Republican nominations - Page 130

On October 20 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I just watched the clip of Perry's outburst towards Romney. Daaaayum! Romney destroyed the guy.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/10/18/seg-romney-perry-illegal-immigration.cnn

But, what does that mean? One unqualified conservative president utterly nailed another one over an issue that that often results in misdirected anger and child-like tantrums. Illegal immigration is such a small fish to fry, and people get so worked up without knowing anything factual about it, like say 8 out of 12 million illegals (estimates from the IRS based on the number of tax returns with suspect information) actually pay income taxes when they have absolutely no reason to do so, and across the whole even without income taxes included, the country actually makes a net gain in tax revenue thanks to their economic activity in the system. But, whatever. DEY TOOK UR JERRRRBS!

On October 20 2011 01:01 xDaunt wrote:
Yeah, there's absolutely nothing gimmicky about Ron Paul's budget cuts. They are absolutely necessary, and the fact that Paul is actually proposing them will draw him support from fiscally conservative republicans. I just hope that one of the other candidates will do the same.

Cain has said that he'd balance the budget in his first year, which would require similar cuts. However, Cain only talked about making cuts to discretionary spending, which wouldn't get him anywhere close to balancing the budget. At some point, he, and every other candidate, is going to need to put entitlement programs on the table. There's no way around it mathematically.

On October 20 2011 06:04 Sadist wrote:



Where are the cuts to military spending?

On October 20 2011 06:07 xDaunt wrote:


Those will have to be on the table, too. However, eliminating the military entirely still wouldn't close the budget gap. Basically everything has to be on the table.

On October 20 2011 05:08 Oblivion753 wrote:
I am sorry if i sound like a part in Ron Paul's campaign but i am only 20 years old and although i know a lot about politics in general, i do lack knowledge about the politicians themselves so i thought watching debates and doing a little homework on the candidates would help me. I am a registered democrat but i do like to stay informed on political issues and i am probably going to vote against Obama if the right candidate comes up.

With this in mid i watched the debates and i must say that all the candidates have numerous faults in some way or another except for Ron Paul who takes a heavy conservative stance on almost every issues and yet seems to have caught my eye with some of his policies.

I dont want to bore anyone with details but i would like to know if i am missing something about him that would cause people to ignore him? Did he doing something in the past that i am too young to remember and thats why it seems as if i am the only supporter?
Sorry just like to know who i am voting for before i actually cast a vote. Thanks

On October 20 2011 05:08 Oblivion753 wrote:
I am sorry if i sound like a part in Ron Paul's campaign but i am only 20 years old and although i know a lot about politics in general, i do lack knowledge about the politicians themselves so i thought watching debates and doing a little homework on the candidates would help me. I am a registered democrat but i do like to stay informed on political issues and i am probably going to vote against Obama if the right candidate comes up.

With this in mid i watched the debates and i must say that all the candidates have numerous faults in some way or another except for Ron Paul who takes a heavy conservative stance on almost every issues and yet seems to have caught my eye with some of his policies.

I dont want to bore anyone with details but i would like to know if i am missing something about him that would cause people to ignore him? Did he doing something in the past that i am too young to remember and thats why it seems as if i am the only supporter?
Sorry just like to know who i am voting for before i actually cast a vote. Thanks

On October 20 2011 06:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:

You will feel like Ron Paul's only supporter if you mostly follow mainstream media. But if you spend a lot of time online you will find a huge swelling of support for Ron Paul on numerous sites, including TL.

The reason people don't really take him seriously is because they are afraid that the average moderate voter won't like his stance on many issues. Ron Paul wants large cuts to many programs, and people who don't understand the reasoning simply reach the conclusion that he's a whack job. Also, Ron Paul isn't a politician. He doesn't change his opinion or his philosophy based upon his audience or polling data, which it could be argued is necessary to get elected in this country.

Personally, I don't care about the man or the position so much as I care about the general ideology. The great thing about Ron Paul is that he expands the debates and forces the politicians and the voters to face issues and facts they would rather ignore. He also fights against the neo-conservative movement which has created an increase in the general "militarization" of the Republican party, which is completely contrary to it's roots.

Anyways.... as a registered democrat you won't be able to vote for Ron Paul.

On October 20 2011 06:26 aksfjh wrote:


For many people, they understand his positions quite well and still think his ideas aren't grounded in the correct ideology. That isn't the point though. People will vote for him for his ideas and stances, it's his lack presidential "aura" that will likely turn people away. It's all about what you see when you look at him, and for most it isn't a president. I'm not saying this because I don't want him to win or anything, it's just what I've observed in the past.

On October 20 2011 06:39 ryanAnger wrote:


The above is mostly due to complete propagandization of politics by mainstream media. Every since Reagan at least (possibly JFK) the media has tried to put the "guys who look cool" as the frontrunners, which means ignoring everyone else. That's why Romney and Perry are considered the primary candidates for the GOP nod. Everyone has it so ingrained in their minds that our president has to be young and attractive because the MSM has made it that way.

It's not being religious that ticks people off, unless somebody's a real fundamentalist. It's the legislating of religious issues.

On October 20 2011 06:57 Kiarip wrote:
Honestly the fact that Ron Paul is ideologically consistent makes him seem somewhat presidential to me.

