*OFFICIAL* Ask Ron Paul a question

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

You are confused DD...

To cite your example, an illegal alien is "illegal" period and should be deported.

Someone who is caught with drugs is put in jail. If drugs are "legalized," then jailtime would be unnecessary. Wouldn't this fix the problem?

They are most definitely connected.

Am I missing something in your line of thinking?

Fed Up

You are trying to view the specific situation in question and not addressing what is essentially a hypothetical, just a very realistic one by use of a real world case. It doesn't matter why they are in prison because the question is what would you do in case x of prison overcrowding.

Though I am sure any politician is likely to give an answer like the one you gave. (similiarly if the answer to my question was, well there wouldn't have been a world war 2 if blah blah blah)

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Question:

Given that you are pro free trade with all countries and have a non-interventionalist foreign policy, would it be safe to assume that a Ron Paul led government(barring contrary action by congress) would have had or supported trade with Germany and Japan during World War 2?

(While there exists the obvious argument that we were attacked by the Japanese such an attack was unlikely without the restriction of trade in the first place)

I'm trying to understand your question....so my thoughts below could be off base. I believe it is more complicated than what your question proposes.

You must be talking about the timeframe before we actually declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attack. (Yes, as you mention, Japan had been aggressive towards China and so the US halted any trade with Japan in November 1940. Japan saw this as a hostile act towards them.)

I think the real issue at that time was if every other country was a dictatorship, who would America trade with? Some would say, we had to go to war to protect our trading partners to keep our own economy going since we were at the tail end of the Great Depression and had already been involved in the "war to end all wars."

Prior to U.S. involvement in the war, U.S businessmen did not trust their government.

In November 1941, just before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor propelled
the United States into total war, the Fortune pollsters asked a sample of
business executives a question that bears quite directly on the regime uncertainty. The question was “Which of the following comes closest to being your prediction of the kind of economic structure with which this country will emerge after the war?” The respondents were presented with four options, as follows (the percentage of respondents selecting that option as the closest to their own prediction is shown in brackets):

(1) A system of free enterprise restored very much along the prewar
lines, with modifications to take care of conditions then current.
[7.2 percent]
(2) An economic system in which government will take over many
public services formerly under private management but still leave
many opportunities for private enterprise. [52.4 percent]
(3) A semi-socialized society in which there will be very little room
for the profit system to operate. [36.7 percent]
(4) A complete economic dictatorship along fascist or communist
lines. [3.7 percent] (Cantril 1951, 175)

These responses constitute an extraordinary testimony to the fears of business executives on the eve of the war. Almost 93 percent of them expected the postwar regime to be one that would further attenuate private property rights to a greater or lesser degree. More than 40 percent expected a regime in which government would dominate the economy—options (3) and (4).

So in a sense, the theory was that there wan't much hope in free markets to be successful after the war if there were no trading partners to trade freely with. Therefore their thinking was the government would be more involved.

The neutrality acts passed dealt with the trading between the U.S. and "belligerent" nations:

"The legacy of the Neutrality Acts in the 1930s was widely regarded as having been generally negative: they made no distinction between aggressor and victim, treating both equally as "belligerents"; and they limited the US government's ability to aid Britain against Nazi Germany, until the formal declaration of war in December 1941 rendered them irrelevant."

Neutrality Acts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality Act: Free Encyclopedia Articles at Questia.com Online Library

I could be off base, but just wanted to know your line of thinking in asking the question.

Fed Up

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You are trying to view the specific situation in question and not addressing what is essentially a hypothetical, just a very realistic one by use of a real world case. It doesn't matter why they are in prison because the question is what would you do in case x of prison overcrowding.

Yes, I am trying to understand the question....

but wouldn't the answer to the last sentence/question be: change the law that got them there in the first place? Wouldn't this by definition then allow those convicted by the prior law to be set free thus decrease overcrowding?

Am I missing something in my line of thinking here?

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I could be off base, but just wanted to know your line of thinking in asking the question.

Fed Up

I think you essentially have it. Ron Paul gets elected president in the mid 30's. Ron Paul has the ear of congress. Japan starts invading their neighbors, Germany does the same. They need supplies to fuel their war effort and we, having free trade with all nations, trade with them and American industry profits while countries committing genocide and waging multinational war keep the war machine rolling.

Does a Ron Paul president in this situation not take sides?

