I've been following politics for the first time in my life, and strangely, they're American politics. So yes, I admit I don't know everything, so don't kick my groin if I say something stupid.
Ron Paul seems, to me, to be speaking sense. Everything he says actually rings true for me. And from what I'm seeing, those who hear about him and find out about his message feel similarly.
The two main criticisms I've heard so far are:
1) Not enough people know. He doesn't have the backing of giant media corporations, the federal reserve bank, prominent saudia arabian families, and so forth. His supporters are trying to do the grassroots thing, but it's not going to be enough to get the word out and get him the nomination.
2) Even if he were to become president, would he have the authority and know-how to successfully set into motion all his grand plans, like abolishing the illegal IRS etc?
Thanks for your comments. I'm interested to hear all sides.
The IRS is technically illegal because there is no law requiring Americans to file a tax return, and the IRS is responsible for harassing, investigating, seizing the property/funds of, and jailing Americans who don't.
No, Ron Paul stands no chance. Sure, he might speak sense, but the issue is he is too far right for the liberals to vote for (pro-life, conservative money tactics, supports complete government downsize more or less), alienates his Republican voter base (telling farmers in Ohio he hates farm subsidies), and simply doesn't have the name recognition of Obama, Gulianni, or Clinton. And don't even start talking about if he runs third party.
I respect the man a lot. He has balls and sticks with what he believes in. He just isn't electable b/c unlike all the tools that typically run for president, he does that pisses a lot of people off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Clinton didn't really have to run against 3 big name candidates, 1 in his own party. I have a hard time thinking any Republican can win this election to, given how the past 8 years have panned out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
It's not really off-topic since you assumed it in your original post... unless we're just supposed to take your word on it.
It's not the topic, no. If a Rumor Mill thread about Thoughtseize contains the phrase "standard legal" referring to Duress, a post saying "Duress isn't standard legal!" would get deleted, unless it had something about Thoughtseize in it too. But it's not my forum, so whatever.
The IRS takes the property of Americans who don't file a tax return, or Americans who don't pay their taxes?
According to wikipedia, that sounds about right. But there are a lot of people who believe it's illegal for them to do that, because there's no law giving the government the right to collect "un-apportioned direct" tax on income. There was an amendment in 1917 or so (I believe) which would have made it legal, but it wasn't ratified. Essentially, collecting income tax is apparently illegal. It's voluntary to pay income taxes. Business taxes, yes. Property taxes, yes. State taxes, yes. Sales taxes, yes. A lot of taxes are indeed legal. The debate, generally and from what I've seen, is only about taxes on income. As I saw one well-informed person state: "When I work, I'm trading some labour (effort, time, expertice, training, energy, etc) for something in return (money, goods, services, etc). What gives ANYONE the right to collect some of the items involved in that trade?" We're so used to the concept of giving up some of our earnings right off the top that we don't question it anymore. 100 years ago, they would have laughed the IRS off the face of the planet.
..alienates his Republican voter base (telling farmers in Ohio he hates farm subsidies)
That's true. From what I know, I believe he's not acting on his own best behalf sometimes, because he refuses to lie to voters to sway them. He's a smart person and he knows what needs to be done. He's sticking to his morals and his wisdom (and he has accumulated a fair bit in his years, imo) by NOT telling farmers he thinks farm subsidies are the best way to do things right.
Theres a difference between respecting the man and agreeing with him RE. I can't in my right mind vote for someone who doesn't support abortion rights (and therefore most likely will support other "Christian" values), doesn't support funding the government, and will most likely be a lame duck as both parties will vote agianst him in congress. I'ld rather vote for someone who will push a progressive agenda just b/c their party says to as then things will actually happen rather than stagnation occurring.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Clinton didn't really have to run against 3 big name candidates, 1 in his own party. I have a hard time thinking any Republican can win this election to, given how the past 8 years have panned out.
People we're saying that after Bushes first term too, and look what happened. Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprise if Jeb Bush is somehow president in 08.
Although I think Giuliani is gonna win personally. Not saying I'd vote for him, I gave up on believing that voting does anything. But yeah, I'd put my money on him winning.
