On December 05 2011 14:47 HellRoxYa wrote: I would enjoy seeing Paul as president if it wasn't for the fact that bad things for America ultimately means bad things for Sweden, although in much lesser scale. Otherwise I look forward to 4 more years of Obama. Hopefully he can get more things done.
Edit: I should clarify what I mean. Paul would be great because he'd implement (barring any blockage) a lot of things which will work horrendously poorly and we will finally have true empirical evidence for this. I'm sure he'll actually get rid of a lot of "bad" stuff aswell, but that's besides the point. It'd be the biggest social experiment the planet has ever seen. And I would enjoy it immensly.
I agree with you about 50% of what Ron Paul advocates are really good ideas, but the other half are really bad ideas. Unfortunately for everyone the good ideas are the stuff that keep him from being nominated by the GOP.
On December 05 2011 14:47 HellRoxYa wrote: I would enjoy seeing Paul as president if it wasn't for the fact that bad things for America ultimately means bad things for Sweden, although in much lesser scale. Otherwise I look forward to 4 more years of Obama. Hopefully he can get more things done.
Edit: I should clarify what I mean. Paul would be great because he'd implement (barring any blockage) a lot of things which will work horrendously poorly and we will finally have true empirical evidence for this. I'm sure he'll actually get rid of a lot of "bad" stuff aswell, but that's besides the point. It'd be the biggest social experiment the planet has ever seen. And I would enjoy it immensly.
I agree with you about 50% of what Ron Paul advocates are really good ideas, but the other half are really bad ideas. Unfortunately for everyone the good ideas are the stuff that keep him from being nominated by the GOP.
Ummm... no let's not color it like that.
50% of ideas are in agreement with modern neo-conservatism (republican party,) and 50% are considered to be modern liberal (but in reality are old school conservative.)
You're a liberal so you think that the 50% that are conservative are bad.
In reality all his ideas are coming from EXACTLY THE SAME source... the constitution. Don't confuse your unilateral opinions for facts.
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Good points aksfjh, but it is still an improvement over Obama (re: military spending). :D Ralph Nader he is not, but at least he is finding some common ground on some systemic issues.
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Where's a complete list of cuts that a progressive democratic candidate wants to make? No one has cut defense in a long time, and no one really knows just how much needs to be cut. Ron Paul is cutting it 15% up front. Do you know just how much 15% is? I doubt it, neither do I.
As for education... since when does absolutely everyone need to go to College? It eats up 4 years of a person's life.
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
First of all, how is expanding wars over seas and having bases everywhere progressive? If anything that itself is bankrupting our country. I don't think you even looked at the page I gave you because you keep bringing up the social issues like he's going to cut all of them. He's going to pay for some of these programs themselves by cutting over seas spending which is something you don't support I guess? Also, I think people get confused with his stances because he gives off his own opinions on things rather than give the people what he would really do as president. Please do some research before you off spouting stuff that isn't true.
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
First of all, how is expanding wars over seas and having bases everywhere progressive? If anything that itself is bankrupting our country. I don't think you even looked at the page I gave you because you keep bringing up the social issues like he's going to cut all of them. He's going to pay for some of these programs themselves by cutting over seas spending which is something you don't support I guess? Also, I think people get confused with his stances because he gives off his own opinions on things rather than give the people what he would really do as president. Please do some research before you off spouting stuff that isn't true.
It's not about wars overseas. It's about cutting military spending to the point where we would be incapable of launching an attack without serious premeditation. Ron Paul's budget shows that the only savings would come from ending the wars we are currently engaged in, with little to address a defense budget that has ballooned out of control starting with Reagan, with only a minor adjustment when Clinton was in office.
Also, you know social programs encompass more than just SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, right? He would completely eliminate the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Education, and cut half or more from Medicaid, SCHIP, and Foodstamps. He even advocates the elimination of minimum wage. No matter how you paint it, Ron Paul would NEVER be labeled as a champion of social assistance. The absolute best he could come up with would be a change in subject, citing a different source of the "ire" of the poor and a seemingly indirect approach. That would take an entire political shift which would take an entire generation to fully realize, which is far longer than the year we have before the election.
