EPT
Makes me lose faith. From my limited exposure to the current events, it does seem that Ron Paul is a good candidate; however, I randomly read someone's post on TL a while ago, and said post stated that Ron Paul is a total joke, or something along those lines...is this true? o.0Republican nominations - Page 28
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Pengtoss
207 Posts
Makes me lose faith. From my limited exposure to the current events, it does seem that Ron Paul is a good candidate; however, I randomly read someone's post on TL a while ago, and said post stated that Ron Paul is a total joke, or something along those lines...is this true? o.0 | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:25 Pengtoss wrote: Whoa, hearing/reading some of those statements given by Michele Bachmann is very saddening Makes me lose faith. From my limited exposure to the current events, it does seem that Ron Paul is a good candidate; however, I randomly read someone's post on TL a while ago, and said post stated that Ron Paul is a total joke, or something along those lines...is this true? o.0Inform yourself. Don't base your opinions of what random people tell you in the forums. It's not that hard to find him speaking about his ideals and wants and decisions. He has EVERYTHING he wants to do laid out and planned. | ||
|
Pengtoss
207 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:32 Uncultured wrote: Inform yourself. Don't base your opinions of what random people tell you in the forums. It's not that hard to find him speaking about his ideals and wants and decisions. He has EVERYTHING he wants to do laid out and planned. My opinion is that he is a good candidate. However, someone wrote a scathing piece on him a while back. I was merely inquiring as to this specific person's reasoning because I do not recall what he wrote. I presume, then, that my assumption was indeed correct. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:36 Pengtoss wrote: My opinion is that he is a good candidate. However, someone wrote a scathing piece on him a while back. I was merely inquiring as to this specific person's reasoning because I do not recall what he wrote. I presume, then, that my assumption was indeed correct. There is a ton of misinformation about Ron Paul out there, so I would definitely recommend looking into him for yourself. They just twist so many things and throw out all these red herrings. Fox News went as far as to call him a "truther" when he simply stated that U.S. foreign policy makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks like 9/11. But a good rule of thumb is that if Fox News hates someone's guts, he's probably a good guy  I particularly wouldn't put a lot of stock into someone's random post on TL, they tend to be hyperbolic to say the least. edit: and that poll in the OP is really confusing. I didn't understand it very well at first either. It doesn't give us a good idea at all of the major candidates compared to eachother. | ||
|
Happylime
United States133 Posts
As long as Bachman Palin doesn't manage to happen, and then win...I'll be content though. | ||
|
Pengtoss
207 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:55 Senorcuidado wrote: There is a ton of misinformation about Ron Paul out there, so I would definitely recommend looking into him for yourself. They just twist so many things and throw out all these red herrings. Fox News went as far as to call him a "truther" when he simply stated that U.S. foreign policy makes us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks like 9/11. But a good rule of thumb is that if Fox News hates someone's guts, he's probably a good guy I particularly wouldn't put a lot of stock into someone's random post on TL, they tend to be hyperbolic to say the least. Ah, got it :O I will try to find my "serious news" sites and try to find out more about him. Is the front-runner still Mitt Romney (iirc it was, and Ron Paul actually wasn't being considered very seriously the last time I checked?), or has Ron Paul been becoming more popular now? | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:59 Pengtoss wrote: Ah, got it :O I will try to find my "serious news" sites and try to find out more about him. Is the front-runner still Mitt Romney (iirc it was, and Ron Paul actually wasn't being considered very seriously the last time I checked?), or has Ron Paul been becoming more popular now? Ron Paul, as always, is insanely popular on the internet, but in the conventional media they will tell you that the major front runners are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann. The media likes to choose our candidates for us though, even though Ron Paul came within .9% of Bachmann in the straw poll nobody was talking to him the next day. Politico's headline was even "Michele Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, Pawlenty takes third." It's pretty absurd. So it's hard to get much information about him from the major outlets. Actually, Jon Stewart talked about it a couple days ago. skip to 0:55 for the actual Daily Show clip. | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