Giuliani has the name recognition, though from what I hear most of NYC just despises him. Actually, I think that the media endorsement Obama has recienved will push him over the edge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Ron Paul, by all accounts, holds deep-set principles and is prepared to defend them rigorously; I guess that's sort of admirable in a moral-fiber kind of way, but it definitely doesn't mean he's right about anything. Frankly, the man scares me. His grassroots success is evidence that ancient and disturbing political sentiments that should have died out a century ago linger on in American society, namely that the free market is a panacea for all the world's ills and that government is no more than an irritating and repressive invention.
No, he doesn't have a chance. And that fact lets me sleep a lot more soundly.
Ron Paul shouldn't be elected, and he won't be elected. The little Ron Paul fanclub that you're trying to build here is pathetic in my opinion. I think that he has no chance, and that that's a good thing. Every time that somebody challenges the 16th amendment and/or the IRS, they lose. Everybody pays income taxes now; it's that simple. I think that Arlmx has it right. Neither party will support his anti-IRS crusade, and he will end up blocked and overriden on everything. It's good that he gets no coverage; he doesn't deserve it. I respect how he stands for his beliefs, and is willing to be unpopular to state them. However, I oppose his ideas, and as such encourage people to not vote for him or contribute to this lunacy.
We live in a country were ~50% of the populace believe public schooling is a socialist conspiracy and that being called Einstein is an insult. We could try and fix it, but unfortunately the other 50% don't believe in euthanasia.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance because he is too polar. If you don't give in on some things, compromise a little, you can't succeed in democratic politics. He also lacks real, visible experience, especially political experience, that applies to the Office of the President.
My personal opinion is that I can't agree with his political ideation, so I can't vote for him. He would be a good vote if you agree with him, however, despite his small chances of winning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
Ron Paul has no chance. Following him using Internet sources tends to inflate one's estimation of his chances, as for some reason he's really popular among the Internet's core demographic (young libertarian males). But to real people, the people who are actually likely to vote, he just looks like a crazed radical out of touch with reality. Hell, even among us Net junkies almost anyone can find in him an issue or three on which his stance is completely loco. (Honestly, a return to the gold standard?!)
That said, his presence in the Republican race has shaped the discourse at least a little bit, and for that I admire him immensely.
It's not the topic, no. If a Rumor Mill thread about Thoughtseize contains the phrase "standard legal" referring to Duress, a post saying "Duress isn't standard legal!" would get deleted, unless it had something about Thoughtseize in it too. But it's not my forum, so whatever.
Damn straight! We believe in free speech here, not like you Rumor Mill Communists!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Although I respect the man, I don't see how he can possibly be elected. As Blinking Spirit said, his stances on the issues deviate too strongly from the traditional party platforms for him to win.
He's anti-war, to alienate conservatives.
He's anti-abortion, to alienate liberals.
He's pro-gold standard, to alienate everyone.
These are just a few examples, but there's a lot more.
That said, I read in the news that he managed to raise a fairly substantial amount of money in these last few months, and that his campaign is continuing to pick up speed.
If he somehow makes it to the front of the Republican campaign, I'll probably vote for him.
Theres a difference between respecting the man and agreeing with him RE. I can't in my right mind vote for someone who doesn't support abortion rights (and therefore most likely will support other "Christian" values)
He's anti-Roe vs Wade because he believes the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to decide that on a national level.
As an obstetrician he has delivered over 4000 babies, and cite that as the reason for his stance. To quote him:
Quote from Ron Paul »
Every Libertarian Party member takes an oath against aggression. But if you take a four- or five-pound fetus and kill it, if that's not aggression, what is? Right now, the definitions are difficult, both the medical and legal definitions. I think that's why you have the pro- and anti-abortion sides. If we don't resolve the difference between one minute before birth and one minute after, we'll have difficulty defending political liberty. Under our law now, I can get paid for killing a child a minute before its birth and go to prison for doing it the minute after its birth.
doesn't support funding the government, and will most likely be a lame duck as both parties will vote agianst him in congress. I'ld rather vote for someone who will push a progressive agenda just b/c their party says to as then things will actually happen rather than stagnation occurring.
Yeah, because now that the Democrats control Congress things are really moving along...
Just because people are not of his political affiliation does not mean they won't support some of his policies. Liberals would like his push to expand civil rights, and conservatives would support his reduction of taxes and big government.
