EPTRepublican nominations - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:35 zalz wrote: Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand. People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul. This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme. Yes. The problem with Ron Paul is that he proposes great and radical visions of what should happen to America - and they do seem great. But he can never fully articulate how he will go about implementing these changes. It is very easy to criticize existing systems of governance, but very difficult to propose and implement working models. For example, Paul is a big opponent of big government and has advocated for the removal of many federal government institutions such "as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service" (Source: Wikipedia lol). But how would you implement educational/energy/security/etc policy afterward? What makes Paul inherently unelectable is the fact that he argues for large sweeping changes without considerations of the consequences of such actions. Obviously removing such entities would have large unforeseen effects, but Paul only focuses on his vision of what good it may cause. | ||
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
Not to mention the fact that the economy is circling the drain and someone is going to have to take the blame for that. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:09 Omnipresent wrote: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-ultimate-collection-of-stupid-michele-bachmann http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Batshit_crazy_quotes Or, if you prefer video... Really though, I think Perry is going to edge her out anyway. He'll raise way more money, and I hear he has much better political infrastructure. ' 'If we took away the minimum wage — if conceivably it was gone — we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level.'' Oh wow. That's terrible. Yay, we've replaced rampant unemployment with even more rampant underemployment, and half the nation is living below the poverty line. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:47 TranceStorm wrote: Yes. The problem with Ron Paul is that he proposes great and radical visions of what should happen to America - and they do seem great. But he can never fully articulate how he will go about implementing these changes. It is very easy to criticize existing systems of governance, but very difficult to propose and implement working models. For example, Paul is a big opponent of big government and has advocated for the removal of many federal government institutions such "as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service" (Source: Wikipedia lol). But how would you implement educational/energy/security/etc policy afterward? What makes Paul inherently unelectable is the fact that he argues for large sweeping changes without considerations of the consequences of such actions. Obviously removing such entities would have large unforeseen effects, but Paul only focuses on his vision of what good it may cause. Yeah, but nobody ever seems to realise this. They all just go: "Ron Paul is freedom yo!" Yeah he is freedom in that he basically wants to burn the government down and turn the country into some free-for-all-hardcore-capitalist-wet-dream. You don't have money? Well then you can't hire the fire department to put out your house, tough shit. | ||
|
methematics
United States392 Posts
| ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:47 TranceStorm wrote: Yes. The problem with Ron Paul is that he proposes great and radical visions of what should happen to America - and they do seem great. But he can never fully articulate how he will go about implementing these changes. It is very easy to criticize existing systems of governance, but very difficult to propose and implement working models. For example, Paul is a big opponent of big government and has advocated for the removal of many federal government institutions such "as the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service" (Source: Wikipedia lol). But how would you implement educational/energy/security/etc policy afterward? What makes Paul inherently unelectable is the fact that he argues for large sweeping changes without considerations of the consequences of such actions. Obviously removing such entities would have large unforeseen effects, but Paul only focuses on his vision of what good it may cause. I guess people just like the fact that he is the one candidate pushing for legitimate 'change'. True, it's quite radical but I think most people are just tired of the same old shit (from both Dems and Repubs) and are longing for something drastic. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:40 nomel wrote: All right. That's about in line with what I thought. In my mind it was going to be Romney and Obama. I have also been trying to make sense of the Tea Party. I read that Bachmann is considered a teapartyer, but that she's also a Republican. I guess it makes sense, seeing how the Tea Party has no formal organization i.e. a leader (or am I wrong here?). I see the Tea Party as extremely populist and lacking in realistic solutions. I also read an article on John Huntsmann, who was depicted as a man who could maybe, perhaps, possibly (  ) have some potential, but had not taken the plunge in time. Now it seems too late for him to seriously contend. Seemed like a nice family man though.My knowledge is based almost purely on the European edition of Time magazine. I don't know which way they generally lean when it comes to U.S. politics, but it feels like they favor the Democratic party. Perhaps it would look different if the Republicans had a stronger line-up. The Tea Party is essentially a subset of the Republican party. Our system is extremely unfriendly to third parties, so it's hard to form a successful independent party. Bachmann is technically the leader of the Tea Party caucus in the House (out lowed legislative body), but that doesn't really mean anything. The only actual organization the Tea Parta has comes from a bunch of independent political action committees (PACs), which push the Tea Party agenda. Some of these are essentially fronts for cooperate lobbyists, others are more grass roots. They paint themselves as really populist, and in some sense are. The real thing to think about when you hear "Tea Party" is hardcore fiscal conservatism (deregulation, low or no taxes, balanced budgets), pro "small government" (removal of bureaucracy and any government services besides the military and courts), and a dash of evangelical social conservatism (pro gun, pro God, anti abortion, anti contraception, etc). The social conservatism isn't present in all Tea Party people, but it's common enough to be a key part of the movement. Huntsman is an appealing general election candidate, but has essentially no chance of getting his party's nomination. He's in line with or to the left of Romney on most issues, and the party electorate has not interest in nominating a moderate this year. If that weren't bad enough for him, he was Obama's ambassador to China. In the current Republican party, anyone associated with Obama is essentially out. | ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
