|
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
he's making tons of compromises from his idealogical standpoint of constitutional libertarianism, it's not like he immediately wants to shut off all wellfare, and etc... He doesn't.
On the other hand he isn't going give up on his view for the nation of decreasing the power of federal government, and cutting a lot of bureaucracy and spending... He has said many times before that while he doesn't want to rule out the possibility of him winning the election, the reason he is running to educate people on what is the right thing to do, and at least force the other politicians to take a stance on those important issues.
|
Canada11398 Posts
Well I think we can talk about unfair coverage without getting into Alex Jones and Bilderberg. I don't think it's a big conspiracy. As I'm thinking about it, I suspect the system worked quite well when you there were a couple candidates that the GOP thought should be the next president (heir apparent if you will). Based on that, the media would give that candidate the most air time. And why not, they have the backing of the big conservative leaders. That would be a pretty good reason to consider them top tier.
Problem for the last 2 election cycles (and possibly because of George W/ Cheney administration) the pickings have been really slim. There's no-one waiting in the wings who the establishment really wants. Not only that, but large parts of the conservative base don't even want a establishment conservative. So the media is left with an old system where everyone knew who the top tier candidates, except now no-one really does. Now the old system doesn't really work in giving more time to one candidate over the other because it's not all that obvious who should be. This is particularly because the President doesn't run a party.
In Canada, there was a big stink over not including the Green party leader in the leadership debate. The defence was that the Green party has no elected MP's so she is not mainstream enough to be part of the debate. And later when she did get elected in, she should then be included. Whether reasonable or no, we at least have a nice dividing line independent and quite concrete. Rather than this crazy testing of the winds with polls and straw counts/polls that seem very arbitrary and flighty.
Now in the future, the Republican establishment might be able to push forward its heir apparent or perhaps a new establishment will arise which will do the same. And in which case, the system ought to work. In the mean time.
Am I totally off base with this? Some horrible assumptions? One thing I will hold is there is no need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain this.
|
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
|
That seems not so much a problem with the federal goverment in itself but the people that make the laws/rules...
|
On November 14 2011 19:06 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY. Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats. Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military. Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the states were in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
|
On November 14 2011 19:33 Velr wrote:
That seems not so much a problem with the federal goverment in itself but the people that make the laws/rules...
Exactly right. Instead of getting rid of agencies that aren't doing what they are supposed to, we should be asking why they aren't. The issue is one of ethics and conflicts of interest. A case of the fox guarding the henhouse. Simply getting rid of the agencies solves nothing at a time when we sorely need watchdog and regulatory agencies. Regulations are only as meaningful or just as those who write and/or enforce them (information tech 101- garbage in, garbage out). They are a tool... it is like blaming guns for killing people instead of people killing people.
|
On November 14 2011 17:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 17:48 zachMEISTER wrote:On November 14 2011 17:37 aksfjh wrote:On November 14 2011 14:11 unit wrote:On November 14 2011 13:49 Falling wrote:On November 14 2011 11:41 NtroP wrote:
They only gave him 89 seconds, because every debate he's allowed to speak in, he wins. I don't know if he would win necessarily. But the more I see, the more I am certain that an inordinate amount of influence has been given to the media (undemocratically elected organization) to act as kingmakers. Oh sure, the candidates can mess things up like Cain and Perry's race to the bottom. But the fact that candidates are assumed to be top tier, means the media gives them way more speaking time, which means everyone perceives them as top tier because they talk more, which means they get more air time. And around and around it goes. I mean I get that there are top tier and fringe candidates, but does the media get to pick them so early? It should really only be about now that time is starting to be limited to fringe candidates and certainly not down to 90 seconds. Again I would not want to see Ron Paul as President as I think he would be disastrous on the home front (although his understanding of foreign affairs and the cost of overseas bases I do like.) But 90 seconds is ridiculous, if not a deliberate shut out. keep in mind that the media has been getting away with this since the summer, i believe it started in july/august...at least i noticed it then...its just ridiculous, and if anything it shows corruption more than anything else considering that the media is funded by the very people who profit from fiat money and war, which is exactly what ron paul is against, ron paul is the candidate that is willing and able to help out the average person over the corporations which is exactly why they want him out of the race which is more a more effective way to remove someone from a race? 1) bash them repeatedly on the smallest things, blowing them way out of proportion while hiding the redeeming characteristics (generally done with everyone though so at least it blends in) or 2) act as though the candidate doesnt exist, thus creating the illusion that the candidate isnt even in the race as well as keeping the average person uninformed of the candidate's viewpoints the second option is the correct one keep in mind the easiest ways to control the masses (let me know if i miss any important ones) 1)misinformation - trick them into believing that your agenda helps them, whether it does or does not this is basically what the media has been doing for a long time now, i dont even know when that started (propaganda counts) 2)create an enemy - people are much more likely to buy into your viewpoints if they are afraid of something and you offer them protection just how many wars are we even in? seriously i lost track of the amount of countries that we have committed acts of war against Yes, the media is on to Ron Paul and his game against them! They're trying to shut him down before he tells us all THE TRUTH! Seriously though. They're just going for what generates viewers and money. You really think a lot of people tune in to see Ron Paul in debates? Not really. There's no drama there, no tension, and no surprise. You know he's going to say things that aren't exactly the party line, and you know how he's going to answer all the current event questions. Compare this to Cain, with his 9-9-9, China is using time travel to develop nukes, and, "I don't sexually harass (but am sex and race insensitive)." You have Perry, "What the hell and I going to fumble on today?!" The GOP-friendzone Romney. As for the (de)legitimization of Paul, you have to remember where almost all of his support is: online or unreliable straw polls. In traditional polls, he only does mildly well compared to his name recognition (only 6-8%). When you shift this to online his popularity shoots up, which brings into question those result. After all, the internet beyond Twitter, Facebook, and other social media is full of hacktivists and whatnot. I feel as though he's managed to establish himself through founding the Tea Part movement, and being one of the only Independent-3rd Party-Libertarian-add-more-hypenated-words-here candidates running. He's managed meager success through previous traditional methods, but now he's backed by internet and "unreliable straw polls". You just said yourself that Obama took advantage of the Social Media..then turn around and say that the internet is full of hacktivists. These hacktivists, all use Social media as well. I honestly think he stands a hell of a chance. Except Obama polled well outside the internet as well. Not only that, but he had charisma and a story. Also, don't forget that the media has seen Ron Paul many times before, and many akin to Ron Paul over the years. There's always some fringe candidate who isn't part of the established parties but aligns himself with them anyways. This story has been played out before. I will admit that this time it's a little different since Paul does have more support than in the past, but it's not enough of a difference to pass up the other media gems this election cycle.
Except that people are sick and tired of Obama now because of the people working under him like Geithner who use to work for Goldman sachs selling us out to wall street. People are tired of that and you can see it with the OWS movements. This time people want REAL change and the only person to make this change happen and get rid of the corruption plaguing this country is Ron Paul. He's even had people like Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich back him up. So, that goes to show you how much support he gets from people of all backgrounds.
|
nvm... misread post 
|
On November 14 2011 19:06 NtroP wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY. Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats. Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military. Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
I'm not disagreeing with his position ... but it's a radical one that the Republican party will never get behind. I'm just talking about his electability, not whether he is right or wrong. It's a same really. He's the only worthy candidate as far as I'm concerned (other than maybe Huntsman, but that's a stretch).