He wouldn't achieve what he says would be ideal, but things would happen.
And the president has powers outside the Congress. <.< Foreign policy, anybody?
Quote from fumphis »
His grassroots success is evidence that ancient and disturbing political sentiments that should have died out a century ago linger on in American society, namely that the free market is a panacea for all the world's ills and that government is no more than an irritating and repressive invention.
That's a complete misrepresentation of his stances. He's not a goddamn anarchist. If you studied economics you'd realize he knows more about it than any of the other candidates.
He also lacks real, visible experience, especially political experience, that applies to the Office of the President.
What, you mean like Obama?
(Honestly, a return to the gold standard?!)
Its a very extreme position and I wouldn't say I necesarily agree with him on it. But the reason he supports it is because the Federal Reserve, which is privately controlled but in charge of printing US currency, has been inflating the price of the dollar and thus hurting the poor and the economic strength of the US dollar.
The only reason our economy is doing so well is because we are running a tremendous deficit. Our recent fiscal policy has set our generation up to be paying massive debts for decades.
I can't in my right mind vote for someone who doesn't support abortion rights
Yeah, I can see WHY he's anti-abortion (for one thing, he's delivered about 4000 babies and has worked a long time to heal and protect unborn and newborn babies alike) but it's basically the only thing I personally don't full support him on. I'm currently undecided about abortion. One the one hand, I've become quite pro-personal-rights in the last couple years. On the other hand, my younger son had some problems in the womb and we were given the option to abort him. He's healthy and beautiful and such a great little guy, so looking back on that "choice" almost offends me to realize I even considered it for half a second. But this isn't an abortion thread, and I don't really want to get off topic. Moreover, imo we should vote on presidents for more than their moral/ethical opinions. Sure, it matters to some degree what the president thinks about moral/ethical issues, but I wouldn't make my vote with that high on the list of reasons. There are far more important issues for a president to be working on. Look at the US. It needs a lot bigger help than Mister Supreme Commander canceling or pushing ahead abortions, and bans on playing tag in playgrounds. It's AN issue but it's not THE issue, which too many people make it out to be.
Out of curiosity, why? Has the overall US situation gotten better and better in the last 10 or 20 years, as government has gotten bigger and bigger? Are your liberties safer now that the government has more money and power? Are they serving you, or are you serving them? Are they there to do your will, or are they making decisions FOR you? As you can tell, my opinion isn't that governments need to be bigger and more powerful.
Giuliani has the name recognition, though from what I hear most of NYC just despises him.
From what I've heard, he's had his eye on presidency for most of his adult life, and he's quite corrupt. I agree with you that he's a front runner, but that scares me pretty badly. I may not be American, but what the Americans do DOES affect Canada. Your crappy economy is starting to have an effect here. Not to mention, my business is essentially American (I take US dollars, my product is made there, many of my buyers live there, etc).
His grassroots success is evidence that ancient and disturbing political sentiments that should have died out a century ago linger on in American society, namely that the free market is a panacea for all the world's ills and that government is no more than an irritating and repressive invention.
Could you explain? Why does his rising success freak you out? Are you saying you don't believe in the constitution, which is the basis of American government? Is it ancient, outdated, and repressive?
It's good that he gets no coverage; he doesn't deserve it.
I'm pretty sure he does deserve to have the same voice any of the candidates do. To stifle a candidate because a certain person or group don't like their position is probably anti-democratic.
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance because he is too polar. If you don't give in on some things, compromise a little, you can't succeed in democratic politics.
Yeah, I guess that's true. What issues do you think he needs to be more wishy-washy (oops, should I say "flexible" ;)) on? Seriously, I'm curious.
He also lacks real, visible experience, especially political experience, that applies to the Office of the President.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. He's got more experience in Congress than any other candidate, and he has a ton of economic and real world experience aside from that, which also applies. Without sounding sarcastic (I'm finding that hard, in this forum), what other experience do other candidates have that you think Ron Paul needs?
Following him using Internet sources tends to inflate one's estimation of his chances, as for some reason he's really popular among the Internet's core demographic (young libertarian males). But to real people, the people who are actually likely to vote..