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Where's a complete list of cuts that a progressive democratic candidate wants to make? No one has cut defense in a long time, and no one really knows just how much needs to be cut. Ron Paul is cutting it 15% up front. Do you know just how much 15% is? I doubt it, neither do I.
As for education... since when does absolutely everyone need to go to College? It eats up 4 years of a person's life.
I know that 15% isn't close to the ~30% it's grown in the past 10 years...
I agree that not everybody should go to college. However, how would you sell such a drastic cut to people who want and should go to college? How would you justify the complete elimination of help from the government when some people are on the verge of going to college and receiving much needed aid?
Gingrich will win nearly every primary unless he commits a huge gaffe or has some huge scandal. Right now is about the time undecideds pick a candidate. Despite that, Romney has been dropping in polls and Paul has been break even. Every other candidate in the race has either ruined their campaign (Perry) or is low enough to not be relevant. (Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman) Any result other than Gingrich would be a huge upset.
On December 05 2011 17:00 jalstar wrote: Gingrich will win nearly every primary unless he commits a huge gaffe or has some huge scandal. Right now is about the time undecideds pick a candidate. Despite that, Romney has been dropping in polls and Paul has been break even. Every other candidate in the race has either ruined their campaign (Perry) or is low enough to not be relevant. (Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman) Any result other than Gingrich would be a huge upset.
Well, we mustn't forget that Gingrich has only been the top of the polls for a couple of weeks. There is still plenty of time to dig up any "dirt," or at the very least, remind people of his morally shady past. I still place my bets on Romney. The new brand of Tea Party Republican may not like the taste, but tried-and-true hardliners will push him through.
On December 05 2011 16:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 05 2011 15:22 aksfjh wrote:
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
First of all, how is expanding wars over seas and having bases everywhere progressive? If anything that itself is bankrupting our country. I don't think you even looked at the page I gave you because you keep bringing up the social issues like he's going to cut all of them. He's going to pay for some of these programs themselves by cutting over seas spending which is something you don't support I guess? Also, I think people get confused with his stances because he gives off his own opinions on things rather than give the people what he would really do as president. Please do some research before you off spouting stuff that isn't true.
It's not about wars overseas. It's about cutting military spending to the point where we would be incapable of launching an attack without serious premeditation. Ron Paul's budget shows that the only savings would come from ending the wars we are currently engaged in, with little to address a defense budget that has ballooned out of control starting with Reagan, with only a minor adjustment when Clinton was in office.
Also, you know social programs encompass more than just SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, right? He would completely eliminate the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Education, and cut half or more from Medicaid, SCHIP, and Foodstamps. He even advocates the elimination of minimum wage. No matter how you paint it, Ron Paul would NEVER be labeled as a champion of social assistance. The absolute best he could come up with would be a change in subject, citing a different source of the "ire" of the poor and a seemingly indirect approach. That would take an entire political shift which would take an entire generation to fully realize, which is far longer than the year we have before the election.
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Where's a complete list of cuts that a progressive democratic candidate wants to make? No one has cut defense in a long time, and no one really knows just how much needs to be cut. Ron Paul is cutting it 15% up front. Do you know just how much 15% is? I doubt it, neither do I.
As for education... since when does absolutely everyone need to go to College? It eats up 4 years of a person's life.
I know that 15% isn't close to the ~30% it's grown in the past 10 years...
I agree that not everybody should go to college. However, how would you sell such a drastic cut to people who want and should go to college? How would you justify the complete elimination of help from the government when some people are on the verge of going to college and receiving much needed aid?
Well if you cut 15% of 130%, it's actually at 19.5% increase from when it 100%.
and then if you factor in the inflation from 10 years... yeah it's actually a pretty good cut.
