(10/26/11) Ron Paul on Fox News - Official Thread

[SharedSacrifice]

I'm having a hard time following you. Try shorter posts or something. Perhaps fewer parenthetical comments. Perhaps fewer points in a post.

You might be having a problem with the whole 'personal responsibility' or even 'shared sacrifice' thing...which is understandable given that this former libertarian ideal has never extended to actually collectively paying (shared sacrifice) for the mess that we are all responsible for creating.

As for the writing style, thanks for the suggestion...yet you're unfortunately stuck with the 'reality' driven writing style (as painful as even I know it can be to decipher).

 

[roversaurus]

You might be having a problem with the whole 'personal responsibility' or even 'shared sacrifice' thing...which is understandable given that the former libertarian ideal has never extended to actually collectively paying (shared sacrifice) for the mess that we are all responsible for presently.

As for the writing style, thanks for the suggestion...yet you're unfortunately stuck with the 'reality' driven writing style (as painful as even I know it can be to decipher).

I have no problem with personal responsibility. When I hear "Shared Sacrifice" I try to hold on to my wallet. It usually means someone want's my money and thinks that I'm greedy for wanting my money but they are not greedy for wanting my money. I don't understand how when both of us want the same thing (the money in my wallet) that only I am the greedy one.

But why should what *I* have a problem with be important to your issues? About the only thing I could glean from your writing was that Ron Paul should have a list of specific cuts and so should the people on "his" message boards.

Are you looking for the particular people who will retire or change jobs and not be replaced? Are you looking for a numeric count of the number of jeeps that will be purchased in his first budget? Have you asked the question of any other candidate?

 

[SharedSacrifice]

One thing I noticed RP was able to do, and something he should consider doing a lot more often:
He has the ultimate trump card; "We're broke." Put some kind of twist on that to jazz it up, create conflict. Like, say; "Present a plan in which you include (indert policy here), pay for it, and balance the budget. If you can do that, then you are being serious. If you cannot, then you are not being serious."
Make them commit pen to paper.

I like the "we're broke" part also...but the "pay for it" part assumes the balancing of a budget to be more important (now) than the elimination of a debt costings billions of interest (more) before the solution is ever agreed upon or implimented. The Republican's big win in November of '10 was followed by a plan that just "had to be scored by the CBO" almost until summer of the following year...then ended up being a decades old 'balanced budget' plan at best (how much interest did we pay on the debt over that period of time?).

When I hear the term 'balanced budget' or even "back to the spending levels of 20xx.." it is hard for me to believe that any author takes the figure 16 trillion and growing seriously (not referring to yourself, as I respect and agree with your point in general).

 

[Fredom101]

Just watched the grill session. I thought RP did well. He did appear nervous, but he nailed most of the questions. Juan Williams had this angry face the entire time, seemed like he really has disdain for Paul. The others seemed okay to me.

 

[SharedSacrifice]

I have no problem with personal responsibility. When I hear "Shared Sacrifice" I try to hold on to my wallet. It usually means someone want's my money and thinks that I'm greedy for wanting my money but they are not greedy for wanting my money. I don't understand how when both of us want the same thing (the money in my wallet) that only I am the greedy one.

But why should what *I* have a problem with be important to your issues? About the only thing I could glean from your writing was that Ron Paul should have a list of specific cuts and so should the people on "his" message boards.

Are you looking for the particular people who will retire or change jobs and not be replaced? Are you looking for a numeric count of the number of jeeps that will be purchased in his first budget? Have you asked the question of any other candidate?

If you have no problem with admitting (some) personally responsibility for both the mess that we are in presently and ideally being part of the solution that saves this country from the brink of disaster...why won't you share an opinion as to how responsible you now are (reduced benefit-wise) to be perceived as less than greedy? (your words)

To answer your last question (I think)...I'm looking for you and every other libertarian out there to tell me why Ron Paul (or even Fox News for that matter) presently has just a little bit of a problem detailing exactly how 16 trillion will ever be repaid...let alone how 'we' (or apparently not libertarians) will somehow accomplish this Herculean feat while keeping said 'promise' to those scared to death of the necessary term "shared sacrifice".

I think that a lot of folks understand exactly what I am saying...and they're presently either receiving a check from 'somebody' right now...or are scared to death (again) that Mom, Dad, sister, brother or relative/friend will be moving in with them directly should ever the necessary collective sacrifices be finally made to save this great country from fiscal ruin.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm sure a lot of libertarians like Ron's stance on that issue, but it's a killer in the GOP primary. It's one thing to support non intervention overseas. I certainly do, and I think more and more GOP voters are coming around to that. But GOP voters aren't going to go for a soft approach on immigration. Also, how exactly does building a fence along the border "fence off the country?" Are we going to build a fence along the Canadian border and along both coastlines?