I haven't really been following his online polls - I just know he's somewhat unknown by the ignorant masses, but known AND LIKED by those who are educated and informed. If what you say is true (that internet users rarely vote), then yeah, maybe Ron Paul is hooped.
So? I don't claim to know much about the gold standard, but I think the link in the post above mine would be a good start for anyone who knows even less than I do. IMO, money does needs to actually represent something. I don't know if the gold standard is the only or best way to accomplish that, but I know we're not headed in the right direction currently.
He's anti-war, to alienate conservatives.
He's anti-abortion, to alienate liberals.
He's pro-gold standard, to alienate everyone.
I kinda agree with you, in that he's got a real mix of policies. He's never voted to go to war (or raise taxes or give government more power, etc) and he's anti-abortion. From what I've read, those two don't tend to mix well in typical American politics. But then again, I don't really agree with typical American politics. I don't understand the obsession with blue and red, and so on. Why does everyone feel the need to label themselves and others, and then say "hey, you're blue but you're talking red, get the %$*& out of here!" or divide political candidates into groups and only support members from the same group as them? Maybe that's a topic for another time, but come on, it's kinda inefficient and narrow-minded. Can't someone simply have a ton of great ideas, who will come through for a country and stop policing the world, stop taking away freedom from the citizens, and stop making the government uber powerful and expensive? Why the need to colour things, label them, and then criticize them when they don't properly fit the defined colours?
If you studied economics you'd realize he knows more about it than any of the other candidates.
True. He knows a TON about economics, has owned businesses, studied economics, believes in the philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, and has authored several books on these subjects. He's been in conversations with Alan Greenspan for over a decade regarding the real versus fiat monetary system.
Here is a book he wrote in 1987. I just found it, and haven't read it yet, but from what I can see so far, it's not outdated at all. That's because he's had the same unwavering policies and beliefs for the entire 30 year period he's been politically active.
I am a liberal to the core. But I can say Ron Paul has the best ideas for what this country was founded on and was suppose to be. Though Ron Paul does clime to be a constitutionalist, but does not believe in the separation of church and state, and wants to overture RVW. Other then that I can see eye to Ron Paul, and he would have my vote if I though it would do any good.
Unfortunately in this day and age the American people do not choose the President, the media does. Do you think Ron Paul would be last in the polls if they gave him the exact same amount of air time as they do Hillary and Rudy? I think not. The big government machine is scared to death of Ron Paul, and I can tell you if he was #1 in the polls we would probably be debating a similar “single bullet” theory. He stands for a lot of what JFK stood for and well we know how the secret government is allergic to anything that remotely resembles living the way the founding fathers wanted us to if they cant line there pockets with $.
So no unfortunately I do not think he can get the Republican nomination.
I'm in the same boat as tripeboi. I've always registered as a Democrat, and never regretted it. But I would vote for Ron Paul without a moment's hesitation.
But, as has been said many times and for many reasons, he will never get the nomination.
Even the "crazy" candidates can change everything. Remember, Mike Gravel declared his candidacy first, he's the reason why this election started so early. Longer elections mean more time for party loyal candidates to screw up have scandals. I think Gravel did it on purpose to shake things up, and it seems to be working.
All I need to know about Ron Paul is that David Duke endorses him. Nuff said.
He's part of the cryptofascist elements from the Patriot and militia movement that have invested the so-called Libertarian Party because it is a gigantic big tent party with no coherent political outlook. The only thing he has to say is conspiracy theories about the U.N., Federal Reserve and the IRS which are lifted almost verbatim from Christian Nationalist white supremacist arguments from over 30 years back. If he'd been involved in politics in the 50-60s he'd have been a Bircher.
All I need to know about Ron Paul is that David Duke endorses him. Nuff said.
He's part of the cryptofascist elements from the Patriot and militia movement that have invested the so-called Libertarian Party because it is a gigantic big tent party with no coherent political outlook. The only thing he has to say is conspiracy theories about the U.N., Federal Reserve and the IRS which are lifted almost verbatim from Christian Nationalist white supremacist arguments from over 30 years back. If he'd been involved in politics in the 50-60s he'd have been a Bircher.
Cite sources. You criticize conspiracy theories, but you just posted what looks an awful lot like one.
RE: He believes the IRS is illegal. Without that funding there is actually no way for the federal government to function. Like, no money vs. squandered money, I'ld choose squandered as at least you can pull back from that.
