On January 08 2012 15:17 Sumahi wrote: This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
Actually, the reason he's doing alright (but not great) is because he is almost the exact definition of conservative. His ideas and policies are a reversal of about a decade of policy, and not very radical. Other than being a Mormon, his fits the bill of conservative quite well, definitely the best of all the candidates.
What he doesn't fit is the GOP's new base of reinvigorated evangelicals with libertarian economic leanings. They want to roll back the policy not a single decade, but 10 instead. A full century backwards, which is essentially different than conservative thought.
This is what the GOP faces today, a redefining civil war between conservatism and classical liberalism. It's been going on since 2008, with the latter winning ground in 2010. In 2012, both in congress and the presidential races will likely be the biggest battle fought and will likely define the GOP for the next decade.
Mitt Romney is FAR from being a true conservative. He's more closer to a moderate/liberal than anything else. Mitt Romney is basically Obama with a few exceptions as Mccain points out here:
On January 08 2012 15:17 Sumahi wrote: This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
Actually, the reason he's doing alright (but not great) is because he is almost the exact definition of conservative. His ideas and policies are a reversal of about a decade of policy, and not very radical. Other than being a Mormon, his fits the bill of conservative quite well, definitely the best of all the candidates.
What he doesn't fit is the GOP's new base of reinvigorated evangelicals with libertarian economic leanings. They want to roll back the policy not a single decade, but 10 instead. A full century backwards, which is essentially different than conservative thought.
This is what the GOP faces today, a redefining civil war between conservatism and classical liberalism. It's been going on since 2008, with the latter winning ground in 2010. In 2012, both in congress and the presidential races will likely be the biggest battle fought and will likely define the GOP for the next decade.
Mitt Romney is FAR from being a true conservative. He's more closer to a moderate/liberal than anything else. Mitt Romney is basically Obama with a few exceptions as Mccain points out here:
That totally proves your point. A flub from a senator attempting to use the title President in the forward tense. Romney embodies everything in "keep everything the way it is/was recently." Foreign policy stays the same, economic policy reverses to 8 years ago, SS and Medicare are left untouched, and the healthcare plan gets gutted. The 4 major policies in the past 10 years are all put back where they were, the very ideal of conservatism.
On January 08 2012 14:47 churbro wrote: Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
I am a 22 year old, pro-abortion, gay-rights-supporting atheist, and I still think Ron Paul is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the republican nominees in terms of his policies and values.
Ron Paul is firmly against abortion
Is there a republican candidate that isn't? It's not like he'd criminalize abortion at the federal level, since he is firmly against most federal policies that interfere in our personal lives.
he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border
So?
he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws
The less the government sticks its head in my business, the better. How is that a bad thing?
he wants to disband NATO
No comment. I don't care. How would this affect me?
he wants to end birthright citezenship
It strikes me as odd that birthright citizenship exists in the first place. If anything it encourages illegal immigrants to have even more children. Good riddance.
he is against gay and trans gender rights
He doesn't think the government should be involved in ANYONE'S marriage, at all. Because of this, if anything, he's more OK with gays marrying than any of the other candidates, even if he's personally and morally against it.
he wishes to abolish public education and social security
Also good riddance. The department of education is the entire reason why American universities could afford to raise their tuition rates over and over and over. Because suddenly, the government will step in for students who are too poor and say "We'll cover the extra money you need! In loans, of course." The DoE has been fucking students over for decades and it needs to go. Complete waste of money. And I'm a recent college graduate who's in severe debt due to college loans. In fact, I owe about 25 grand to the DoE itself! It can go fuck itself, maybe universities will take the hint that they can't afford to increase tuition rates when the rates at which new students are applying to attend starts drastically dropping.
Social security is a huge scam. I can save up for my own damn retirement, if the government thinks I'm too incompetent to realize that I'll still need to eat when I'm 80... It's a huge insult.
he wishes to abolish the federal reserve
Again, I don't give a shit. Put us back on the gold standard. Why would abolishing the federal reserve be worse than our current sitation?
Anyway, If RP doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Obama again, even though he's a huge pushover, because every other republican candidate just seems to be a full-blown retard. Most of the people I know are in agreeance: RP or Obama 2012. I think the GOP fails to realize just how many votes RP would steal from Obama. He's the most electable candidate of the bunch BY FAR.
