Republican nominations - Page 4

On August 16 2011 23:57 Omnipresent wrote:

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.

On August 16 2011 23:11 zalz wrote:
Why do people on the internet love Ron Paul so much. The guy is insane. Having him for president would be a distaster.

Not as bad as Bachman i suppose because when the people burn down the country it's less scary then when the religious state burns it down.

Still i prefer my state unburned.


Anyway, the republicans are complete idiots if they put anyone other then Romney forward. They can have this election in the bag, why the hell would they risk it with a crazy like Palin, Bachman or Ron Paul.

The only reason anyone would want to see those people put forward is so that Obama can get re-elected without breaking a sweat.

On August 16 2011 23:59 Reyis wrote:
Bachmann or nothing.

On August 17 2011 00:05 Scorch wrote:
From my European point of view, it baffles me how much support ultra-conservatives/tea party dudes/religious fundamentalists have in the US. Is this because people are anti-Obama and they offer the starkest contrast to his agendas, or do many people actually share their views?

On August 17 2011 00:05 aeyr wrote:


Not only on the internet. I voted for Ron Paul at the Iowa Straw Poll and there were tons and tons of people for him. He got second to Bachman by about 150 votes.

What is scary is how people voted for Bush (a second time) and Obama. What's scary is the situation we are in now. What's promising is Paul's notion of ending the Federal Reserve and putting the economy back in place, bringing the troops home (for real), and his track record of "Dr. no" going against most ridiculous legislation put forth in Congress.

On August 17 2011 00:08 NotSupporting wrote:


I don't get it, why would someone ever vote for her? Please explain to me why you like her.

She thinks abortion is murder and will stop it if she can, even if the someone gets pregnant after getting raped. She was prepared to crash the American economy (as well as the worlds) just to avoid some tax increase. She does not believe in global warming and therefore would do nothing about it. She used the quote "the good need only to do nothing for evil to win" about the possibility of gay marriage. She does not believe every cultural are equal, the American one is superior. She marks people with a different political view as "anti-american" and declares them a threat to America.

I just get mad when I read about what these politicians in USA wants to do. Some part of me really hope you guys elect one of these republicans so they can totally crash the country and let someone else take over the role as the world leading economy/political power.

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.

On August 17 2011 00:05 Equity213 wrote:


You know what, im not a Ron Paul fanboy but this is utter nonsense. Big corporations dont want free market policies. Then they would actually have to compete.

Big corporations not only love regulations, but they are usually the ones who end up writing them. They stifle their smaller competitors while they have the economies of scale to comply with them.

Ron Paul is about the only candidate who IS NOT a corporatist.

If you want to call him a paleo-con and say his ideas on welfare are nutty, then go ahead. But dont try to claim he is pro corporate, thats just nonsense.

On August 17 2011 00:12 Zergneedsfood wrote:


I mean....just because Paul gets 2nd in the most useless poll in the country doesn't mean he's got it in the bag. He's probably the only Republican nominee that I like, but I think his strength is his foreign policy, not his domestic ones.

On the domestic side, there's too still too many things I'm unsure of. I don't like the idea of taking away a central bank. I don't like the idea that he also supports the notion that he would reject any bill that had tax increases in it (he said he wouldn't vote even if there was a 10-1 ratio in spending cuts to revenues).

The man is intelligent, but he's very unclear. He takes way too long to explain simple concepts, and I feel that's going to really hurt him.

On August 17 2011 00:10 thehitman wrote:
Where is Ron Paul in that poll?

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.

On August 17 2011 00:14 On_Slaught wrote:
I agree that Romney is the only one which stands a chance.

Bachman is batshit crazy and if she wins those quotes she throws around will screw her.

Perry is farrrrr too right to win. Once he actually starts giving his views on what he'd actually do, and once people start questioning the crazy shit he's done/said in the past as well as realize he didn't actually create this huge job creating paradise in Texas, he won't stand a chance. He could never, ever, ever, ever win the moderates.

Romney with his ability to change his view to meet his audience is the only one who stands a chance imo.

On August 16 2011 23:52 Omnipresent wrote:

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.

On August 17 2011 00:13 Omnipresent wrote:

This is the exact argument that keeps getting kicked around in almost every thread that remotely involves economics. Libertarians and some fiscal conservatives (but really really just libertarians) think corporations hate the open market. Everyone else thinks they thrive without regulation, buying up competitors, exploiting power over weaker competitors, and taking giant risks with public goods (i.e. the environment). I'm not really in the mood to argue it again.

Also, I didn't say Paul was "corporatist" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I said he was a libertarian, and that his economic views happen to be good for big business and bad for the little guy.

On August 17 2011 00:10 thehitman wrote:
Where is Ron Paul in that poll? Why not put all the candidates there, and nott the establishment ones who couldn't care less about the people?

All the candidates from the republicans and democrats except Ron Paul from the republicans and Dennis Kucinich from the democrats work for the big banks and military industrial complex.

Look at all of the candidates and Obama they all support secret arrest, endless wars, torture, support the patriot act which is actually marshal law with a good name put on it, support the TSA sticking their hands down people's pants, are in support of giving the president emperor like powers. These are not the kind of people you would want to give power to. In different times they would be called crazy criminals and now they are called presidential candidates.

Rick Perry and Romney support carbon taxes, Obama has actually implemented the carbon taxes, etc... Do you want people taxing you for breathing in power?

So I think if the USA and the world is going to prosper the corrupt and paid off politicians must go, the people must recognize they are being lied to and made fool over and over and over again and vote for good, honest men like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Even though you may not agree with them at all the issues, at least you know what you are getting and you know they are going to work for the people and not the big banks and corporate criminals.