|
On November 14 2011 20:12 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 17:56 aksfjh wrote:On November 14 2011 17:48 zachMEISTER wrote:On November 14 2011 17:37 aksfjh wrote:On November 14 2011 14:11 unit wrote:On November 14 2011 13:49 Falling wrote:On November 14 2011 11:41 NtroP wrote:
They only gave him 89 seconds, because every debate he's allowed to speak in, he wins. I don't know if he would win necessarily. But the more I see, the more I am certain that an inordinate amount of influence has been given to the media (undemocratically elected organization) to act as kingmakers. Oh sure, the candidates can mess things up like Cain and Perry's race to the bottom. But the fact that candidates are assumed to be top tier, means the media gives them way more speaking time, which means everyone perceives them as top tier because they talk more, which means they get more air time. And around and around it goes. I mean I get that there are top tier and fringe candidates, but does the media get to pick them so early? It should really only be about now that time is starting to be limited to fringe candidates and certainly not down to 90 seconds. Again I would not want to see Ron Paul as President as I think he would be disastrous on the home front (although his understanding of foreign affairs and the cost of overseas bases I do like.) But 90 seconds is ridiculous, if not a deliberate shut out. keep in mind that the media has been getting away with this since the summer, i believe it started in july/august...at least i noticed it then...its just ridiculous, and if anything it shows corruption more than anything else considering that the media is funded by the very people who profit from fiat money and war, which is exactly what ron paul is against, ron paul is the candidate that is willing and able to help out the average person over the corporations which is exactly why they want him out of the race which is more a more effective way to remove someone from a race? 1) bash them repeatedly on the smallest things, blowing them way out of proportion while hiding the redeeming characteristics (generally done with everyone though so at least it blends in) or 2) act as though the candidate doesnt exist, thus creating the illusion that the candidate isnt even in the race as well as keeping the average person uninformed of the candidate's viewpoints the second option is the correct one keep in mind the easiest ways to control the masses (let me know if i miss any important ones) 1)misinformation - trick them into believing that your agenda helps them, whether it does or does not this is basically what the media has been doing for a long time now, i dont even know when that started (propaganda counts) 2)create an enemy - people are much more likely to buy into your viewpoints if they are afraid of something and you offer them protection just how many wars are we even in? seriously i lost track of the amount of countries that we have committed acts of war against Yes, the media is on to Ron Paul and his game against them! They're trying to shut him down before he tells us all THE TRUTH! Seriously though. They're just going for what generates viewers and money. You really think a lot of people tune in to see Ron Paul in debates? Not really. There's no drama there, no tension, and no surprise. You know he's going to say things that aren't exactly the party line, and you know how he's going to answer all the current event questions. Compare this to Cain, with his 9-9-9, China is using time travel to develop nukes, and, "I don't sexually harass (but am sex and race insensitive)." You have Perry, "What the hell and I going to fumble on today?!" The GOP-friendzone Romney. As for the (de)legitimization of Paul, you have to remember where almost all of his support is: online or unreliable straw polls. In traditional polls, he only does mildly well compared to his name recognition (only 6-8%). When you shift this to online his popularity shoots up, which brings into question those result. After all, the internet beyond Twitter, Facebook, and other social media is full of hacktivists and whatnot. I feel as though he's managed to establish himself through founding the Tea Part movement, and being one of the only Independent-3rd Party-Libertarian-add-more-hypenated-words-here candidates running. He's managed meager success through previous traditional methods, but now he's backed by internet and "unreliable straw polls". You just said yourself that Obama took advantage of the Social Media..then turn around and say that the internet is full of hacktivists. These hacktivists, all use Social media as well. I honestly think he stands a hell of a chance. Except Obama polled well outside the internet as well. Not only that, but he had charisma and a story. Also, don't forget that the media has seen Ron Paul many times before, and many akin to Ron Paul over the years. There's always some fringe candidate who isn't part of the established parties but aligns himself with them anyways. This story has been played out before. I will admit that this time it's a little different since Paul does have more support than in the past, but it's not enough of a difference to pass up the other media gems this election cycle. Except that people are sick and tired of Obama now because of the people working under him like Geithner who use to work for Goldman sachs selling us out to wall street. People are tired of that and you can see it with the OWS movements. This time people want REAL change and the only person to make this change happen and get rid of the corruption plaguing this country is Ron Paul. He's even had people like Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich back him up. So, that goes to show you how much support he gets from people of all backgrounds.
Not sure why you quoted me. I didn't say anything about Paul not being a proponent of big change or Obama being popular right now. I was saying that he doesn't fit the traditional mold of a Republican candidate, and that his campaign is much akin to those of Nader and Kucinich. Paul simply doesn't appeal to traditional Republicans (although, who does right now) as much as many of you think.
On November 14 2011 20:25 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 19:06 NtroP wrote:On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY. Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats. Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military. Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for. I'm not disagreeing with his position ... but it's a radical one that the Republican party will never get behind. I'm just talking about his electability, not whether he is right or wrong. It's a same really. He's the only worthy candidate as far as I'm concerned (other than maybe Huntsman, but that's a stretch).
I'm disagreeing with his opinion. Natural drugs are about as useful as eating carpet. Education is failing because states have been ditching public higher education funds in the forms of budget freezes and cuts. Our military commitments in friendly territory is actually not that big of a deal. We spend more on R&D for wars we'll probably never fight than we do on base upkeep in places like Japan and Germany.