My points stands by when everybody in the debates answered: "What would you be doing on a Saturday night, if you weren't here?" With "Watching football!" Except Paul, who would be reading about economics.
Every single person that answered in a way that doesn't involve personal betterment shouldn't have the right to run our country. I want our president to be of the most intellectual, well-read stock that our nation has to offer. Doesn't everybody?
On January 08 2012 15:17 Sumahi wrote: This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
Actually, the reason he's doing alright (but not great) is because he is almost the exact definition of conservative. His ideas and policies are a reversal of about a decade of policy, and not very radical. Other than being a Mormon, his fits the bill of conservative quite well, definitely the best of all the candidates.
What he doesn't fit is the GOP's new base of reinvigorated evangelicals with libertarian economic leanings. They want to roll back the policy not a single decade, but 10 instead. A full century backwards, which is essentially different than conservative thought.
This is what the GOP faces today, a redefining civil war between conservatism and classical liberalism. It's been going on since 2008, with the latter winning ground in 2010. In 2012, both in congress and the presidential races will likely be the biggest battle fought and will likely define the GOP for the next decade.
Mitt Romney is FAR from being a true conservative. He's more closer to a moderate/liberal than anything else. Mitt Romney is basically Obama with a few exceptions as Mccain points out here:
That totally proves your point. A flub from a senator attempting to use the title President in the forward tense. Romney embodies everything in "keep everything the way it is/was recently." Foreign policy stays the same, economic policy reverses to 8 years ago, SS and Medicare are left untouched, and the healthcare plan gets gutted. The 4 major policies in the past 10 years are all put back where they were, the very ideal of conservatism.
I was joking with that video but, if you want to hear it from Mitt himself then here he is calling himself a moderate:
When are you going to stop posting bullshit? I could have sworn you already calling him a moderate too. Anyways, if you want more information on the differences.
On January 08 2012 14:47 churbro wrote: Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
On January 08 2012 15:17 Sumahi wrote: This thread is actually one of my most favorite on TL. Politics can be just as entertaining as a SC match, and in this case so much of the discussion is international, and so alot of peoples' positions come from how they see the US.
I knew that Santorum wouldn't go away in the primaries. He's too perfect a fit for Romney. Romney is someone who can get elected, but someone that no real conservative would want. Whereas Santorum is completely unelectable at the national level, but can help get Romney votes. I assume that if Romney wins, he might offer the VP slot to Santorum.
Actually, the reason he's doing alright (but not great) is because he is almost the exact definition of conservative. His ideas and policies are a reversal of about a decade of policy, and not very radical. Other than being a Mormon, his fits the bill of conservative quite well, definitely the best of all the candidates.
What he doesn't fit is the GOP's new base of reinvigorated evangelicals with libertarian economic leanings. They want to roll back the policy not a single decade, but 10 instead. A full century backwards, which is essentially different than conservative thought.
This is what the GOP faces today, a redefining civil war between conservatism and classical liberalism. It's been going on since 2008, with the latter winning ground in 2010. In 2012, both in congress and the presidential races will likely be the biggest battle fought and will likely define the GOP for the next decade.
Mitt Romney is FAR from being a true conservative. He's more closer to a moderate/liberal than anything else. Mitt Romney is basically Obama with a few exceptions as Mccain points out here:
That totally proves your point. A flub from a senator attempting to use the title President in the forward tense. Romney embodies everything in "keep everything the way it is/was recently." Foreign policy stays the same, economic policy reverses to 8 years ago, SS and Medicare are left untouched, and the healthcare plan gets gutted. The 4 major policies in the past 10 years are all put back where they were, the very ideal of conservatism.
I was joking with that video but, if you want to hear it from Mitt himself then here he is calling himself a moderate:
When are you going to stop posting bullshit? I could have sworn you already calling him a moderate too. Anyways, if you want more information on the differences.
He's a moderate in that he's not extreme. How he takes his positions and reacts to criticism is with a moderate mind, not taking extreme views in either way. Beyond that, he's a conservative through and through.
