If you think Ron Paul is an isolationist and too radical extreme for America, please explain why?

Answer 1

because I listen and pay attention. Every major policy he supports or advocates would have the net effect of reducing American influence in the world.

Answer 2

While the United Nations is not the force it used to be, the United States is a major voice in its operation. Ron Paul wants us to withdraw our membership from the UN. He also wants us to drop out of NATO. Ron Paul is an isolationist which was a mistake during the 1930's. We should take a lesson from history. Prior to our involvement in WWII we stood by while Hitler overran Europe, murdering millions. We stood by while Japan invaded China, resulting in mass execution and exterminations like the Nanking massacre. Here in the USA, we allowed isolationist priests like Charles Coughlin to hold anti- semetic rallies and preach the same on his Sunday broadcasts. There was even an American Nazi Party consisting of American citizens of German ancestry. While they did not condone Hitler's actions, at the same time they hoped America would stay on this side of the Atlantic.

Ron Paul opposes the Federal income tax. Who does he think is going to pay federal employees, finance federal grants and other programs? Maintain our highways and bridges?

Ron Paul opposes the Patriot Act - Why? As a private citizen my life has not changed nor have I lost any rights as a US citizen. I do know that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Ron Paul also wants to do away with the War On Drugs. Is he some kind of nut? It is hard to believe that this guy is a medical doctor.

He also is against gun control as if we don't already have a problem with too many guns on the street.

The only thing I agee on is his stance on illegal immigration: He opposes birthright citizenship - pregnant Mexican wetbacks coming here to have their babies and since the baby is automatically a US citizen she gets to stay to take care of the baby and suck more money off of the welfare program.

Answer 3

Well Jessica is right..he is a non-interventionist. If he were an isolationist he wouldn't want any relations with other countries, but he wants excellent diplomatic relations.

He isn't really that radical....some may not be ready, but he might be just what we need!

Personally I will vote Huckabee if he is serious about the Fair Tax...but I'll supprt Paul 100% if he gets the nomination.

Edit: I don't like the self-loathing he sometimes does when it comes to why the terroroists hate us. He truly believes it though.

Answer 4

He's not, but those in fear of him and his ideas are going to put up resistence and try and disarm him.. I like Paul as a whole I'm just concerned about a few of his stances which I don't understand well enough yet to judge him.. (yes wizzards I understand history and politics pretty well just not a few of his stances) As a whole though I feel he just might be the answer to the direction the USA has been heading for the past 25 years.

"I hate Liberals" you are about as wrong as you can be... Not favoring the war is not being Liberal or is it democrat.. It is more republican then anything.. By stopping the war is NOT declaring a defeat, where did you ever get that idea? And to want to bring the troops home is about as american as it gets... Just because someone doesn't favor attacking other countries, forcing our beliefs down their throats, and policing the world is NOT a Liberal view.. I don't know where you people come up with that.. NOT ALL conservatives favor the war and by not doing so it does not make it liberal.. You need to learn first about what is the beliefs of Rupublicans, Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives.. Just because YOU don't agree with someone does not make him a Liberal.. Go back and study..You are sadly misinformed.

Answer 5

Are you kidding.... that's why I like him.

I think it's hilarious that the only guy in government who actually votes based on the constitution is defined as radical.

Answer 6

Congressman Paul’s non-interventionism is not isolationism. In case of an imminent threat to the United States, he would take the necessary steps to protect us, even military action as he did after 9/11. He voted in favor of entering Afghanistan in a direct response to the attacks.

He advocates using diplomacy/trade with countries around the world.. not secluding ourselves..

Radical ideas? I don't think so.. this country has a deficit of over 2.4 trillion dollars, government spending needs to be reduced.. he is correct..



EDIT: John, American isolationism had nothing to with the rise of Hitler. After WW1 the treaty of Versailles created circumstances that allowed Hitler to rise to power. The treaty left Germany in debt for the war, which led the country to print too much money to pay it of, creating inflation, resulting in economic and political instability.. Hitler and the Nazi’s were able to thrive in this environment.

And this comparison has no merit anyways.. this is an entirely different situation.. Hitler invaded countries, killed thousands and controlled most of Europe at one point..

I’ll repeat this again, Paul’s non-interventionism is not isolationism. In case of an imminent threat to the United States, he would take the necessary steps to protect us, even military action as he did after 9/11. He voted in favor of entering Afghanistan in a direct response to the attacks and supports the letters of Marquee and Reprisal to counter terrorism.. he is also for a stronger national defense..

And why do we need NATO and the UN to network and communicate in this age.. Reagan was able to end the Cold War by calling Gorbachev up directly..

NATO was formed in a response to the threat from the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.. It has outlived it’s usefulness since the Cold War.. It commits American military forces to situations that don’t serve in our national interest.

As for the UN, wasn’t this the same organization that caused us to enter war with Iraq in the first place? Iraq defied the UN resolutions..

How can people not recognize how flawed this organization is?

“There has been criticism of the Security Council, e.g. for being unable to act in a clear and decisive way when confronted with a crisis.”

“The UN has been accused of ignoring the plight of people across the world, especially in parts of Asia, the Middle East and Africa”
(source Wiki)

"To date, Congress has attempted to curb the abuse of power of the United Nations by urging the United Nations to reform itself, threatening the nonpayment of assessments and dues allegedly owed by the United States and thereby cutting off the United Nations' major source of funds. America's problems with the United Nations will not, however, be solved by such reform measures. The threat posed by the United Nations to the sovereignty of the United States and independence is not that the United Nations is currently plagued by a bloated and irresponsible international bureaucracy. Rather, the threat arises from the United Nation's Charter which--from the beginning--was a threat to sovereignty protections in the U.S. Constitution. The American people have not, however, approved of the Charter of the United Nations which, by its nature, cannot be the supreme law of the land for it was never `made under the Authority of the U.S.,' as required by Article VI."

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.p...

why would we continue our involvement in an organization that has only perpetuated our problems? .. and let it tax our citizens? Our founding fathers specifically warned us about foreign entanglements, and the UN is the biggest foreign entanglement that I can imagine.


To sum it up:
"A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world."

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...9...


The phasing out of the IRS would not eliminate said taxes, only the income tax which is used pay back interest to the FED for printing their worthless money.. so everything you listed will still be funded.

The Patriot Act, from www.ontheissues.org, “We can fight terrorism aggressively without compromising our most fundamental freedoms against Government intrusion. The Government grabbed powers it should not have when it passed the original PATRIOT Act” These rights are guaranteed to us by the Constitution..

Gun Control? Guns don’t kill people, crazy people kill people.. it’s the second amendment

Drug War? In case you haven’t noticed the we spent millions of dollars on an ineffective war, Drug addiction is a medical problem, one that cannot be resolved by just throwing people in jail.

EDIT: Thanks Michelle, you might want to read the details of Huckabee’s “fair tax” plan.. apparently it will add a 23-30 % sales tax on everything.. technically we would be paying more taxes..

Answer 7

You just explained it he is too radical for America.

Answer 8

He's not an isolationist.
He's not at all radical.

Answer 9

I'm voting for him. If people cannot understand his positions, they don't know history and politics.