Oh boy! A reply from fredman555. His points are quoted.
* The problem in Europe is much bigger and complex than simply austerity. besides, austerity includes increase of taxes, which RP isnt doing
We’re in a pretty big and complex issue as well. Both on the state and federal levels, in fact, we have been and still are facing issues in generally the same fields that Europe was some years ago. The difference is now that we see how catastrophic that is due to the broken system. The reason why programs don’t work here in America, and why they didn’t work in Europe, is that we tend to hire a bunch of douchebags to handle the money in different programs. So, cutting the budget in these fields doesn’t necessarily cut their wages, which makes it harder for the lower class to benefit from programs.
*Obama campaigned on troop pull out day 1, dont forget. But this is ignoring the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all across the globe and the impending war with Iran. Do a google for me and find how much we spend on military outside of the US
Yeah, he took pride in something Bush promised. Welp.
And by they way, you’re saying that the US is the sole country to have troops all over the world covering different issues? I’m pretty sure Britain, France, and several other EU countries are doing the same thing, and nobody seems to have a problem with them.
>impending war with Iran
If you’re still concerned with Iran than the Sudan nations, get the fuck off mainstream media and The Daily Paul and start paying attention to actual foreign issues.
* really? we sent foreign aid to Iraq and nearly every middle eastern country. How is that working out?
Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the only countries that exist out there. Countries such as Israel are actually doing pretty well thanks to our aid.
*Again, its not simple cutting.
It isn’t. Ron Paul wants to cut a lot, and as easy as he makes it seem, it creates a lot of infrastructural issues.
See, the way the USA has developed, we literally can’t afford to cut programs. Sound strange? Think of it this way.
Cutting budgets would cut many of the strings that keep the middle class hanging. The biggest issue right now in economics is the middle class - it’s slowly becoming polarized. In fact, there is no true middle class - it’s either lower-middle or upper-middle, and both are slowly moving respectively towards lower and upper class status in terms of assets.
What’s the issue with this? Once we lose that lower-middle class, there will be a lot of loss of revenue. And that could means a potential collapse of the economy. Again. Which we totally need right now.
*Yes, freedom of press, speech and religion are archaic ideas. They were great 200 years ago, but not today.
Ah, but the question is, where’s the border between “free speech” and “being a general douchebag because fuck yeah religion”? Ron Paul tries to dance right over that line in the “big social issues” - evolution, global warming, abortion/women’s rights, racism, and sexuality. He takes an extremely conservative stance on such issues and opposes any kind of regulation regarding such things.
Now, if we were truly a ”free nation,” we would be attempting to reassure that people of all backgrounds are protected under the Constitution. The Libertarian platform, in fact, essentially believes in one’s right to solicit any business he or she wants, but then it contradicts itself in that the business has the right to refuse the person on any terms.
On another note, Ron Paul has made many attempts to limit the rights of gays and women (in abortion, really). Anyone who knows a scrap of what “states’ rights” implies and even the basic history of the USA knows perfectly well that on a state level, many states would allow discrimination of all kinds. What Ron Paul has attempted to do many times is stop the US Supreme Court from hearing any cases on such discrimination, such as his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
So basically, he is making it so that discrimination is not covered under the Constitution.
What our Founding Fathers did not realize when writing the Constitution was how much our country would diversify — they knew it would change, hence why Amendments are allowed. However, being strictly “Constitutionalist” would mean being extremely inflexible to change, which is what a politician is supposed to be.
We as an advanced country must be flexible to change, because as we all know, things do change. On a state level, taxes are outrageous, guns can practically be sold like toys, and discrimination is still rampant. If we step power up to a federal level, we can reassure the well-being of all states.
Basically, if we want to better the state of our nation, Ron Paul is not the right politician for that.