@aksfjh TBH I wouldn't even call him a conservative/moderate because of what he really stands for. Mitt Romney is more like a corporatist that sticks his finger in the wind and tries to predict where the wind is blowing. Wherever the wind is blowing he'll take that position in a blink of an eye and pretend he's for whatever position people want to hear. I'd also like to point out that he takes donations from Goldman Sachs like Obama. These people tend to be in favor of Wall Street...So, again I ask why we still vote for these corrupted oligarchs as president. : /
On January 08 2012 14:47 churbro wrote: Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
I am a 22 year old, pro-abortion, gay-rights-supporting atheist, and I still think Ron Paul is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the republican nominees in terms of his policies and values.
Is there a republican candidate that isn't? It's not like he'd criminalize abortion at the federal level, since he is firmly against most federal policies that interfere in our personal lives.
It strikes me as odd that birthright citizenship exists in the first place. If anything it encourages illegal immigrants to have even more children. Good riddance.
He doesn't think the government should be involved in ANYONE'S marriage, at all. Because of this, if anything, he's more OK with gays marrying than any of the other candidates, even if he's personally and morally against it.
he wishes to abolish public education and social security
Also good riddance. The department of education is the entire reason why American universities could afford to raise their tuition rates over and over and over. Because suddenly, the government will step in for students who are too poor and say "We'll cover the extra money you need! In loans, of course." The DoE has been fucking students over for decades and it needs to go. Complete waste of money. And I'm a recent college graduate who's in severe debt due to college loans. In fact, I owe about 25 grand to the DoE itself! It can go fuck itself, maybe universities will take the hint that they can't afford to increase tuition rates when the rates at which new students are applying to attend starts drastically dropping.
Social security is a huge scam. I can save up for my own damn retirement, if the government thinks I'm too incompetent to realize that I'll still need to eat when I'm 80... It's a huge insult.
Again, I don't give a shit. Put us back on the gold standard. Why would abolishing the federal reserve be worse than our current sitation?
Anyway, If RP doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Obama again, even though he's a huge pushover, because every other republican candidate just seems to be a full-blown retard. Most of the people I know are in agreeance: RP or Obama 2012. I think the GOP fails to realize just how many votes RP would steal from Obama. He's the most electable candidate of the bunch BY FAR.
My points stands by when everybody in the debates answered: "What would you be doing on a Saturday night, if you weren't here?" With "Watching football!" Except Paul, who would be reading about economics.
Every single person that answered in a way that doesn't involve personal betterment shouldn't have the right to run our country. I want our president to be of the most intellectual, well-read stock that our nation has to offer. Doesn't everybody?
Couldn't agree with you more on almost everything here except I'm pro-life to the fact past the first trimester. But Paul is the way to go, why should we want a huge government in our lives, especially when this government is mostly run off corporate money and a few elites these days, if anything people who are against big business should want smaller government affairs. It's things like the EPA and FDA that are hurting our economy right now, severely at that, it was estimated by the CBO that the EPA costs consumers and businesses between 500 billion and 1 trillion dollars a year in costs.
Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t.
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion
He opposes the regulation of abortion at the federal level and supports state jurisdiction for abortion laws.
he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border,
No, he doesn't.
he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws,
I'm unsure what you mean by this, but Paul is a defender of personal privacy in every possible way at the federal level (abolishing the IRS and the audit process, legalized drugs, restored property rights).
he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations
Good. The UN is a toothless, bureaucratic, and occasionally anti-semitic fiasco.
he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship,
1) Good, and 2) is one of the few points that I'd disagree with Paul on. His view is colored by being a Texas politician, but birthright citizenship is hardly a problem in a libertarian worldview, as the rights of citizenship are negative rights (the freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc. are freedoms from state interference, not freedoms that entail receiving anything from the state). The position would also require us to amend the constitution and gut the 14th amendment, which is pretty damn unlikely.
he is against gay and trans gender rights,
Untrue. He's against protected classes and the erosion of property rights, but Paul is a firm supporter of voluntary interaction. Who and how many people you sleep with is none of the government's business. He does support the states' rights to make their own laws re: these matters, but that's why he's generally considered a Constitutionalist and not a libertarian.
he wishes to abolish public education and social security,
1) No, he wants to abolish the federal government's role in education and leave it to the states. The DoE has been a trainwreck of epic proportions and massive waste, and virtually every inititiave it's implemented has been expensive and to the detriment of American students. No Child Left Behind is only the latest in a 30-year run of fiascos, swollen budgets, and poor returns on investment.