On August 18 2011 12:14 cfoy3 wrote: @KurtistheTurtle The American dream is not about equality of wealth it is equality of oppurtunity. when our health care is being run by companies whose goal is money instead of well-being and the entire thing is bleeding our country dry, 20% of children are living in poverty (26% in texas, perry is only making jobs off of high oil prices), our economy proportionally resembles an african dictatorship and the young generation is being saddled with a huge amount of debt the idealistic "american dream" gets clouded. people aren't willing to pay for the services they need and the gov't isn't hitting the balance between how much money they should be providing v how much they shouldn't create reliance. the huge incomes, in whatever various forms they may be, aren't being taxed enough. the old securities of the middle class are dissappearing because the middle class is dissappearing up or down. insurance is where everybody pays a little bit, and if you need it you get it. most people don't need it, it's just there as...insurance. people don't want to pay for it and companies block physicians from being able to administer treatment to their patients. theres no feedback loop we're not blown up, as much as everybody gets heated up we're still here and still operating. but the current system isn't working well...it needs a big tune-up. 1) health care --> frees up finances and raises standard of living 2) education 3) whatever. if those are fine everything else will follow right now republicans, or should i say tea party, spit in the face of what i think will make our lives better with their theatrics, hard-line bullshit and silent racism. thing is, if you're rich it means you're (probably) capable and smart. i dont think rich is so much money as a certain side effect of character. so when you get up there, you look out for yourself and your own. its american, and i can respect that. the lower/middle classes are strangled by school and can't mount any cohesive strategy. its against the interest of those above to let anything like that happen. what im really talking about is wisconsin. we're hitting that point where we do need a minor redistribution of power and wealth, the point where success becomes greed and where the disparity becomes too much. america is about moderation, the balance of everything, and we're way out of it. on this track, in our lifetime there will be riots in the cities from the lower class. there will also be much more major hacktivists than anonymous (or as a part of) than what we've seen so far. this country needs, on the whole, a huge dose of honesty, sober introspection and anger. anger turns to assertion, which turns to a better place. but not anger at some external enemy, anger at the infections in our society. we need to come out from behind our morals, ideals, religions, whatever the fuck we hide behind and start fixing ourselves. the american dream is exactly what im after, its not some nostalgic notion of free market and that you can do whatever you want if you earn it. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On August 18 2011 14:59 Pengtoss wrote: Ah, got it :O I will try to find my "serious news" sites and try to find out more about him. Is the front-runner still Mitt Romney (iirc it was, and Ron Paul actually wasn't being considered very seriously the last time I checked?), or has Ron Paul been becoming more popular now? RP is almost never taken seriously by the mainstream media | ||
|
Pengtoss
207 Posts
On August 18 2011 17:44 thoradycus wrote: RP is almost never taken seriously by the mainstream media Yeah, I looked around a bit more and mainstream media just completely dismisses or ignores him whenever possible wowow. Does seem that he is much more supported by netizens | ||
|
Tippecanoe
United States342 Posts
Or, I would want Palin or Bachmann to win if i wanted this country to hit rock bottom so that people will finally wake up and realize what is going on around them. So far I don't know what i want to happen. | ||
|
adun12345
United States198 Posts
If Ron Paul had his way, he would largely dismantle the American-led security architecture that has sought to promote world peace since the end of the Second World War and enabled the development of the globalized economy that we all enjoy today. Granted, Paul by himself would have very little ability, even as President, to enact the significant changes he advocates in America's security policy. However, the fundamental disconnect between his foreign policy views and the long-standing forward-deployment/engagement strategy of the United States would result in significant disruption of American policy around the world if he were elected President. I respect as much as the next person the need to establish better fiscal responsibility in the US federal government, and Ron Paul is certainly an outspoken advocate of greater restraint on the part of the US government when it comes to financial and economic matters (though I do wonder how feasible his fiscal polices actually are). However, as someone who studies international strategy and security policy for a living, I can tell you that Paul would be an poor president of the United States. | ||