It's not just "libertarians" that are concerned about the issues Ron was raising regarding the fence and the RealID. Some conservatives are concerned that the RealID could issue in a "mark of the beast" like scenario in which case they might want to leave the country. I brought this up to Bay Buchannan when she gave a talk about immigration and she was pushing the whole "e-verify" idea. She agreed with me that I had a legitimate concern, that NAFTA was causing much of our immigration woes by undermining the economy of all the nations involved, and that other solutions to the immigration problem might be better. She also liked Ron Paul. This was a couple of years ago, but I think those sentiments probably still hold true.

 

[sailingaway]

I find the above exchange interesting as I evidently must now research the content (and apparently 'tone') of those 2007 ads as well as some person name "Johnson" (not Gary I hope)...and an entire movement within this party apparently (or even potentially) influencing RP's campaign presentation.

The two-way fence question was a legitimate one and simply yet another example of somebody willing to say "hey, slow down a bit and explain this one for us..." resulting in an answer that at least I frankly would have to go back and view again before I could even comment on it (which isn't good if you're a fence sitting former GOP kool-aid drinker who's a little slow...but who holds the fate of your campaign in their collective viewing hands).

One thing that fence sitters today seem to do better than most presently refusing to broach the two biggest issues facing this country (who is here/how do we 'add' their societal costs if we refuse to quantify them and very simply shared sacrifice in regards to entitlements) is "add".

This trillion dollar plan addresses neither (with the former not even mentioned in the synopsis) which effectively puts off a 16 trillion dollar basic math fence sitter appreciating the closer-than-everybody-else 'effort' by RP's plan...but not much else with poor efforts such as last night's to look forward to (sorry, Ron...yet you have to nail the basics before traditional conservatives will ever look past whatever this "Johnson" movement consists of within your apparently influential circle).

Johnson's movement is not 'within' Ron's circle, some of his staff, as with some of Johnson's, are both associated with libertarianism. However, it is important to realize that Ron, himself, was a paleoconservative before the libertarian party was ever created. He never made some of the concessions those who grew out of the party sometimes did. Some from the libertarian side I think may have been worried that Gary Johnson would draw some of Ron's support. But on this issue, Ron believes in US sovereignty and he is absolutely consistent on that, as with everything. GJ seems to have a 'cost benefit approach' which is, to me, mushy on principle and too willing to cede principle for 'pragmatism'. GJ came out for NAFTA, for example, while Ron, seeing it as a violation of US sovereignty to put foreign councils preeminent over local law, opposed and opposes it. There is no question that Ron is more of a free trader, but he also understands how much special interest cronyism and delivery of US autonomy is hidden in the 20,000 pages of regulation that stand between what NAFTA is and what free trade is. Ron is kinda a policy wonk, and doesn't go by the title of the bill.

Ron VOTED for the fence, though, because he thought enforcement and other issues were more important than the fence, but we fought a war for the Rio Grande. do we really not want our Ranchers and transporters to be able to use the waterway? That just doesn't feel like the Land of the Free.

Any how, please look deeply, because Ron shines the more you look. He DOES have issues with Club for Growth because he is considered a 'purist' on 'free' trade, putting US sovereignty, and freedom from barriers to entry to small enterprises above compromise, on some specific trade deals. You have to decide what is important to you, of course.

 

[sailingaway]

I like the "we're broke" part also...but the "pay for it" part assumes the balancing of a budget to be more important (now) than the elimination of a debt costings billions of interest (more) before the solution is ever agreed upon or implimented. The Republican's big win in November of '10 was followed by a plan that just "had to be scored by the CBO" almost until summer of the following year...then ended up being a decades old 'balanced budget' plan at best (how much interest did we pay on the debt over that period of time?).

When I hear the term 'balanced budget' or even "back to the spending levels of 20xx.." it is hard for me to believe that any author takes the figure 16 trillion and growing seriously (not referring to yourself, as I respect and agree with your point in general).

LOL!

Ron Paul takes it seriously like no one else. Have you looked at his plan? It is on his web page in sketch. When people call Ron 'extreme' it is because he would actually do something about it, and they are terrified of disturbing the status quo.

this was created in the last election by a supporter. Since then most of what Ron has been predicting came true. The music is a bit melodramatic but was a warning, at the time, in the lush 2000's before the crash. I suggest you watch it.