Like I said the politician answer is well without yada yada their wouldn't have been a war, but I don't care. I am interested in the RP position in the scenario I posed.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I think you essentially have it. Ron Paul gets elected president in the mid 30's. Ron Paul has the ear of congress. Japan starts invading their neighbors, Germany does the same. They need supplies to fuel their war effort and we having free trade with all nations trade with them and American industry profits while countries committing genocide and waging multinational war keep the war machine rolling.

Does a Ron Paul president in this situation not take sides?

Like I said the politician answer is well without yada yada their wouldn't have been a war, but I don't care. I am interested in the RP position in the scenario I posed.

If Ron Paul were to be elected, we wouldn't have a presence in Germany or Japan (as he would have brought our troops in 130 nations home), so in a sense, these countries (and others) would be left to do what they want.

In this case, your question has relevance and I understand it now.

In a free trade atmosphere, would there be a necessity of attacking one's neighbor? Don't know...

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'll be sending this email on Friday. That gives everyone plenty of time to get their questions in.

[Fed Up]

In my debates with people on various forums, the one question that I can't seem to answer is Ron Paul's qualifications as a leader. How does he compare his leadership qualities as a 10 term Congressman in Texas, writing and voting on bills, to those who have governed states or ran a large metropolitan city?

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

Oh, I got a good one that's been bugging the shit out of me for a little while now.

Thomas Library doesn't have the text on any proposed bills that were authored before 1989. What's the text of H.R.392, which is entitled "A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life"? It is seemingly in stark contrast to Paul's supposed "States' rights" position in regards to abortion.

[JaJae]

I got one that I'm carrying over from another thread as per Fed Up's recommendation.

In the John Stossel interview he essentially said the US should not get involved militarily for any reason Stossel presented. He brushed most of his incidents off as being over "Border disputes" and stating the nations should handle it themselves.

What if the United States were invaded by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I got one that I'm carrying over from another thread as per Fed Up's recommendation.

In the John Stossel interview he essentially said the US should not get involved militarily for any reason Stossel presented. He brushed most of his incidents off as being over "Border disputes" and stating the nations should handle it themselves.

What if the United States were invaded by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

Very well-worded.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Very well-worded.

Eh, I'd like to rephrase my question slightly:


In the online John Stossel interview Paul essentially said the US should not get involved militarily in foreign affairs for any reason Stossel presented. He brushed most of his incidents off as being over "Border disputes" and stating the nations should handle it themselves. He is of the belief that we should not use our military unless we are directly attacked ourselves.

What if the United States were defeated militarily by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Here are the questions that I got. I'm thinking about reordering these with the more important ones on top, but that could wind up being problematic considering we all have different ideas on what's "important."

Oh, and I put my questions on top because I'm fucking awesome.

• You say that you advocate the Founders' view that we need to "stay out of entangling alliances," yet the Founders also created an "entangling alliance" with France during the War of Independence (see: Franco-American Alliance). Do you support that alliance? If so, can you give the conditions under which you support military alliances with other nations?

• You have advocated time and time again that you support a States' privilege to decide on the matter of abortion. On that note, you authored the Sanctity of Life Act (twice). I understand that the bill states that SCOTUS will not review any cases that involve protecting human life "between conception and birth," and that the States will have complete governance over the issue of abortion if your bill were to pass. However, the bill also attempts to redefine "Person" as human life beginning at conception. If you want the fed out of the issue of abortion, then why did you author the bill that specifically redefines "Person," knowing full well that it would force abortion to be considered murder in all States?

• You have said multiple times that if we cut back spending to 2000 levels, we would be able to get rid of the IRS. This is factually incorrect, as I'm sure you know (2000 spending levels less 2006 receipts, sans individual income, yields a 381 billion dollar deficit). But this is not what interests me.
  
  Going by the FY2007 estimates, if we abrogate individual income tax, we would have $1.39 trillion to spend. Also, going by FY2007 estimates, Medicare, Social Security, and Debt Interest are $1.255 trillion. Ergo, that leaves us with $135 billion for everything else, including federal law enforcement and military spending. Getting rid of indivudal income tax and replacing it with nothing would BARELY yield a sufficient amount of funds to pay our debts. How do you respond to this?

• Thomas Library doesn't have the text on any proposed bills that were authored before 1989. What's the text of H.R.392, which is entitled "A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life"? It is seemingly in stark contrast to Paul's supposed "States' rights" position in regards to abortion.

