|
On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal.
I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs.
And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor.
His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction.
|
On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction.
This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done".
And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen.
Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire.
|
On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire.
The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules.
What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one.
|
On November 25 2011 14:52 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules. What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one.
That's why the best presidents were the ones who forged compromises. However, with the massive media "hype", it's getting harder and harder to accomplish much. There are always going to be those extremists who just won't budge on anything, even if the facts are right there sitting on a silver platter.
|
On November 25 2011 14:52 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules. What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one.
Of course the president is going to be ineffectual when it comes to legislation. Per the Constitution of the United States, that's not his job. And that's why I stated in an earlier post that I vote for my presidents based on their foreign policy because that's one of the few things they have legitimate control over. This explains why I voted for Obama over McCain (although Obama reneged on his promises regarding foreign policy), and why I'd vote for Paul over anyone else.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire.
No, not at all, you went the wrong direction based on what I said. Yes, I know presidents don't accomplish everything they want, but one can use what they want as a good indicator of how reasonable they are as people (and therefore how good a job they are likely to do), and to measure which direction they'll lean towards when given a choice. When what they want is ludicrous, I'm disinclined to vote for them. I'd much prefer to vote for a president who wants things that are seemingly reasonable, even if I might disagree with some of them (like Obama for example: I disagree with him on a number of things, but he's not doing anything completely outrageous.)
And considering it's the President's job to try to stop Congress when Congress gets way out of line through vetos, I'd like a President who isn't off his rocker.
|
On November 25 2011 14:56 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:52 Probulous wrote:On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules. What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one. That's why the best presidents were the ones who forged compromises. However, with the massive media "hype", it's getting harder and harder to accomplish much. There are always going to be those extremists who just won't budge on anything, even if the facts are right there sitting on a silver platter.
Yeah but when you're whole campaign is based on finding common ground, the simplest way to make a president look ineffectual is by refusing to compromise. I guess campaigning on compromise is not the best strategy.
On November 25 2011 14:58 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:52 Probulous wrote:On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules. What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one. Of course the president is going to be ineffectual when it comes to legislation. Per the Constitution of the United States, that's not his job. And that's why I stated in an earlier post that I vote for my presidents based on their foreign policy because that's one of the few things they have legitimate control over. This explains why I voted for Obama over McCain (although Obama reneged on his promises regarding foreign policy), and why I'd vote for Paul over anyone else.
Very true. I have no problem with that position at all. The issue is that people seem to see Ron as a saviour figure and unfortunately he isn't the messiah. Neither was Obama. It is quite sad really that the turnout for presidential elections is so much higher than for congressionals.
I mean presidential elections are run on legislative changes. That is what people are electing the president on, but in reality he has little say in whether this becomes law or not. It just seems screwed up that the person who is not responsible for the major changes in the country is elected based on his promises to make those changes.
Anyway, I am not really adding anything here and I need to head off. Thanks!
|
On November 25 2011 14:56 xXFireandIceXx wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:52 Probulous wrote:On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. The funny thing is that this is exactly what Obama is getting hammered on. He puts forward his vision and gets cock-blocked. Therefore he is a crap leader. It's the problem with the way congress works. Everyone sees the president as holding the power but in reality it is congress who make the rules. What happens when Paul gets elected and has the same problem but from members of his own party? If your positions are too extreme to be implemented then you are going to be an ineffectual president. A cynical point of view but a realistic one. That's why the best presidents were the ones who forged compromises. However, with the massive media "hype", it's getting harder and harder to accomplish much. There are always going to be those extremists who just won't budge on anything, even if the facts are right there sitting on a silver platter.
I don't think there's a President in history that could forge worthwhile compromises in our current political state.
It's getting to be absolutely pathetic.
|
On November 25 2011 15:16 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire. No, not at all, you went the wrong direction based on what I said. Yes, I know presidents don't accomplish everything they want, but one can use what they want as a good indicator of how reasonable they are as people (and therefore how good a job they are likely to do), and to measure which direction they'll lean towards when given a choice. When what they want is ludicrous, I'm disinclined to vote for them. I'd much prefer to vote for a president who wants things that are seemingly reasonable, even if I might disagree with some of them (like Obama for example: I disagree with him on a number of things, but he's not doing anything completely outrageous.) And considering it's the President's job to try to stop Congress when Congress gets way out of line through vetos, I'd like a President who isn't off his rocker.
I guess we disagree here that Paul is off his rocker. If your basis for him being "off his rocker" is his desire to be rid of the Dept of Ed, I'd say that's a pretty poor stance. Since it's inception in 1979, the Department of Education hasn't really accomplished much, and in the last 20 years or so our education standards have significantly declined and even fallen below those of our biggest competitors. Now, I know correlation =/= causation, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume the Dept of Ed is some inherently good thing.
|
The way the politics in the U.S. is going with each political party refusing to even agree to disagree and showing loyalty to lobbies, and idiotic pledges I'm surprised there hasn't been a Constitutional crisis yet.
|
On November 25 2011 15:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The way the politics in the U.S. is going with each political party refusing to even agree to disagree and showing loyalty to lobbies, and idiotic pledges I'm surprised there hasn't been a Constitutional crisis yet.