As, for college, the tuitions will go down when the guaranteed loans go away.
On December 05 2011 16:03 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 05 2011 15:22 aksfjh wrote:
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
First of all, how is expanding wars over seas and having bases everywhere progressive? If anything that itself is bankrupting our country. I don't think you even looked at the page I gave you because you keep bringing up the social issues like he's going to cut all of them. He's going to pay for some of these programs themselves by cutting over seas spending which is something you don't support I guess? Also, I think people get confused with his stances because he gives off his own opinions on things rather than give the people what he would really do as president. Please do some research before you off spouting stuff that isn't true.
It's not about wars overseas. It's about cutting military spending to the point where we would be incapable of launching an attack without serious premeditation. Ron Paul's budget shows that the only savings would come from ending the wars we are currently engaged in, with little to address a defense budget that has ballooned out of control starting with Reagan, with only a minor adjustment when Clinton was in office.
Also, you know social programs encompass more than just SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, right? He would completely eliminate the Dept of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Education, and cut half or more from Medicaid, SCHIP, and Foodstamps. He even advocates the elimination of minimum wage. No matter how you paint it, Ron Paul would NEVER be labeled as a champion of social assistance. The absolute best he could come up with would be a change in subject, citing a different source of the "ire" of the poor and a seemingly indirect approach. That would take an entire political shift which would take an entire generation to fully realize, which is far longer than the year we have before the election.
On December 05 2011 15:45 Kiarip wrote:
On December 05 2011 15:22 aksfjh wrote:
On December 05 2011 13:14 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
On December 04 2011 17:10 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 16:03 screamingpalm wrote:
On December 04 2011 14:12 aksfjh wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:39 stevarius wrote:
On December 04 2011 13:35 Cloud9157 wrote: rofl
I can't wait to watch Republicans squirm like worms over who they vote for.
Romney is the only one that stands a chance against Obama. GLHF voting.
If you were to provide the polarity Paul has in comparison to Obama, I think Paul could win that election.
And then we remember we live in the real world and not some strange fantasy world. Paul doesn't stand a chance even in Republican primary, where the Tea Party largely adopts his platform. How would he stand a chance in a general election when he advocates policies the left and independents would NEVER agree with?
I doubt he'll get the nomination, but I think people are so fed up with the corruption that they are willing to put aside ideology in order to gain some integrity. Paul has shown a willingness to work with progressives on some very important core issues (more so than Obama). Of course I disagree with him on damn near everything else, but we need to have some ethics and be able to hold public officials accountable before anything else matters.
The only "progressive" issue he has shown attachment to is Social Security, and only because people have paid into it and are expecting a return out of it. Every other program and executive department is up to the chopping block. Seriously, how would you sell a platform to environment conscious independents without the EPA, or blue collar support without the Dept. of Labor, or college students without the Dept. of Education (which runs the government backed student loans)? The minute you start shining a light on the things he would love to get rid of, you realize huge interest groups that would be devastated. As much as people respect integrity, they would much rather protect their personal prosperity. That is why somebody like Ron Paul is rare in politics.
Are you saying true "progressives" are for war? Because last time I checked Ron Paul was the only candidate to pull troops from all over the world. I hope you realize we had public education before the DOE. I never understood fear mongers that say that it will be the end of public education once he gets rid of DOE. Also, your wrong when it comes to college tuition. He said he would keep that a long with other list of things Democrats would be happy with. See here for more info: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
First of all, pulling troops from all over the world isn't something progressives necessarily agree with. The progressive stance has more to do with ending the military industrial complex which creates incentive to engage in wars (like Iraq). This would largely be accomplished by dismantling our nuclear program and HUGE military R&D budget. If you even look at the very page you linked, you'll see that he actually leaves the military budget relatively untouched compared to almost EVERY social program, which leads me to believe he would ONLY shut down operations overseas while leaving every other portion of the military intact. More F35s, aircraft carriers, and 747s with lasers attached to them at the expense of all levels of social assistance. I'm sure that would sell to progressives.