As for the abortion thing, giving any leeway on it is a massive step back. The case with your son having potential issues was not what abortion is needed for (though I am a bit of a social Darwanist in ways). Abortion is simply a way to keep children that can't be properly cared for from clogging society. The book Freakonomics apparently has a good section about this, talking about how the increase in abortion rates could have been a cause of the reduction of gang related crime i nthe 90's as the kids with no prospects outside of the streets simply weren't born in the first place.
Note: My vote is probably going to Obama or Hilary, whoever gets the Dem. nomination. Both are complete tools to their party and therefore will support a lot of the social and economic agendas I agree with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Note: My vote is probably going to Obama or Hilary, whoever gets the Dem. nomination. Both are complete tools to their party and therefore will support a lot of the social and economic agendas I agree with.
Lucky, you have parties that fully reflect your views.
Ron Paul seems, to me, to be speaking sense. Everything he says actually rings true for me. And from what I'm seeing, those who hear about him and find out about his message feel similarly.
The two main criticisms I've heard so far are:
1) Not enough people know. He doesn't have the backing of giant media corporations, the federal reserve bank, prominent saudia arabian families, and so forth. His supporters are trying to do the grassroots thing, but it's not going to be enough to get the word out and get him the nomination.
2) Even if he were to become president, would he have the authority and know-how to successfully set into motion all his grand plans, like abolishing the illegal IRS etc?
Thanks for your comments. I'm interested to hear all sides.
.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
That's off-topic. Got anything to contribute?
The IRS is technically illegal because there is no law requiring Americans to file a tax return, and the IRS is responsible for harassing, investigating, seizing the property/funds of, and jailing Americans who don't.
.
The IRS takes the property of Americans who don't file a tax return, or Americans who don't pay their taxes?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I respect the man a lot. He has balls and sticks with what he believes in. He just isn't electable b/c unlike all the tools that typically run for president, he does that pisses a lot of people off.
But this country is generally too stupid to understand that he's the best candidate by far.
But underdogs have gone on to win (Bill Clinton) and his support only continues to grow.. http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/paul-raises-5-million-in-third-quarter-2007-10-03.html
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
It's not the topic, no. If a Rumor Mill thread about Thoughtseize contains the phrase "standard legal" referring to Duress, a post saying "Duress isn't standard legal!" would get deleted, unless it had something about Thoughtseize in it too. But it's not my forum, so whatever.
According to wikipedia, that sounds about right. But there are a lot of people who believe it's illegal for them to do that, because there's no law giving the government the right to collect "un-apportioned direct" tax on income. There was an amendment in 1917 or so (I believe) which would have made it legal, but it wasn't ratified. Essentially, collecting income tax is apparently illegal. It's voluntary to pay income taxes. Business taxes, yes. Property taxes, yes. State taxes, yes. Sales taxes, yes. A lot of taxes are indeed legal. The debate, generally and from what I've seen, is only about taxes on income. As I saw one well-informed person state: "When I work, I'm trading some labour (effort, time, expertice, training, energy, etc) for something in return (money, goods, services, etc). What gives ANYONE the right to collect some of the items involved in that trade?" We're so used to the concept of giving up some of our earnings right off the top that we don't question it anymore. 100 years ago, they would have laughed the IRS off the face of the planet.
My gf is a liberal, and she's voting for him. Yeah, she's a bit weird overall, but still. If you're wrong about one person, there may be more.
That's true. From what I know, I believe he's not acting on his own best behalf sometimes, because he refuses to lie to voters to sway them. He's a smart person and he knows what needs to be done. He's sticking to his morals and his wisdom (and he has accumulated a fair bit in his years, imo) by NOT telling farmers he thinks farm subsidies are the best way to do things right.
If you respect him, then you could give him a chance, and so could a lot of people saying "he's great but has no chance". Register, and vote for him.
Cool
Thanks for that link, too.
.
People we're saying that after Bushes first term too, and look what happened. Personally I wouldn't be the least bit surprise if Jeb Bush is somehow president in 08.
Although I think Giuliani is gonna win personally. Not saying I'd vote for him, I gave up on believing that voting does anything. But yeah, I'd put my money on him winning.