2) Good. Social Security has always been a regressive tax that's benefited the wealthiest Americans more than the poor (primarily because 1) again, it's a regressive tax, 2) the benefits are available to virtually everyone regardless of income level, and 3) the wealthy live longer than everyone else). If you were going to design a more wasteful, inefficient, and cruel method of redirecting income from poor Americans to the rich, I doubt you could do a better job than Social Security.
he wishes to abolish the federal reserve.
Good. State-sanctioned inflation and deck-stacking needs to come to an end.
He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
1) Paul's understanding of the Supremacy Clause and 14th Amendment are what make many members of the freedom movement support Gary Johnson (along with the abortion-rights issue). Many members of the left are making war on religious displays paid for via taxpayer money, but that's a battle I'd support (personal religious beliefs aside).
2) Good. We should thank God every day that Constitutional republics aren't democracies, otherwise we'd have had 200 million chickenhawks feting W as king for life after 9/11.
3) Good. Slapping "Civil Rights" on an act that erodes property rights and allows government to interfere in your nonviolent use of private property doesn't make it any less odious. Americans need to get it through their heads that people have the right to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic or otherwise unpopular views, and they have the right to use their private property in any way they please (even if that entails discriminating against others). The past 50 years of endless abuses against property rights by the federal and state governments, from the EPA to eminent domain to assert forfeiture laws, can all claim the Civil Rights Act as their grandfather.
4) AKA the Death Tax. Good (for obvious reasons).
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
When given the option between supporting a candidate with whom you agree 80% of the time and one who I agree with 5% of the time, which one would you support? Paul isn't a perfect candidate for any number of reasons, but that mythical beast has never been spotted in American politics. Sad as it is to say, I'd just be happy having a President who doesn't advocate executing American citizens without due process, blowing up countless children and civilians in a secretive drone war, banging the drums of war with Iran, and strip-searching granny and harassing private citizens at the airport in open defiance of the 4th Amendment.
It's terrible that we've reached the point where peace at home and abroad, personal liberty, and the expectation that we be allowed privacy in both our bodies and private property are now considered extreme views. When both parties are dominated by hawks who are doing everything in their power to lead us into war with Iran, however, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the voices calling for peace are shouted down as radical.
Edit: kudos to Meta, who beat me to the punch on many responses.
On January 08 2012 19:47 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page. He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t.
Well it would be surprising to every candidate's campaign (yes, including Ron Paul's) that has gone on record saying the count was fair and their observers had comprehensive coverage.
On January 08 2012 14:47 churbro wrote: Not trolling, just curious. But is everybody supporting these candidates as conservative as the candidates them selves?
For example, out of no where, there is this massive Ron Paul bandwagon of support from a lot of young people, seemingly because of his stance on recreational drugs. But do you really understand all of Ron Paul's beliefs and what they imply?
These are the facts: Ron Paul is firmly against abortion, he wants to build a fence accross the us-mexico border, he wants to restrict the supreme court on privacy laws, he wants to withdraw the US from the united nations, he wants to disband NATO, he wants to end birthright citezenship, he is against gay and trans gender rights, he wishes to abolish public education and social security, he wishes to abolish the federal reserve. He believes the Left is waging war on religious beliefs, he is against the popular vote, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964 and he wants to repeal the estate tax.
Now answer me this Ron Paul lovers, do you believe in and agree with everything here? were you aware that he shared such extreme views?
(reminder: this is not a dig at your beliefs/values/thoughts, I'm simply curious at whether or not you were aware that he had these views or if you simply agree with them)
You skew a lot of the different stances. For example, Ron Paul is very pro immigration but it is incompatible with a welfare state, hence immigration control is important. But there are several recent GOP debates you can look at where the issue is discussed where you can see that he takes the least aggressive approach. In another answer to your questions there is even a video.