 

[Brett85]

It's not just "libertarians" that are concerned about the issues Ron was raising regarding the fence and the RealID. Some conservatives are concerned that the RealID could issue in a "mark of the beast" like scenario in which case they might want to leave the country. I brought this up to Bay Buchannan when she gave a talk about immigration and she was pushing the whole "e-verify" idea. She agreed with me that I had a legitimate concern, that NAFTA was causing much of our immigration woes by undermining the economy of all the nations involved, and that other solutions to the immigration problem might be better. She also liked Ron Paul. This was a couple of years ago, but I think those sentiments probably still hold true.

I don't support Real ID either, because it's a clear violation of the 10th amendment. My concern about Ron is simply his position on border security. I thought that he was strong on that issue in 2007, but he seems much weaker now. When he says that he opposes the fence in interviews and debates, he needs to talk about what he would do to secure the border as an alternative. He needs to describe this in detail. Rick Perry opposes the fence as well, but in the last debate he at least gave a very detailed answer on what he would do to secure the border as an alterative to the fence.

 

[roversaurus]

If you have no problem with admitting (some) personally responsibility for both the mess that we are in presently and ideally being part of the solution that saves this country from the brink of disaster...why won't you share an opinion as to how responsible you now are (reduced benefit-wise) to be perceived as less than greedy? (your words)

To answer your last question (I think)...I'm looking for you and every other libertarian out there to tell me why Ron Paul (or even Fox News for that matter) presently has just a little bit of a problem detailing exactly how 16 trillion will ever be repaid...let alone how 'we' (or apparently not libertarians) will somehow accomplish this Herculean feat while keeping said 'promise' to those scared to death of the necessary term "shared sacrifice".

I think that a lot of folks understand exactly what I am saying...and they're presently either receiving a check from 'somebody' right now...or are scared to death (again) that Mom, Dad, sister, brother or relative/friend will be moving in with them directly should ever the necessary collective sacrifices be finally made to save this great country from fiscal ruin.

Oh, you mean I share responsibility for the 16T debt? No, I don't. I have opposed big government since before I could vote. I thought Reagan was a big government pinko commie. I don't receive government benefits unless you count my mortgage deduction or my use of the highways. (And I pay my gas tax so I think I'm good on that one.) My benefits can not be reduced. I do however recognize that I'm going to be impacted by that 16T. I'll suffer through the inflation or the taxes or the default. Has anyone denied that?

As far as your question: I and Ron Paul and Fox News are different people an organizations. I don't really know why you care about my opinion on the matter. If you want to know what Fox News thinks ask them. Perhaps it's more appropriate to ask me what Ron Paul thinks, but again, maybe someone should ask him? I think I've heard him respond to a question like that but it was not in the context of being president. I think he responded by saying the debt wasn't going to be paid back. That America would default on it and that *inflation* was the way we would default on it. That was his assessment of what had been done throughout history in such circumstances.

By the time we've gotten to this point I think you should be a little more honest with your pose as just a regular guy considering Ron Paul. Personally, I think you're just here to troll around. You have an entirely different agenda than just to consider a candidate.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't support Real ID either, because it's a clear violation of the 10th amendment. My concern about Ron is simply his position on border security. I thought that he was strong on that issue in 2007, but he seems much weaker now. When he says that he opposes the fence in interviews and debates, he needs to talk about what he would do to secure the border as an alternative. He needs to describe this in detail. Rick Perry opposes the fence as well, but in the last debate he at least gave a very detailed answer on what he would do to secure the border as an alterative to the fence.

That's a good idea. In Liberty Defined he made it clear he was aware that current conditions with the drug wars and cartels required unusual provisions he might not want as long term efforts once that was resolved. As he put it, there is essentially a war going on on some parts of the border now.

 

[milo10]

Ron really needs to work on having killer answers down for some of the fairly predictable questions they ask him. He should have a pretty clear position on the fence, on the OBL raid, and on Iran, and he should have the appropriate style of response that is geared towards the audience.

I thought the venue and commentators treated him very fairly. They were critical but not demeaning. This wasn't like Lawrence O'Donnell or Bill O'Reilly.

I am not expecting Ron to hit every interview out of the park the way he did for Meet The Press. Sometimes you get a hostile host, or bizarre questions with double binds that are so out of touch you have to either debug them or bypass, and I respect that. But, this seems like a relatively easy area for him to work on. Every day with someone you go over 8-10 possible questions, and work out the best types of responses. Ron should have this relatively easy, because he fully understands the topics 100%, and there could be an engaging back and forth, and it becomes part discussion/thinking through of policy, and part debate preparation. Someone like Rick Perry can't do that.