States would NEVER solve half the problems we have. If you think corruption is bad at the federal level, just wait until companies only have to spend half as much to get the cushy legislation in key states. Have to spend $20 million worth of perks to "buy" the votes on a Federal Bill? Now you only have to spend $1,000,000 for each state, which you're only interested in 5 key ones anyways.
|
On November 14 2011 18:42 Falling wrote:
Well I think we can talk about unfair coverage without getting into Alex Jones and Bilderberg. I don't think it's a big conspiracy. As I'm thinking about it, I suspect the system worked quite well when you there were a couple candidates that the GOP thought should be the next president (heir apparent if you will). Based on that, the media would give that candidate the most air time. And why not, they have the backing of the big conservative leaders. That would be a pretty good reason to consider them top tier.
Problem for the last 2 election cycles (and possibly because of George W/ Cheney administration) the pickings have been really slim. There's no-one waiting in the wings who the establishment really wants. Not only that, but large parts of the conservative base don't even want a establishment conservative. So the media is left with an old system where everyone knew who the top tier candidates, except now no-one really does. Now the old system doesn't really work in giving more time to one candidate over the other because it's not all that obvious who should be. This is particularly because the President doesn't run a party.
In Canada, there was a big stink over not including the Green party leader in the leadership debate. The defence was that the Green party has no elected MP's so she is not mainstream enough to be part of the debate. And later when she did get elected in, she should then be included. Whether reasonable or no, we at least have a nice dividing line independent and quite concrete. Rather than this crazy testing of the winds with polls and straw counts/polls that seem very arbitrary and flighty.
Now in the future, the Republican establishment might be able to push forward its heir apparent or perhaps a new establishment will arise which will do the same. And in which case, the system ought to work. In the mean time.
Am I totally off base with this? Some horrible assumptions? One thing I will hold is there is no need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain this.
Yes, I think you went one step too far. Yes, some horrible assumtions. Your own uncomfortable reality intruding on your comfortable reality.
Let me try some devil's advocacy on you. If you and I got together for a day. Just one.. Then we picked two news sources. You would fact check 5 Random stories from Infowars. I would do the same, from say, the Globe and Mail.. is it your assumption that factually Infowars would be full of error, and glode would be on the level? What if they both reported the same story, the same day, factually the same? Then what?. I read a lot of Neo-conservative, and liberal sites just to see what they are saying... like infowars. Bilderburg, for example has even been popping up in some EU news. Who are they, what are they doing? If you answer 'conspiracy' then I call shenanigans. I only ask you consider for just a moment that the main difference between news outlets is how they tilt the story for their own ideological/buisness model. Alex is sensational. Doesn't make him wrong de facto. N Y Times ran false information intentionally at the request of the (Bush)administration for over a year and a half. Now what?
The TLDR of my statement is when you dismiss before you consider, your wrong.
|
|
|
Yeah. This may boil down to Romney/Gingrich. Both are comparable. Both are flawed.
|
On November 14 2011 13:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Eric Cantor decided to run and was nominated Obama wouldn't even have to Campaign.
Which is unfortunate. He would get no support, but is probably the best candidate that the Republicans have to offer.
|
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
|
On November 15 2011 03:12 Holytornados wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 13:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Eric Cantor decided to run and was nominated Obama wouldn't even have to Campaign. Which is unfortunate. He would get no support, but is probably the best candidate that the Republicans have to offer.
I think even conservatives would have a problem with a man who says (u.s.)disaster victims should take care of themselves. Also when it's revealed that you invest in bonds that would soar in profit if the U.S. defaulted isn't a really big patriotic sign.
|
On November 15 2011 04:27 dirtybirdy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering). I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
Well said, you put it much better than I did. I don't agree or support all his ideas, but at least he has ideas that are consistent with his principles and beliefs.
Guys like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney literally can't remember what their principles they're pretending to have. If we can't have honest politicians, can't we at least sharp/quick-witted ones?
|
On November 15 2011 04:42 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 03:12 Holytornados wrote:On November 14 2011 13:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If Eric Cantor decided to run and was nominated Obama wouldn't even have to Campaign. Which is unfortunate. He would get no support, but is probably the best candidate that the Republicans have to offer. I think even conservatives would have a problem with a man who says (u.s.)disaster victims should take care of themselves. Also when it's revealed that you invest in bonds that would soar in profit if the U.S. defaulted isn't a really big patriotic sign.