• I recently read that a Congressman has told California that it needs to fix its prison system. While this wasn't legislative, he made an interesting point. In his complaints, he noted that California has 160k+ inmates occupying space intended for 100k people. One function of maximum occupancy notices is to prevent fire and safety hazards. Having too many people occupying a single space can be dangerous, especially if, for example, an upper level of a building has not been tested to withstand the long-term weight of maximum occupancy + 60% and their belongings.
  
  Is there a point at which Ron Paul would be OK with the federal government stepping in to remedy this situation?

• Would he support a constitutional amendment banning or allowing abortion?

• How is his campaign actively working to turn online support into feet on the ground in important primary states?

• Will he pledge not to run as an Independent if he doesn't receive the Republican nomination?

• What books would he recommend for people who might support his anti-war position, but not his economic policies?

• Does he frequent any blogs or websites (that aren't Ron Paul related)?

• What is his position on net neutrality?

• What was his MCAT score?

• Why don't you bring up Austrian Economics at the Presidential Debate (like he did on Leno) and school everyone else when it comes to Economic Policy.

• How big a threat to our country does he think the giant and growing trade deficit is and what would he do about it.

• Does he think that the slowly lowing of the value of the dollor will help in erasing the trade deficit.

• If drug legalisation led to an increased number of paranoid spree killings would he consider changing the law even though it contravened his doctrinaire position on the matter?

• Given that you are pro free trade with all countries and have a non-interventionalist foreign policy, would it be safe to assume that a Ron Paul led government (barring contrary action by congress) would have had or supported trade with Germany and Japan during World War 2 (While there exists the obvious argument that we were attacked by the Japanese such an attack was unlikely without the restriction of trade in the first place)?

• (While there exists the obvious argument that we were attacked by the Japanese such an attack was unlikely without the restriction of trade in the first place)

• In the online John Stossel interview Paul essentially said the US should not get involved militarily in foreign affairs for any reason Stossel presented. He brushed most of his incidents off as being over "Border disputes" and stating the nations should handle it themselves. He is of the belief that we should not use our military unless we are directly attacked ourselves.
  
  What if the United States were defeated militarily by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

• How come you haven't said or pointed out that you reach across the aisle more than any other candidate? There are many fiscal conservatives who are anti war voting democrat this year and you could get the most swing voters. Why not play that card?

• What would be his top five priorities were he elected, and more importantly, what is he willing to compromise to satisfy those priorities?

• In general, I agree with Dr. Paul's assertion that, as a nation, we desperately need to reduce government spending. In the past, he has unambiguously stated his desire to do away with a number of institutions, such as the IRS. However, Dr. Paul's stance on government-funded scientific research is not as clear.
  
  While privately-funded science has yielded some valuable insights, the United States of America would be a scientific superpower were it not for government support. As a scientist, I feel that this is one issue where strict Libertarianism should not be observed. Given Ron Paul's reputation as a Libertarian, I am curious to see where he stands on this issue.
  
  Thanks,
  Bruno

• added to above question : what sort of tax relief are you prepared to offer these companies for research,as opposed to simply giving research grants with our tax money?

• If you are elected, and are able to curtail our involvement in Iraq, and other entities, what is your plan on how and when our massive debt can be paid back? How will this affect the overall fiscal health of America?

• I saw in a video that you plan to completely get rid of the IRS and ALL income tax. Is this true?

• I want to know his stance on Offshore Outsourcing.

• Is one of your goals while in office to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

• what is his view on illegal immigrants, specifically all the new talk about issuing them licenses?

• Not much has been asked or said about your position on evironmentalism. I do understand that it is nowhere near as extreme as many Democrats. What is your stance on evironmental protection, as well as global warming?

• A big issue that is not often talked about facing this country today is the mass closure of public land for recreation. What is your stand on closing off public land to recreationalists and hunters? How will you keep the land open for responsible use for the public and combat the efforts made by groups such as the Sierra Club to close lands to all use, including the creation of fire roads and brush clearing, which can help lead to the rapid spread of wildfires, as evidenced in Southern California earlier this year?

• we have trillions of borrowed money in the form of treasury securities - under a paul presidency, we would no longer be printing money nor would we have federal taxes let alone be able to raise them in the case of default (hence why these are "backed by the full faith and taxing authority of the US government") - so now will treasury securities no longer be backed by the full faith of the government? if they still will be, what will be backing them? if a recession or depression were to happen, how would we be paying these people (i.e. china and others who invest in large dollar government securities) back the trillions we owe them?