I think the problem with Romney is that he appears too 'political' and lacking in the sort of 'aura' that Obama has. Although Obama has lost a lot of his luster in his previous term, he still symbolizes some notion of change for the American public. However, Romney appears quite stiff and too close to the 'establishment' which would not change the current issues with the nation (whether or not change is actually needed). As a result, I think that Obama should be able to win the election as long as an extreme event does not occur. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:23 shifty wrote: The problem is the democrats never step up and do anything and then we have 2 god damn choices so pick your pile of shit black or brown. The Democrats never get anything done because so many Republicans use very... undemocratic methods to block them at every turn. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:43 Iodem wrote: I'd say at this point- Paul > Romney > Cain > Perry > Bachmann Bachmann's the Republican equivalent of Joe Biden. I think a Romney-Paul ticket would probably be the best shot against Obama. It's sad that you can clearly see Obama is an extremely weak President going into re-election, especially if the economy doesn't improve in the next year, yet Republicans can't muster anything that looks like "Oh yeah, Obama's dead in the water if this guy wins the primary." You picked a hardcore libertarian, then a total moderate, and then three social conservatives with Tea Party cred. Those options are all over the map. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:32 Amber[LighT] wrote: That's not true. Tea party dormant individuals lie in every location across the country. Most of these "tea party" republicans are just fed up republicans. They're being told that the current agenda is failing and that they have a new plan which recycles old ideas from the Republican party. There's nothing new going on here. With approval ratings pretty much low all around in Washington electing a "tea party" candidate is highly likely. I've noticed a phenomena going on with Republicans [like myself, my family, my gf's family] either you are fed up with the system and have faith in the tea party to make a change or you're just so fed up with the bullshit of the right that you have pretty much voted Democrat thoroughly in the last 2-4 years. Reference: 2010 election The problem with the tea party isn't in the basic ideas, which are essentially reagan recycled, but it is the combination of ideas and the intensity with which they hold them. They are anti-welfare state, anti-gay, anti-abortion and anti-immigrant and absolutely no compromises can be made on any of those ideas, as the budget negotiations pretty much showed. If the republicans nominate a tea party candidate, they're having a party and getting drunk in the whitehouse the night of the nominating convention, and the next day you have the following campaign ads running in the following states: 1) Ads with old people in Florida, Arizona, Nevada about how the GOP wants to make them live in poverty again. 2) Pro-abortion and pro-civil rights ads in every liberal state and every state with a significant black/latino population. 3) Ads with blue collar workers in all of the rust belt stating how much the various government programs mean for them. There are just too many ideas part of the tea party platform that are completely unacceptable for certain states. While they can do ok in certain elections, mainly because they can downplay parts their platform there, they won't be able to do the same in a general. I'm not disputing that the tea party base is fairly significant, and that people might actually vote for them, but in terms of the electoral map, a tea party candidate won't have a shot at winning Florida or Michigan, and even states like Texas and Georgia could come into play at that point. Not to even mention that most tea party candidates at this point have said things so utterly stupid that a single statement alone makes them completely unelectable. Once things start getting close in the GOP primary, I expect it to get nasty really really fast. They'll taint themselves and eachother so much that Obama probably won't even have to. | ||
|
NotSupporting
Sweden1998 Posts
| ||
|
ChaosWielder
United States166 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. . Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:51 methematics wrote: Ya im gonna vote Ron Paul in the primaries 100%. How can you guys say hes for the top 2%, right now business is so in bed with the government its sickening. Just look at TARP as an example. Separating business from government is a huge plus for me. The personal issues im about 90% with him. Economic issues im 100% with him. Foreign policy im probly 90% with him. Austrian Economics FTW! Big business is in bed with government. That's totally true. Do you know what they're advocating for once they climb between the sheets? They're asking for the exact policies Ron Paul wants as a matter of ideology. His motives are more pure, but the result is the same. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
| ||
|
Reyis
Pitcairn287 Posts
| ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
i never wanted democrats more to win then nowadays i mean whole world will make nonstop fun about america if they choose her  she REALLY have the spirit of WAYNE (she missed john wayne with the killer wayne and said she have the spirit from the murderer wayne in herself xDD)ps: dekoth say all i think about | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:51 Mazer wrote: I guess people just like the fact that he is the one candidate pushing for legitimate 'change'. True, it's quite radical but I think most people are just tired of the same old shit (from both Dems and Repubs) and are longing for something drastic. regardless, a drastic change in foreign policy will be worth the risk IMO | ||
|
methematics
United States392 Posts
On August 16 2011 23:57 yema1 wrote: I don't care about religious or social values. All I want is a candidate that promotes fiscal responsibility and economic freedom. This ^ so long as the social/religious values to get changed for the worse (if they don't change at all i wouldn't care). | ||
| ||