As for education, public education would probably still exist on some level, but almost all higher education assistance would be completely gone. He completely ELIMINATES the federal portion of the program, leaving the current generation of students high and dry. What's left is a group of Americans being educated who could already afford to do so. Sounds progressive to me!
Where's a complete list of cuts that a progressive democratic candidate wants to make? No one has cut defense in a long time, and no one really knows just how much needs to be cut. Ron Paul is cutting it 15% up front. Do you know just how much 15% is? I doubt it, neither do I.
As for education... since when does absolutely everyone need to go to College? It eats up 4 years of a person's life.
I know that 15% isn't close to the ~30% it's grown in the past 10 years...
I agree that not everybody should go to college. However, how would you sell such a drastic cut to people who want and should go to college? How would you justify the complete elimination of help from the government when some people are on the verge of going to college and receiving much needed aid?
Well if you cut 15% of 130%, it's actually at 19.5% increase from when it 100%.
and then if you factor in the inflation from 10 years... yeah it's actually a pretty good cut.
As, for college, the tuitions will go down when the guaranteed loans go away.
It was a ~30% increase when factoring in inflation. In using a consistent formula for percentage, it comes out to an overall increase of ~10% since 2000 after Paul's cuts.
We don't know what would happen to college tuition rates if Federal spending was cut. On the Ron Paul side, many think that college tuition rates have increased because of increased access (and federal aid). On the other side, states have been reluctant to increase funding for higher education to match the increase in demand for it. Bigger pool of applicants for aid, same pool of aid to give.
Lays out spending and public funding trends. For a large portion of the decade, public funding has decreased or stagnated. Not a good mix for education costs.
@aksfjh Again, I know he's not perfect when it comes to social issues but, at least hes got a real plan on how to save the economy. He's a hell of a lot better than Obama when it comes to civil liberties and the wars. I also don't know why you think we'd be incapable of attacking other nations when he said he'd keep our defenses up. Also, half the stuff you listed is wrong. I don't think you even read his website because nothing there says he'd eliminate minimum wage. That was just his own personal opinion which is the main problem with todays voters. People getting confused with the candidates personal opinion with what they would actually do as president. I'd like to also point out that we had public education before the DOE. So, why are you defending the DOE again?
On December 05 2011 17:47 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh Again, I know he's not perfect when it comes to social issues but, at least hes got a real plan on how to save the economy. He's a hell of a lot better than Obama when it comes to civil liberties and the wars. I also don't know why you think we'd be incapable of attacking other nations when he said he'd keep our defenses up. Also, half the stuff you listed is wrong. I don't think you even read his website because nothing there says he'd eliminate minimum wage. That was just his own personal opinion which is the main problem with todays voters. People getting confused with the candidates personal opinion with what they would actually do as president. I'd like to also point out that we had public education before the DOE. So, why are you defending the DOE again?
You gauge the personal opinions of the politician when you decide if you support them. In this circumstance, it at least signifies that he would oppose increases in the minimum wage.
The DOEd provides much needed financial aid to students who cannot find funding in dwindling state budgets. Simply eliminating all of that would squash the hopes of many prospective and current college students.
Man, think of the politics as you will, but american elections are a gazillion times more interesting (in both good and bad ways) than what we have here in Sweden. I don't know much about it but I enjoy reading these threads.
Yeah, there's that one that's super serious. It seems pretty hard hitting, but I wonder how people will react. The hypocrisy seems pretty plain, but given how long Newt has been arguing for the no Republican should attack each other, ever. Will it come off as cranky? Of course, it's now to Newt's interest to hold to the never attack our own given his history and given his lead.
But then there's this one where they're having a little bit of fun:
I don't know. It looks like from primary to president election it's a full 2 years... compared to our last Canadian election where it was over and done with in 3 months. lol. For a country that espouses small government if not little to none from certain quarters, they sure spend a lot of time and money picking them.
EPT