• Scarlett Johansson. Would you hit it?

• ask him why he doesnt advertise the fact that he has the most donations from people in the military as often as he should/could, in response to things like what mccain said.

• Have you thought about any Vice-President candidates? Would you run withsomebody as VP if offered?

• Modern times being what they are, more commodities are traded now than in times past, and financial centers in Chicago (CBOT, CME), New York (NYBOT, NYMEX), and now Atlanta (ICE) allow us to determine prices for various commodities.
  
  Do you believe it would be practical to amend the Constitution to state that currency could be backed by more than just gold and silver; an entire index or basket of durable commodities perhaps?

• You have expressed concerns about our fiat money system and you want our money to be backed by gold or silver or other precious metals. Where would we get the money to purchase all the gold/silver to back our current money supply? Currently we have over $760B USD in circulation and in Fort Knox we only have 147 million ounces of gold which is worth about $100B USD. How are we going to raise an additional $660B USD so we can back our money supply with precious metals? Once we have all of our money backed by precious metals, how are we going to finance expanding the stockpile of precious metals so more currency can be printed as will be required by any growing economy?
  
  Or do you have a different plan to get rid of our fiat money system?

• Pollution can cause a lot of economic damage, whether it be through the destruction of property through acid rain, or through poor health conditions for people exposed to it (such as heart disease). Seeing as how clean air is a pure public good and would thus be underproduced if left up to the free market; would you support regulating/taxing buisinesses so as to force them to internalize negative production externalities such as pollution?

• Dr. Paul, I have heard many of your critics criticize you of wanting to abolish the CIA and FBI. I myself have searched exhaustively and have never seen anything that you have said that would indicate such. So, would you? I'm not speaking of reform here, I'm speaking of abolishment. Would you seek to abolish the CIA and FBI? And if so, how would you seek to do that and what do you perceive as the need for intelligence for security reasons, if at all? If you do not presently seek to abolish those departments, have you ever supported abolishing those departments, and if not, why do you suppose the Media keeps bringing up that you would like to?

• Dr. Paul, do you have any opinion on the subject of Internet piracy? Do you support what the RIAA and MPAA do, in regards to tracking down and harassing users that have been accused by them of piracy? How do you feel about the current copyright laws that prohibit people from downloading music and movies illegally?

• If you were president, what do you estimate your average veto per minute (VPM) rate would be?

• I've heard you mention in debates and in interviews you want to abolish the Department of Education. To the average American, this sound bite seems like an attack on education. Could you please elaborate your view to a layman on how this can help the system? I greatly hope your reasoning is mentioned more during your interviews to avoid the negative sentiment.

• Of all of the federal programs you would seek to eliminate, which do you believe that you have the best chance to actually cut in your first term as President, given a Democratic congress?

• Dr. Paul, During your visit on "The Colbert Report" with Stephen Colbert you said you thought the people could perform more effectively with charity work rather than with UNICEF. Could you provide me with detailed reasoning behind this belief? Best of luck in the primaries. - Steve Cronin, Houston TX.

• What does "freedom" mean to you? When the Declaration of Independence spoke of all men being created equal, did it mean that all men have similar capabilities for success, or that every human being should have an equal chance to make the most of themselves? If the latter, how do you rectify that statement with your goals to end government protection and services for those that would not otherwise have that equal shot at success?
  
  Is freedom simply the freedom from government to you?

• A recent house committee vote caused quite a stir in US-Turkish relations. How will you be able to reach out to the rest of the world and make your sensible foreign policy heard over this congress?

• If you eliminate the IRS as you plan to do, who will collect and keep up with the other (non income) taxes?

• How, specifically, will you create a free market solution to the health care problem, emphasizing the doctor/patient relationship as you have said in the past?

• What is your stance on capital gains taxes? (less? none at all?)

• Do you own a gun?

• Once you become president, are you very hopeful for being able to influence Congress through words and the power to veto?

• Do you feel that the states should keep some degree of social safety nets in place, as letting people slip too far down could drive them towards anti-democratic political movements as happened in Weimar Germany or pre-Revolutionary Russia?

• My mom is a small business owner and CPA that helps people with income tax returns to get them the most money back from the IRS. Our question is if you get rid of the income tax, what will happen to my mom's, other accountants', and the IRS employees' futures?