You completely misrepresent him on homosexual/transexual "rights". His answer is that this is part of the private sphere. That's about as much pro homo/bi/trans/anything you can get.
Not having a federal reserve is not very controversial either though it does break the status quo. Given the recent financial crisis more people than ever should be skeptical towards central banks... And that goes for ECB as well...
The only real objectionable standpoint most will find with your stated partly misrepresented and partly non-controversial views concerns abortion. But since I value the rights of individuals to their own lives I think the fewer abortions the better. And the time limit before an abortion becomes illegal should be very, very short. Killing developing infants because of sloppiness is disgusting.
I don't see how could Ron Paul loose nomination with those idiots taking besides him ... Extreme ideas ? Only in the last week every other candidate spewed some downright imbecile idea with Gingrich in the front saying the founding fathers would've cracked down HARDCORE on marijuana users / dealers .
Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not.
Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems.
While he's said that publicly (and I believe him), he still can't lay a finger on Wall Street. Most of his cabinet and advisors are investment bank "consultants" and he really hasn't passed any major legislation in terms of government oversight. I believe in him that he truly wants Wall Street to be accountable, but at the same time, it's near impossible to pass that type of momentous legislation.
Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not.
Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems.
While he's said that publicly (and I believe him), he still can't lay a finger on Wall Street. Most of his cabinet and advisors are investment bank "consultants" and he really hasn't passed any major legislation in terms of government oversight. I believe in him that he truly wants Wall Street to be accountable, but at the same time, it's near impossible to pass that type of momentous legislation.
It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them).
Every politician is associated with lobbyists and every President is associated with Wall Street. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., all of them. Stop going out of your way of claiming "Oh look at me I'm clean" when you're not.
Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems.
And Biff the Understudy once again shows that he has no idea what he's talking about...
And is what the head of intelligence of Israel, and the vice president of Israel say, also another reason not to trust Ron Paul?
"By the way, they love him on Fox News, don't they?" LOL Are you serious? They hate him, except for that one show, Fox News censors Ron Paul and his message as much as they humanly can.
"Obama seems to be the only president America has had for ever who has the balls to denounciate Wall Street and the oligarchy of billionaire that make everything to have the rules distorted in their favor, it seems."
It's impossible to argue that Obama isn't a corporatist... the fact that he denounces Wall Street means absolutely nothing, Wall Street was never really painted as the culprit until Obama became president, and they never really were, the monetary policy, and trigger happy legislators are... But back to Obama denouncing Wall Street... He has made tons of decisions from signing bills to assigning people into offices for the benefit of special interests... And, I like how you say "the only president America has ever had..." We've had some really damn good presidents in the past you clearly don't know any of America's history, so why do you keep posting?
It's not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and Republicans (including Ron Paul) of course want to get rid of it (they tried for more than a year to block Obama from ever appointing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, until he bypassed them).
Dodd Frank is a miserable failure just like Sarbanes-Oxley was under Bush
On January 09 2012 01:17 xDaunt wrote: Wonderful, another debate. Why do we need debates less than 24 hours apart?
The knives are definitely out for Romney in this one.
These election processes are so stupid it drives me nuts. I feel like the entire election season is about who can go the longest and do the most debates and appearances before they have the "GOTCHA!" moment and say something stupid. I mean, I know a lot of brilliant people, but you put any of them in front of a crowd giving half-improvised responses, and eventually someone is gonna slip with a stupid statement.
This process never gives us the best candidate, it gives us the candidate who has the best consultants and handlers and the fewest actual opinions and convictions. In other words a mindless politicians who only knows how to regurgitate his talking points for months at a time, who never actually answers the difficult questions that anyone ever poses, someone who succeeds in fooling the American people long enough with their acting to get elected in order to be a puppet for those already in power.
I guess what really irritates me is that the people actually buy into this stupidity. They repeat the shit the media tells them, "Well candidate X said Y in appearance Z, so he can't be elected now." I honestly don't give a damn what a candidate said in one statement in a youtube clip, I only care about the ACTUAL POLICIES THEY WILL PUT IN PLACE once they get elected. Does anyone really believe that Ron Paul could put the US back on the gold standard? Give me a break, please...
EPT