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On August 19 2011 05:57 adun12345 wrote: Ron Paul has made an excellent Congressman, but he would make a terrible President. As a Congressman, he has contributed significantly to the political discourse of our country with his controversial but well-thought-out positions. However, given the primacy of the American executive in the conduct of US foreign policy, Paul would be a disaster as chief executive. If Ron Paul had his way, he would largely dismantle the American-led security architecture that has sought to promote world peace since the end of the Second World War and enabled the development of the globalized economy that we all enjoy today. Granted, Paul by himself would have very little ability, even as President, to enact the significant changes he advocates in America's security policy. However, the fundamental disconnect between his foreign policy views and the long-standing forward-deployment/engagement strategy of the United States would result in significant disruption of American policy around the world if he were elected President. I respect as much as the next person the need to establish better fiscal responsibility in the US federal government, and Ron Paul is certainly an outspoken advocate of greater restraint on the part of the US government when it comes to financial and economic matters (though I do wonder how feasible his fiscal polices actually are). However, as someone who studies international strategy and security policy for a living, I can tell you that Paul would be an poor president of the United States. That's exactly what I want him to do. I won't preach the perils of foreign entanglements to you, but I don't like the foreign policy we have been practicing since ww2. I feel that it is subversive, dishonest, ethnocentric, and expensive. I don't think it makes us safer or promotes world peace. It makes people hate us and it costs us, the taxpayers, far too much. If we are ever going to tackle our debt problem military spending has to be dramatically reduced. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 19 2011 05:57 adun12345 wrote: Ron Paul has made an excellent Congressman, but he would make a terrible President. As a Congressman, he has contributed significantly to the political discourse of our country with his controversial but well-thought-out positions. However, given the primacy of the American executive in the conduct of US foreign policy, Paul would be a disaster as chief executive. If Ron Paul had his way, he would largely dismantle the American-led security architecture that has sought to promote world peace since the end of the Second World War and enabled the development of the globalized economy that we all enjoy today. Granted, Paul by himself would have very little ability, even as President, to enact the significant changes he advocates in America's security policy. However, the fundamental disconnect between his foreign policy views and the long-standing forward-deployment/engagement strategy of the United States would result in significant disruption of American policy around the world if he were elected President. I respect as much as the next person the need to establish better fiscal responsibility in the US federal government, and Ron Paul is certainly an outspoken advocate of greater restraint on the part of the US government when it comes to financial and economic matters (though I do wonder how feasible his fiscal polices actually are). However, as someone who studies international strategy and security policy for a living, I can tell you that Paul would be an poor president of the United States. This is inherently the problem with Paul. All of his stances are common sense approaches to complex problems. They sound good on paper and given quick thought, but further investigation and knowledge informs you of just how insane some of his ideas are. | ||
|
notsohumble
United States10 Posts
On August 18 2011 17:34 KurtistheTurtle wrote: when our health care is being run by companies whose goal is money instead of well-being and the entire thing is bleeding our country dry, 20% of children are living in poverty (26% in texas, perry is only making jobs off of high oil prices), our economy proportionally resembles an african dictatorship and the young generation is being saddled with a huge amount of debt the idealistic "american dream" gets clouded. people aren't willing to pay for the services they need and the gov't isn't hitting the balance between how much money they should be providing v how much they shouldn't create reliance. the huge incomes, in whatever various forms they may be, aren't being taxed enough. the old securities of the middle class are dissappearing because the middle class is dissappearing up or down. insurance is where everybody pays a little bit, and if you need it you get it. most people don't need it, it's just there as...insurance. people don't want to pay for it and companies block physicians from being able to administer treatment to their patients. theres no feedback loop we're not