Every single one of those candidates scape goat for hard questions has been bashing Obama. Bachmann and Gingrich in particular. Hell I don't like Obama either, but it's getting old, and in fact you can't blame everything on him, because the congress plays a huge role in legislature.

But they keep blaming Obama and the current prisidency, in a way that makes it seem like they would do something CONSIDERABLY different, but when it comes to their ideas that you would expect to be extremely "bold" like Cain likes to say only Paul and Cain have really come up with any, and the fact that Cain has been openly dishonest about the effects of his plan about the tax burden on the middle and lower class Americans makes me dislike him quite a bit.

Ron Paul has probably done the least Obama bashing and yet his policy would probably the most extremely different from that of Obama, which deserves some respect imo.

On October 20 2011 07:06 Sadist wrote:



The probably with being that ideologically consistent is that you won't make compromises and NOTHING will get done.

On October 20 2011 06:12 Sadist wrote:


You and I both know it would be political suicide for anyone to even mention it.

Basically if you wanna talk about entitlements and welfare. Look no further than the military operations that aren't in combat areas. (Ie Germany, South Korea, etc)

On October 20 2011 07:06 Sadist wrote:



The probably with being that ideologically consistent is that you won't make compromises and NOTHING will get done.

On October 20 2011 06:55 Penitent wrote:


Long time reader, first time poster.

The quote above is emblematic of the hippocritical stupidity so often displayed by the political left, and I feel compelled to say something to expose it for what it is.

Why should it be reprehensible for a religious person to vote for his preferences but "courageous" for an a-religious person to do the same? No serious conservative (myself included) has ever suggested that we pass laws to compel belief in anything, yet to hear tell from the media and other leftists you'd swear there was a conspiracy to turn America into an Iranian-style theocracy.

America is a democracy. This means that we all have the right to vote our consciences when deciding, as a collective whole, how we are to live and what we are to do as a nation, as a state, and as a city.

If you like abortion because you don't think the thing inside a pregnant woman's womb is a human being, then vote your conscience. But don't presume to invalidate the opinion of someone who disagrees with you and believes that abortion is wrong because it involves the cold-blooded murder of a child. If you like gay marriage because you think that marriage does little more than confer titles, tax benefits, and specific legal rights, then vote to support it. But don't sneer at others who believe that marriage is a holy institution pre-dating government, and who believe that an institution which has never accepted homosexual unions across all cultures at all times in all of recorded human history should not be tampered with by the equivalent of a civilizational diletante.

When someone votes for traditional marriage, or pro-life laws, or voluntary prayer in schools, or the teaching of intelligent design as a possible alternative to evolution (which to date STILL has no provable model for the macro-evolutionary change of a species with x number chromosomes into a new species with x+y number of chromosomes), do you rage because you feel like someone is trying to impose his beliefs on you?

Guess what, it feels the EXACT same way for conservatives when you vote for gay marriage, abortion on demand, the exile of faith from all public discourse, or the acceptance of Darwinian evolution as a provable fact.

This is the nature of democratic politics. Every single time you vote one way or another on an issue, you are voting to impose your thoughts, your preferences, your views, and your beliefs on other people. This is okay; this is how democracy is supposed to work. Living in a democracy means everyone gets a say. It doesn't mean you always get your way, but it beats the hell out of being ruled by a monarch or a dictator or a politburo or a central committee who decide what to do and don't give a fuck if you and everyone else disagree with them. And if you lose? Go out and convince your fellow citizens that yours is the righteous cause, and next time maybe the votes will swing in your favor.

Don't for a second believe the bullshit notion that your values or beliefs or views are any better or more important than someone else's and should therefore be accorded greater weight or respect, to the point where people who don't think like you do ought to be mocked and ridiculed as "fundamentalists" or "neanderthals" or "mindless sheep". I'm a devout Catholic and a political conservative because I think for myself, I understand my values, and I know who and what I support. I'm no more a mindless peon than an atheist liberal who takes the exact opposite stand on every issue.

On October 20 2011 07:34 Bibdy wrote:


Look what compromise has gotten Obama. I don't outright hate the guy, but the country needed a leader, not a diplomat.

On October 20 2011 07:57 Falling wrote:


Or perhaps a Republican congress that was a little less hostile, but fair point. I think a lot of people would've been happier with Obama if he stuck to his guns a little more. (Or else thought he was ushering in the next Communist Revolution and/or Great Tribulation, but whatever.) But Ron Paul is so extreme the other way. Something in between the Inflexible Ideologue and the Great Compromiser is a much healthier, practical politician.

On October 20 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:
I didn't watch the whole thing, but I just watched the clip of Perry's outburst towards Romney. Daaaayum! Romney destroyed the guy.

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/10/18/seg-romney-perry-illegal-immigration.cnn

But, what does that mean? One unqualified conservative president utterly nailed another one over an issue that that often results in misdirected anger and child-like tantrums. Illegal immigration is such a small fish to fry, and people get so worked up without knowing anything factual about it, like say 8 out of 12 million illegals (estimates from the IRS based on the number of tax returns with suspect information) actually pay income taxes when they have absolutely no reason to do so, and across the whole even without income taxes included, the country actually makes a net gain in tax revenue thanks to their economic activity in the system. But, whatever. DEY TOOK UR JERRRRBS!