It is especially important to prepare whenever you do or say anything a little off-the-cuff, like the wall issue. I don't think it would be bad to say something like "If the next 20 years looks like the past 10 years, then I think we will be living in something approaching a totalitarian state." And then reel off things like the Patriot Act, TSA, and so forth. I grant that is not a perfect response, but I also think the wall comment wasn't the best one to make at this point in his campaign. Most conservatives can't relate to that type of concern. Someday they will.

Anyway, it is what it is.

 

[willwash]

Just watched the grill session. I thought RP did well. He did appear nervous, but he nailed most of the questions. Juan Williams had this angry face the entire time, seemed like he really has disdain for Paul. The others seemed okay to me.

I felt that way about Krauthammer. That guy had some snide comment almost every time he talked.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron really needs to work on having killer answers down for some of the fairly predictable questions they ask him. He should have a pretty clear position on the fence, on the OBL raid, and on Iran, and he should have the appropriate style of response that is geared towards the audience.

I think Ron's latest answers on the OBL raid are as good as can be expected. I really appreciate how he's starting to hit home the fact that if his ideas had been followed OBL would have been dead or in custody a long time ago. If he had just said that and left it there when he was first asked the question it would not at all be an issue. But now the "I wouldn't have done it the raid that way and would have cooperated with the Pakistanis like we did with KSM" answer is still out there. Note that even Michael Scheuer, a strong defender of Ron Paul foreign policy, doesn't like the idea that we should have worked with the Pakistanis to get OBL. (Frankly I think OBL was already dead but I know Ron can't say that. If OBL was alive I think the most likely scenario is that Pakistan did actually cooperate but pretended not to for the sake of plausible deniability.)

On Iran I think Ron was smart to bring up the Libya issue as well as Egypt and Tunisia since conservatives are concerned about what's happened there.

Anyway, it is what it is.

Yeah. And what "is" is that Ron already has some controversial quotes at there that interviewers will continue to glom onto. In the Fox interview Ron tried to stick with the "We would have gotten OBL a long time ago" point. But he kept being brought back to the "I would have done it differently" quote. Folks like Cain and Romney would have just flip flopped and said the "mis-spoke" or had been "misinterpreted" and moved on. Ron's not good at flip flopping. That's a beloved feature to us supporters but it does make winning the presidency more difficult.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't support Real ID either, because it's a clear violation of the 10th amendment. My concern about Ron is simply his position on border security. I thought that he was strong on that issue in 2007, but he seems much weaker now. When he says that he opposes the fence in interviews and debates, he needs to talk about what he would do to secure the border as an alternative. He needs to describe this in detail. Rick Perry opposes the fence as well, but in the last debate he at least gave a very detailed answer on what he would do to secure the border as an alterative to the fence.

Well his "national security" TV commercial talks about bringing the troops home to secure U.S. borders. But in the same commercial he has a truck driving by a border fence. :o One point that could be made is giving the states more latitude to deal with the problem. For instance Ron has talked about how national guard troops should be securing our border instead of in Afghanistan. Considering the fact that state governors can call up the national guard under certain circumstances, a "Ron Paul doctrine" on immigration could operate along those lines.

 

[nbruno322]

This is the full version, the TV version and the online segment merged.

 

[ryanmkeisling]

...

Does Baier's show really get high ratings? Really? I liked the other guy better (which isn't saying much). Baier looks like he belongs on cable access, or a college TV station.

He also looks like he is a ken doll on steroids or sucks recumbent growth hormone through a penis shaped straw. I gave away my TV after the last cycle so I am traumatized by people like him and David Gregory. Walking, talking ghouls. Some scary ass shit, the American media and the citizenry it reflects.

I also cannot believe all of the posters ganging up on liberty eagle. He has some valid points and is in no way being overtly negative: getting elected as president in america is very hard for someone with solid principles like Ron Paul and at some point he will need to tailor his answers to attract the widest possible demographics. This is a rigged game he is playing.

 

[sailingaway]

I felt that way about Krauthammer. That guy had some snide comment almost every time he talked.

He rolled his eyes while Ron was speaking, as well.

 

[69360]

By the time we've gotten to this point I think you should be a little more honest with your pose as just a regular guy considering Ron Paul. Personally, I think you're just here to troll around. You have an entirely different agenda than just to consider a candidate.

I suspect the same thing.

 

[Brett85]

In the extended portion of this interview, Ron said that he wouldn't put any of our troops along the border. If Ron wants to bring all of our troops home from overseas, what would he use them for here at home? What would they do if they weren't used to secure the borders?