• With the libertarian philosophy of privatization, how would our national parks remain protected?

• How high on your get-rid-of list is the FDA and it's regulations on farmers, on grocery stores, and on consumers? The freedom to choose where we get our food and drugs is an issue that's close to my heart.

• How are his promises of limited government and eliminating departments going to work? It's been tried many times before and promised by many politicitians (Reagan, Goldwater). What makes the idea/plan different this time around?

• If the welfare state were completely abolished tomorrow, and there were no way for anyone to leach off tax payer money, would he still be in favour of building a wall between the US and Mexico?

• Why do you so strongly support deregulation of the economy considering the cost to small businesses and to consumer health and safety?

• Dr. Paul, According to John Stossel, you vote against funding of any government action beyond three basic functions: "protecting our borders, keeping the peace at home, and running the courts" and you believe bills which go beyond that violate the Constitution. My Political Science professor said that was the most ridiculous thing she ever heard. Do you simply derive your ideas for what Congress should and should not spend money on based on their authortiy as given by the Constitution? Thanks, Steve Cronin, Houston TX.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Eh, I'd like to rephrase my question slightly:


In the online John Stossel interview Paul essentially said the US should not get involved militarily in foreign affairs for any reason Stossel presented. He brushed most of his incidents off as being over "Border disputes" and stating the nations should handle it themselves. He is of the belief that we should not use our military unless we are directly attacked ourselves.

What if the United States were defeated militarily by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

Doubles up some on my question, hopefully with two of these on their he will feel compelled to answer.

[Pro Street]

Question: Given his stance on withdrawing military presence abroad, to what end will this play into overseas base consolidation, what countries (specifically Korea), and how this would play into having staging operations should the need arise for the military to deploy.


if anyone here has an answer and I haven't seen it, feel free to let me know.


oh, hi.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Question:

Given that you are pro free trade with all countries and have a non-interventionalist foreign policy, would it be safe to assume that a Ron Paul led government(barring contrary action by congress) would have had or supported trade with Germany and Japan during World War 2?

(While there exists the obvious argument that we were attacked by the Japanese such an attack was unlikely without the restriction of trade in the first place)

I am in agreement with your assessment that Japan would not have attacked if we had continued to supply them with petrol.

The first question is somewhat loaded in that we did, in fact, HEAVILY trade with Germany until the very end of the war. This ended with the "Trading With the Enemy Act" that was passed to stop Prescott Bush and Herbert Walkers Union Banking Corporation from partnering with IG Farben- Fritz Thysen? and the Dutch Hamburg Shipping line.... All the while the Bank of England was laundering the spoils of the European theater for Hitler.

Yes.... that would be grandpappy Bush BTW... While pappy was trading with Germany, he belayed accusations of being unpatriotic by sending George H to fight in the Pacific theater.


I would like to hear Ron's answer to the question nonetheless.

From a philosophical standpoint regarding warfare, Sun Tsu stated that, "To defeat an enemy, you must become him."

Perhaps the best way to defeat a potential enemy is through FREE trade. Free trade is only possible through individual liberty. Nations involved in free trade with a nation that has a planned economy results in an advantage for the nation with a free economy according the Austrian school of economics. This would either transfer the wealth of the non-free economy to the free economy, or the non-free economy would have to evolve towards free trade to compete. Either scenario enhances the peace and prosperity of the free economy.

[lew]

Scarlett Johansson. Would you hit it?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by JaJae

What if the United States were invaded by a nation and our citizens were subjected to Holocaust-type treatment of being enslaved, gassed, tortured and medically experimented on? Would he want all other countries in the world to follow his ideology of not getting involved unless they were directly attacked? If so, how does he morally justify his answer? If not, how can he hold that standard to the US?

The Holocaust is understood today only by a very myopic viewpoint. When we interned the Japanese, should Canada have attacked us to free people from our concentration camps?

[avsp]

Many of the concerns expressed the problem of how logically dervived approaches are to be implemented in the real world

How big a stumbling block to his campaign does he think such worries might be?
How does he answer such claims anyway & what would he see a the most likely pragmatic problem of this sort that he will encounter?

Or does he not see his policies as being dervived from a 'first principles' approach & there is no real problem in implementing them, (except that some many find, (so many?), fundamental changes scary)?

[kombayn]

My question to Ron Paul, "How did you become such a pimp?"

[Donkey®]

Dear Ron,

When do you give up hope?


~ Donkey