blown up, as much as everybody gets heated up we're still here and still operating. but the current system isn't working well...it needs a big tune-up. 1) health care --> frees up finances and raises standard of living 2) education 3) whatever. if those are fine everything else will follow right now republicans, or should i say tea party, spit in the face of what i think will make our lives better with their theatrics, hard-line bullshit and silent racism. thing is, if you're rich it means you're (probably) capable and smart. i dont think rich is so much money as a certain side effect of character. so when you get up there, you look out for yourself and your own. its american, and i can respect that. the lower/middle classes are strangled by school and can't mount any cohesive strategy. its against the interest of those above to let anything like that happen. what im really talking about is wisconsin. we're hitting that point where we do need a minor redistribution of power and wealth, the point where success becomes greed and where the disparity becomes too much. america is about moderation, the balance of everything, and we're way out of it. on this track, in our lifetime there will be riots in the cities from the lower class. there will also be much more major hacktivists than anonymous (or as a part of) than what we've seen so far. this country needs, on the whole, a huge dose of honesty, sober introspection and anger. anger turns to assertion, which turns to a better place. but not anger at some external enemy, anger at the infections in our society. we need to come out from behind our morals, ideals, religions, whatever the fuck we hide behind and start fixing ourselves. the american dream is exactly what im after, its not some nostalgic notion of free market and that you can do whatever you want if you earn it. Good thing you're not at the helm. | ||
|
RinesOnRx
Canada74 Posts
| ||
|
taLbuk
Madagascar1879 Posts
On August 19 2011 07:34 RinesOnRx wrote: I don't know much about American politics, but I am flabbergasted by some of the right wing American politicans and pundits and that they receive publicity and support o.O. Maybe its because I'm right on the Canadian political spectrum (read: far left on the American one). Many republicans actually laugh at some of these candidates, you have to understand that the media will basically decide to focus on people like Bachmann just to make a spectacle out of the party and sell her as the republican vote, when in reality they don't even focus on decent candidates. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
The "Not a Snowball's Chance in Hell" League These candidates are currently polling in low single digits nationally and simply aren't going to win. They may be likable to some, but they are all critically flawed in one way or another that prevents them from attracting mainstream republican support. Herman Cain: A prototypical "tea party" candidate. Republicans like his enthusiasm and presentation. However, he has zero political experience and running a pizza chain just isn't good enough to make the cut. I personally think that he should run for a lower political office first. He may also get picked up as a cabinet member or executive branch official for one of the other candidates. Jon Huntsman: Former governor of Utah and ambassador to China under Obama. This guy is the most liberal of the candidates, and is generally seen as being to the left of McCain. Republicans aren't going to touch him with a 10-foot pole. Interestingly, I heard that Jeb Bush endorsed him a couple weeks ago. However, the scuttlebutt from the past few days is that Jeb Bush is urging Paul Ryan to run. Rick Santorum: Former senator from Pennsylvannia. This guy is a rock solid conservative on all issues. However, he's a little extreme on some of the social issues. He's also too vanilla; he's just not interesting in the same way that Pawlenty was not interesting. A lot of republicans like what he has to say, but they won't support him because they don't think he can win. Newt Gingrich: Former Speaker of the House during the nineties (under Clinton). Newt is by far the smartest of all of the candidates. However, he has a lot of personal baggage and is generally unlikable. More importantly, he can be rather bipolar when it comes to his policies. When he articulates actual conservative principles, he does it better than anyone. However, every now and then he does something stupid like supporting cap and trade. I personally don't trust him, and a lot of other republicans feel the same way. The No Chance of Winning but Will Influence the Debate League Ron Paul: The venerable congressman from Texas. Ron Paul isn't so much of a republican as he is a libertarian. There's a difference between the two. Ron Paul is unelectable because of his foreign policy views. This has always been the case, and always will be the case. However, he has been influential with his domestic ideas. In fact, he arguably is the first "tea party" politician. His ideas will continue to push the other republican candidates to the right on domestic issues, especially fiscal issues. I don't