I'm not terribly familiar with Cantor, but he strikes me as being more of an "ambitious operative" type of politician than someone with genuine ideas of his own. He's like the opposite of Paul Ryan.
Also, fairly or unfairly, because Cantor is second in command in Congress, I do associate him fairly closely with Boehner, whom I believe is a true idiot.
|
On November 15 2011 05:14 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2011 04:27 dirtybirdy wrote:On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote:
I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering). I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain. Well said, you put it much better than I did. I don't agree or support all his ideas, but at least he has ideas that are consistent with his principles and beliefs. Guys like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney literally can't remember what their principles they're pretending to have. If we can't have honest politicians, can't we at least sharp/quick-witted ones?
Newt Gingrich would fit that bill. I think you're being a little unfair Romney, though. He is very sharp. If anything, his answers and positions are often a little too nuanced.
|
Canada11398 Posts
On November 15 2011 02:07 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2011 18:42 Falling wrote:
Well I think we can talk about unfair coverage without getting into Alex Jones and Bilderberg. I don't think it's a big conspiracy. As I'm thinking about it, I suspect the system worked quite well when you there were a couple candidates that the GOP thought should be the next president (heir apparent if you will). Based on that, the media would give that candidate the most air time. And why not, they have the backing of the big conservative leaders. That would be a pretty good reason to consider them top tier.
Problem for the last 2 election cycles (and possibly because of George W/ Cheney administration) the pickings have been really slim. There's no-one waiting in the wings who the establishment really wants. Not only that, but large parts of the conservative base don't even want a establishment conservative. So the media is left with an old system where everyone knew who the top tier candidates, except now no-one really does. Now the old system doesn't really work in giving more time to one candidate over the other because it's not all that obvious who should be. This is particularly because the President doesn't run a party.
In Canada, there was a big stink over not including the Green party leader in the leadership debate. The defence was that the Green party has no elected MP's so she is not mainstream enough to be part of the debate. And later when she did get elected in, she should then be included. Whether reasonable or no, we at least have a nice dividing line independent and quite concrete. Rather than this crazy testing of the winds with polls and straw counts/polls that seem very arbitrary and flighty.
Now in the future, the Republican establishment might be able to push forward its heir apparent or perhaps a new establishment will arise which will do the same. And in which case, the system ought to work. In the mean time.
Am I totally off base with this? Some horrible assumptions? One thing I will hold is there is no need to resort to conspiracy theories to explain this. Yes, I think you went one step too far. Yes, some horrible assumtions. Your own uncomfortable reality intruding on your comfortable reality. Let me try some devil's advocacy on you. If you and I got together for a day. Just one.. Then we picked two news sources. You would fact check 5 Random stories from Infowars. I would do the same, from say, the Globe and Mail.. is it your assumption that factually Infowars would be full of error, and glode would be on the level? What if they both reported the same story, the same day, factually the same? Then what?. I read a lot of Neo-conservative, and liberal sites just to see what they are saying... like infowars. Bilderburg, for example has even been popping up in some EU news. Who are they, what are they doing? If you answer 'conspiracy' then I call shenanigans. I only ask you consider for just a moment that the main difference between news outlets is how they tilt the story for their own ideological/buisness model. Alex is sensational. Doesn't make him wrong de facto. N Y Times ran false information intentionally at the request of the (Bush)administration for over a year and a half. Now what? The TLDR of my statement is when you dismiss before you consider, your wrong.
I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you suggesting that there is some Bilderburg group running the show behind the scenes? In that case, by your argument I don't think my problem is going too far, but not far enough. But your post seems a little tangential. I acknowledged that the news organizations tilt information (my gatekeeper comment). But my main issue and question is how the media have moved by default to the position of kingmaker because there is no longer an obvious heir apparent for the Republicans. That was my main question of whether this was the case.
Note, this is not a denial of vested interest or economic gain or corruption. All of that exists both in the past with official patronage and now with lobbying aka legal bribery. But that's a little different then adopting Bilderburg/ Illuminati styled arguments which you might be suggesting, but I'm not really sure.
And yes Alex Jones is sensational if not down right nutty and/or paranoid. Glen Beck's wilder theories are tame by comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