No, he doesn't have a chance. And that fact lets me sleep a lot more soundly.
My other banners not in use
Goodbye Cruel World, It's Over, Walk On By
Follow
My personal opinion is that I can't agree with his political ideation, so I can't vote for him. He would be a good vote if you agree with him, however, despite his small chances of winning.
That said, his presence in the Republican race has shaped the discourse at least a little bit, and for that I admire him immensely.
Damn straight! We believe in free speech here, not like you Rumor Mill Communists!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He's anti-war, to alienate conservatives.
He's anti-abortion, to alienate liberals.
He's pro-gold standard, to alienate everyone.
These are just a few examples, but there's a lot more.
That said, I read in the news that he managed to raise a fairly substantial amount of money in these last few months, and that his campaign is continuing to pick up speed.
If he somehow makes it to the front of the Republican campaign, I'll probably vote for him.
He's anti-Roe vs Wade because he believes the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to decide that on a national level.
As an obstetrician he has delivered over 4000 babies, and cite that as the reason for his stance. To quote him:
Yeah, because now that the Democrats control Congress things are really moving along...
Just because people are not of his political affiliation does not mean they won't support some of his policies. Liberals would like his push to expand civil rights, and conservatives would support his reduction of taxes and big government.
He wouldn't achieve what he says would be ideal, but things would happen.
And the president has powers outside the Congress. <.< Foreign policy, anybody?
That's a complete misrepresentation of his stances. He's not a goddamn anarchist. If you studied economics you'd realize he knows more about it than any of the other candidates.
What, you mean like Obama?
Its a very extreme position and I wouldn't say I necesarily agree with him on it. But the reason he supports it is because the Federal Reserve, which is privately controlled but in charge of printing US currency, has been inflating the price of the dollar and thus hurting the poor and the economic strength of the US dollar.
Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke
Ron Paul on the mortgage meltdown
Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve <- watch this if you want to understand his position on the Gold Standard. Watch all of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve
The only reason our economy is doing so well is because we are running a tremendous deficit. Our recent fiscal policy has set our generation up to be paying massive debts for decades.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
Fair enough, good point.
Yeah, I can see WHY he's anti-abortion (for one thing, he's delivered about 4000 babies and has worked a long time to heal and protect unborn and newborn babies alike) but it's basically the only thing I personally don't full support him on. I'm currently undecided about abortion. One the one hand, I've become quite pro-personal-rights in the last couple years. On the other hand, my younger son had some problems in the womb and we were given the option to abort him. He's healthy and beautiful and such a great little guy, so looking back on that "choice" almost offends me to realize I even considered it for half a second. But this isn't an abortion thread, and I don't really want to get off topic. Moreover, imo we should vote on presidents for more than their moral/ethical opinions. Sure, it matters to some degree what the president thinks about moral/ethical issues, but I wouldn't make my vote with that high on the list of reasons. There are far more important issues for a president to be working on. Look at the US. It needs a lot bigger help than Mister Supreme Commander canceling or pushing ahead abortions, and bans on playing tag in playgrounds. It's AN issue but it's not THE issue, which too many people make it out to be.
Out of curiosity, why? Has the overall US situation gotten better and better in the last 10 or 20 years, as government has gotten bigger and bigger? Are your liberties safer now that the government has more money and power? Are they serving you, or are you serving them? Are they there to do your will, or are they making decisions FOR you? As you can tell, my opinion isn't that governments need to be bigger and more powerful.
From what I've heard, he's had his eye on presidency for most of his adult life, and he's quite corrupt. I agree with you that he's a front runner, but that scares me pretty badly. I may not be American, but what the Americans do DOES affect Canada. Your crappy economy is starting to have an effect here. Not to mention, my business is essentially American (I take US dollars, my product is made there, many of my buyers live there, etc).
Could you explain? Why does his rising success freak you out? Are you saying you don't believe in the constitution, which is the basis of American government? Is it ancient, outdated, and repressive?
I don't respect your opinion if your opening remark to me is to say that I, my thread, or my opinions are pathetic.
I'm pretty sure he does deserve to have the same voice any of the candidates do. To stifle a candidate because a certain person or group don't like their position is probably anti-democratic.