think that this is a bad thing. However, I do worry about him running as an independent candidate and giving Obama a free pass to the White House in 2012 in the same way that Perot gave Clinton a free pass to the White House in 1992. In reality, and absent a dramatic change in circumstances over the next 12 months, I think that this is the only way that Obama wins next year. We'll see. The Contenders These candidates are the only ones who can legitimately expect to win the nomination. Though republicans may grumble a bit if their favorite candidate isn't nominated, they will readily and enthusiastically support any of these candidates over Obama. Any of these candidates also are capable of beating Obama. Michelle Bachmann: The congresswoman from Minnesota. Bachmann is THE tea party candidate. She represents tea party values and concerns better than anyone else. What impresses republicans the most about her is that she is ruthlessly principled -- a characteristic that she has demonstrated repeatedly in congress. I don't think that any republican doubts that Bachmann means to try to do what she says she wants to do. If Bachmann is elected, there will be real change in the country. However, Bachmann has two drawbacks. First, she's inexperienced. She's only a congresswoman. More importantly to republican voters however, she is perceived as being unelectable against Obama because of the beating that she has taken in the media. This will likely be her undoing. Nonetheless, I can very easily see her being a VP pick from one of the candidates below. Mitt Romney: The former governor of Massachusetts. Romney is the "republican estalishment" candidate. Hardline conservatives sometimes deride him as the "RINO (Republican in Name Only) candidate" due to some of his expressed political views and policies in Massachusetts (enacting Romneycare and endorsing the theory of manmade global warming being the biggest offenders). Yet, I think that this criticism is rather unfair at this point, even if he is more liberal than either Perry or Bachmann. Romney definitely is the most polished of the candidates and presents the best. He has run a very tight campaign so far and has had not made any gaffes. Romney's problem, however, is that he is viewed as the "establishment candidate." There is a bit of a civil war within the republican party right now between the "old guard establishment" of Bush (W and HW) republicans and the new "tea party" republicans. The tea party is obviously in the ascendency, and the establishment republicans are scared shitless of being replaced, which is why some of the harshest criticisms of the tea party come from moderate republicans (see McCain's recent comments about the tea partiers being "hobbits"). Unfortunately for Romney, the tea party is probably going to win this battle within the republican party, which will be his undoing. The Favorite Rick Perry: The governor of Texas. Why is Rick Perry leading in national polls and why is he the favorite? Very simple: he has the least baggage of all of the other candidates and is generally the least offensive to the most republicans. I hate to phrase it this way, but it does kind of work like a process of elimination. Perry's most important attribute is that he is largely acceptable to both the tea party and to the republican establishment. On the tea party side, he walks the walk and talks the talk, being very pro-10th Amendment. He may not be as strong as Bachmann in this regard, but he's close enough. On the establishment republican side, he's the governor of the one of the largest states, which gives him the necessary campaign/organizational chops to attract big money. That said, don't mistake Perry for being widely liked by the republican establishment. In particular, he and the Bush-era republicans have significant disagreements and have had a rather large falling out. Perry is NOT Bush 2.0. I think Krauthammer put it best when he said that Bush was 50% Texan and 50% New Englander, whereas Perry is 100% Texan. Perry's biggest obstacle is walking the fine line between attracting more moderate, establishment republicans away from Romney and while still stealing the tea party supporters from Bachmann. His campaign will have to be disciplined -- much more disciplined than accusing the federal reserve of treason. We'll see how he does during the next debate. As for me, I haven't settled on any one candidate. Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are all acceptable to me. However, I'm leaning heavily towards Perry as my preferred candidate right now. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 19 2011 07:42 xDaunt wrote: As for me, I haven't settled on any one candidate. Romney, Bachmann, and Perry are all acceptable to me. However, I'm leaning heavily towards Perry as my preferred candidate right now. Can you elaborate on why Bachmann is acceptable to you? She seems to be by far the most crazy and least educated. I've never really seen someone defend her, and I'd be curious to hear why you would support her. She just seems really aggressive about foreign policy and lacking in respect for other countries. | ||
| ||
