fatal heart attack.

Right, and when we step down, China will fill our place. I don't think the country funding the genocide in Darfur is a better choice

[Joby]

Ron Paul serves the role which fascism has served at other times, i.e. to rally the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpens against the working class and immigrants/minorities, whilst simultaneously adopting a demagogic anti-elite stance to fill the vaccuum left by their failure.

I recommend comrades read Trotsky on fascism to understand more about this phenomenon.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

The fascist movement in Italy was a spontaneous movement of large masses, with new leaders from the rank and file. It is a plebian movement in origin, directed and financed by big capitalist powers. It issued forth from the petty bourgeoisie, the slum proletariat, and even to a certain extent from the proletarian masses; Mussolini, a former socialist, is a "self-made" man arising from this movement.

...

The movement in Germany is analogous mostly to the Italian. It is a mass movement, with its leaders employing a great deal of socialist demagogy. This is necessary for the creation of the mass movement.
The genuine basis (for fascism) is the petty bourgeoisie. In italy, it has a very large base -- the petty bourgeoisie of the towns and cities, and the peasantry. In Germany, likewise, there is a large base for fascism.

...

Any serious analysis of the political situation must take as its point of departure the mutual relations among the three classes: the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie (including the peasantry), and the proletariat.

The economically powerful big bourgeoisie, in itself, represents an infintesimal minority of the nation. To enforce its domination, it must ensure a definite mutual relationship with the petty bourgeoisie and, through its mediation, with the proletariat.

Nevertheless, the relationship between the bourgeoisie and its basic social support, the petty bourgeoisie, does not at all rest upon reciprocal confidence and pacific collaboration. In its mass, the petty bourgeoisie is an exploited and disenfranchised class. It regards the bourgeoisie with envy and often with hatred. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, while utilizing the support of the petty bourgeoisie, distrusts the latter, for it very correctly fears its tendency to break down the barriers set up for it from above.


Ron Paul represent petty-bourgeois discontent with the bourgeoisie. In the final anlysis though:

Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois "democratic dictatorship" is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

This is why Ron Paul, for all his anti-bourgeois rhetoric, is the most dangerous kind of filth. He is there to drive wedge between the petty-bourgeoisie and the proletariat, and the result is, in the end, the restoration of the dominace of finance capital. We need to crush the whole Ron Paul movement.

Fascist.......Yeahhh.....

Well, except for wanting to end the war on drugs, end the "racist federal death penalty" (his words), and, most of all, End the Military-Industrial Complex and pretty much end the US's militaries involvement around the globe....

maybe

[EwokUtopia]

Right, and when we step down, China will fill our place. I don't think the country funding the genocide in Darfur is a better choice

Thats a matter of indifference. China may support genocide in Sudan, while the US supports the depopulation of Palestine. China has many sweatshops, while the US owns them. China has a vast army and nuclear weapons, so does the US (although theirs is much more used). China spouts belligerent rhetoric against Taiwan, while the US does the same against Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Venezuela, et cetera et cetera.

By the way, you will not gracefully step down. The US will slip off its fragile stilts that hold up its hegemony. American politicians would have to be pragmatic, wise and humble to be able to step down. I dont see that happening any time soon...

[Zurdito]

Fascist.......Yeahhh.....

Well, except for wanting to end the war on drugs, end the "racist federal death penalty" (his words), and, most of all, End the Military-Industrial Complex and pretty much end the US's militaries involvement around the globe....

maybe

I'm not sure if he is fascist, but he serves the same social role of fascism, to use socialistic demagogy to divide the masses and rally the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpens against the workers movement.

Also, isolationism - so what? The BNP is rabidly against neo-conservatism too - "why should whites die for Israel?" etc.

And finally - no war on drugs, good. What are his polciies on immigration and welfare?

[Tungsten]

He's xenophobic and has a dangerous economic philosophy.
On the contrary, he the only one who bothering to take the upcoming financial crisis seriously.

[Dean]

On the contrary, he the only one who bothering to take the upcoming financial crisis seriously.

By sealing the borders, perhaps? getting rid of the IRS? what a joke.

[Joby]

By sealing the borders, perhaps?

Yes. And Cesar Chavez was also a racist for wishing to end illegal immigration.



getting rid of the IRS? what a joke


Seriously dude. Do you pay your income taxes?

[Joby]

That isn't necessarily a good thing. If he were to be elected and act on his words, his isolationism would signal to every country the US has fucked over that it doesn't need to pay reparations.

The US doesn't owe anyone outside the US reparations.

He's not an 'isolationist,' he's just for non-intervention. As in, we're willing to trade with you, and we won't bomb you over the rates.

[Joby]

I'm not sure if he is fascist, but he serves the same social role of fascism, to use socialistic demagogy to divide the masses and rally the petty-bourgeoisie and lumpens against the workers movement

It's an interesting theory, though I would say in his defense that the federal government could help the workers the most by stop subsidizing companies to ship jobs overseas, enter trade deals like NAFTA or the WTO (both of which he has always opposed), and having the corporate conferences, uh, I mean federal govt regulate the labor market.


Also, isolationism - so what? The BNP is rabidly against neo-conservatism too - "why should whites die for Israel?" etc.

Non-interventionism is a much better option than what we've had, and he's the most progressive of anyone in either major party (with the possible exception of Kucinich) on the issue.


And finally - no war on drugs, good. What are his polciies on immigration and welfare?

He's against illegal immigration.

As for welfare, he's for getting rid of Federal involvement. But that's a good thing.

[Faux Real]

The US doesn't owe anyone outside the US reparations.
Sure it does, Iraq quickly comes to mind. Just about every country that has had the US intervened in while ignoring and violating international law should be paid in humanitarian aid - as unlikely that would be.

Non-interventionism is a much better option than what we've had, and he's the most progressive of anyone in either major party (with the possible exception of Kucinich) on the issue.That isn't saying much! ;)

[Joby]

Sure it does, Iraq quickly comes to mind. Just about every country that has had the US intervened in while ignoring and violating international law should be paid in humanitarian aid - as unlikely that would be.

Did Britain have to pay India off? Did Russia give anything to Ukraine?

Why is the US any different?


That isn't saying much! ;)

True. But at least an option outside the status-quo is presented.

Most of the time, Dems and Reps just argue over who's better at running the Empire, not "Should we have one?"

[Tungsten]

By sealing the borders, perhaps? getting rid of the IRS? what a joke.

By not supporting the war, which is putting the US trillions in debt and by not supporting an expansion of the state, which the US cannot afford to do. Over the next 10-20 years, the debt is going to grow continually.

How the winner of the next election handles this debt (or not) is going to be interesting.