Disagree, don't vote, discuss. Name-calling and anti-campaigning is pretty tacky imo.
Yeah, I guess that's true. What issues do you think he needs to be more wishy-washy (oops, should I say "flexible" ;)) on? Seriously, I'm curious.
I'm pretty sure that's wrong. He's got more experience in Congress than any other candidate, and he has a ton of economic and real world experience aside from that, which also applies. Without sounding sarcastic (I'm finding that hard, in this forum), what other experience do other candidates have that you think Ron Paul needs?
I haven't really been following his online polls - I just know he's somewhat unknown by the ignorant masses, but known AND LIKED by those who are educated and informed. If what you say is true (that internet users rarely vote), then yeah, maybe Ron Paul is hooped.
If only everybody was properly informed!
So? I don't claim to know much about the gold standard, but I think the link in the post above mine would be a good start for anyone who knows even less than I do. IMO, money does needs to actually represent something. I don't know if the gold standard is the only or best way to accomplish that, but I know we're not headed in the right direction currently.
I kinda agree with you, in that he's got a real mix of policies. He's never voted to go to war (or raise taxes or give government more power, etc) and he's anti-abortion. From what I've read, those two don't tend to mix well in typical American politics. But then again, I don't really agree with typical American politics. I don't understand the obsession with blue and red, and so on. Why does everyone feel the need to label themselves and others, and then say "hey, you're blue but you're talking red, get the %$*& out of here!" or divide political candidates into groups and only support members from the same group as them? Maybe that's a topic for another time, but come on, it's kinda inefficient and narrow-minded. Can't someone simply have a ton of great ideas, who will come through for a country and stop policing the world, stop taking away freedom from the citizens, and stop making the government uber powerful and expensive? Why the need to colour things, label them, and then criticize them when they don't properly fit the defined colours?
True. He knows a TON about economics, has owned businesses, studied economics, believes in the philosophy of the Austrian School of economics, and has authored several books on these subjects. He's been in conversations with Alan Greenspan for over a decade regarding the real versus fiat monetary system.
Here is a book he wrote in 1987. I just found it, and haven't read it yet, but from what I can see so far, it's not outdated at all. That's because he's had the same unwavering policies and beliefs for the entire 30 year period he's been politically active.
.
Unfortunately in this day and age the American people do not choose the President, the media does. Do you think Ron Paul would be last in the polls if they gave him the exact same amount of air time as they do Hillary and Rudy? I think not. The big government machine is scared to death of Ron Paul, and I can tell you if he was #1 in the polls we would probably be debating a similar “single bullet” theory. He stands for a lot of what JFK stood for and well we know how the secret government is allergic to anything that remotely resembles living the way the founding fathers wanted us to if they cant line there pockets with $.
So no unfortunately I do not think he can get the Republican nomination.
But, as has been said many times and for many reasons, he will never get the nomination.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
He's part of the cryptofascist elements from the Patriot and militia movement that have invested the so-called Libertarian Party because it is a gigantic big tent party with no coherent political outlook. The only thing he has to say is conspiracy theories about the U.N., Federal Reserve and the IRS which are lifted almost verbatim from Christian Nationalist white supremacist arguments from over 30 years back. If he'd been involved in politics in the 50-60s he'd have been a Bircher.
Netdecking is Rightdecking
My latest data-driven Magic the Gathering strategy article
(TLDR: Analysis of the Valakut matchups. UB rising in the rankings. Aggro correspondingly taking a dive.)
Cite sources. You criticize conspiracy theories, but you just posted what looks an awful lot like one.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat
As for the abortion thing, giving any leeway on it is a massive step back. The case with your son having potential issues was not what abortion is needed for (though I am a bit of a social Darwanist in ways). Abortion is simply a way to keep children that can't be properly cared for from clogging society. The book Freakonomics apparently has a good section about this, talking about how the increase in abortion rates could have been a cause of the reduction of gang related crime i nthe 90's as the kids with no prospects outside of the streets simply weren't born in the first place.
Note: My vote is probably going to Obama or Hilary, whoever gets the Dem. nomination. Both are complete tools to their party and therefore will support a lot of the social and economic agendas I agree with.
Lucky, you have parties that fully reflect your views.
mtg - satire - photoshoppery - strategy - arcade - PMO - chat