Disregard
|
On November 25 2011 14:46 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:41 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. His inability to do what he desires doesn't exactly encourage me to lean in his direction. This isn't a candidate specific thing though, and people need to get that out of their heads. The President is not someone who can just walk into the White House with half-baked policies and make them a reality with no effort. There are checks and balances to filter out the extreme things that can't be compromised. The destruction of the Dept of Ed is extreme, and would never make it through, regardless of Pauls ability to "get things done". And the last time a President managed to do everything they desired (policy-wise) was... never. It doesn't happen. Using your post as an example of your logic, you should never support any candidate, because no one ever gets everything they desire.
While true, that is usually when the President's party doesn't also have control of Congress. This wasn't the case with Obama. I'm not even talking about "getting everything they desire", hell we're talking about going directly against the rhetoric of the party line in full out betrayal. This Daily Show bit is a great (and hilarious) example of what I mean:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-27-2010/blues-clueless
|
Please consider Ron Paul. Here is a list of good things he would do as president so you can weight the perceived bad vs the perceived good.
* Remove the troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan, and other bases worldwide.
* Stop bombing Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia with predator drones (these first 2 points would greatly reduce the desire for young Muslims to turn to terror)
* Reverse insane regulations from the FDA and FTC which prevent commerce in raw milk and hinder many supplements
* Make the federal government respect state laws legalizing marijuana.
* Reverse Executive orders which exceed the president's authority or restrict civil liberties.
* Stop federal agencies from spying on Americans without evidence of a crime.
* Stop TSA groping
* Pardon all non-violent drug offenders
Those 8 items are things he can and will do by executive power alone without requiring congressional approval. In contrast, most or all of your reasons not to vote for Ron Paul are ones which do require legislation from congress. Honestly, what are the chances of congress passing legislation for those items? I would just ask you to compare the pros/cons of Ron Paul against those for the other candidates. I think he comes out ahead. Read this if you want to hear his plan in his own words: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html
|
If you listen to the debates, Ron Paul and Huntsman are the only sensible ones, we need a radical shift to happen already, and those are the only two willing to make it happen.
|
On November 26 2011 05:05 below66 wrote:
If you listen to the debates, Ron Paul and Huntsman are the only sensible ones, we need a radical shift to happen already, and those are the only two willing to make it happen.
Indeed, as a democrat speaking i think those are the two most sensible people of the republicans running. I can actually agree/respect what they say MOST of the time.
|
On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor.
Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things.
Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms.
|
I would be more than willing to vote for Huntsman but he's really not someone that would serve as a catalyst for radical change.
|
United States7483 Posts
On November 26 2011 05:17 TheBomb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor. Just to educate you a little bit more, its not like he doesn't want education or public education, he just doesn't want the federal government to do it. The states can do it. So that is a positive you have in the USA, because you have states that are somewhat sovereign and can do things. Ron Paul just wants the federal government out of the way and follow the constitution, because he knows how corrupt and bad the federal government has become so the only way to put an end to the corruption is to cripple the federal government, put the checks and balanced back in place and protect liberty and freedoms.
My issue on that is that it's clear it shouldn't be left up to the states, because some states are utterly idiotic when it comes to organizing education. Just look at Texas: they're teaching creationism in schools right now (the governor admitted it).
And no, I don't support allowing people the freedom to brainwash their children with idiotic and moronic ideas.
|
On November 25 2011 14:24 ryanAnger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 14:11 Whitewing wrote:On November 25 2011 14:06 1Eris1 wrote:On November 24 2011 11:05 discodancer wrote:
Ron Paul sounds so legit, I can't say he scares me like everyone else (besides Romney). These two are the only sane people in this republican campaign.
But again, like djzapz mentioned, his economic policies are so underdeveloped. Now now, Huntsman isn't as bad as Perry or Bachmann, he just tends to drift off-topic a lot. For the people against Ron Paul, how would you react if he was selected as the VP running mate? My issue with Ron Paul are his stances on things like education (he wants to abolish the department of education entirely for example), and how strongly religious he is (although there's not much I can do about it, all the candidates are religous >_<). VP has no real power anyway, so it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm as atheist as they come, and I thoroughly despise organized religion of any kind, but I support Ron Paul because his major policies aren't going to be formed around his religious beliefs. And regarding the Dept of Ed thing: I don't even factor things like this into my vote. He would NEVER be able to straight up demolish the DoE because of the bi-partisan politics in Congress, so it's a non-factor.
The funny thing is if you care about education you should want to abolish the federal department of education.
Only foolish liberals believe that throwing money endlessly at a failed venture will somehow make the results different. As it stands the more the feds have intervened the worse our educational system has become.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
