Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
That is what is bothering me.

What in the world leads you to think a candidate can't get something accomplished (in this case RP)? That is what I said, how do you have that foresight? I've asked this multiple times and have not gotten a sufficient answer.

AND I HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because he wants to basically re-invent the US Gov. He's a legislator; he lacks the executive experience to accomplish suck lofty goals and he lacks the political muscle. Devil King made several good points on this a page or two back, go read.

Originally posted by Robtard
AND I HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

What is wrong with wanting to change the way the government operates and why is that so implausible? Are people so stuck in the mindset of what government is now and has been for so long that they think it can't change. That is laughable. We (the people) always have the power to change government any way we want and any how we want. And by electing Ron Paul to office, we would be doing just that. At least making a step in that general direction.

Originally posted by BigRed
And I said "I've asked this multiple times and have not gotten a [B]sufficient answer.

What is wrong with wanting to change the way the government operates and why is that so implausible? Are people so stuck in the mindset of what government is now and has been for so long that they think it can't change. That is laughable. We (the people) always have the power to change government any way we want and any how we want. And by electing Ron Paul to office, we would be doing just that. At least making a step in that general direction. [/B]

That's great and all you feel that way, but we're talking about his capability of doing what he says he wants to do, not how "nice it would be." He'd be tearing apart his very foundation, the government. It's not impossible, but it isn't probable.

Support Ron Paul all you like, I never told said you shouldn't.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's great and all you feel that way, but we're talking about his capability of doing what he says he wants to do, not how "nice it would be." He'd be tearing apart his very foundation, the government. It's not impossible, but it isn't probable.

Support Ron Paul all you like, I never told said you shouldn't.

Calvin Coolidge in the 1920's is more or less like Ron Paul (a bit different in some aspects though). He went into government with the idea of severely reducing the government and he did. He was also one of the most popular President's ever in his time period. Of course New Deal revisionist history has changed that. But no less...

It is going back to what the government should do and cutting off what the government shouldn't be doing. How is that "tearing apart the foundation" of government? If anything, it is cutting off the fat on the foundation.

I agree with you Robtard. As much as I support Ron Paul, his ideals, even if he had the political clout and backing, even instituted over the course of 8 years, would cause such massive changes to the infrastructure of the Western world that any benefit from the policies could potentially be lost in the transition.

**Note, this isn't necessarily because his ideals are flawed, just that there are too many people who benefit from the current structure (the people who made it the way they did to benefit themselves). The way things are is too engraved into society for sweeping radical change, at this point.

Originally posted by BigRed
It is going back to what the government should do and cutting off what the government shouldn't be doing. How is that "tearing apart the foundation" of government? If anything, it is cutting off the fat on the foundation.

would you care to speculate on what would happen when the IRS, social security and any other major government program is cut. I agree that it is "fat", but these things are actually fundamental to Western infrastructure.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't care if you support Ron Paul or not. I'm not here to convince and you haven't seen me done otherwise (likewise you haven't tried to sway me off of Ron Paul -- so I'm unsure as to why you keep bringing up that last statement).

Calvin Coolidge in the 1920's is more or less like Ron Paul (a bit different in some aspects though). He went into government with the idea of severely reducing the government and he did. He was also one of the most popular President's ever in his time period. Of course New Deal revisionist history has changed that. But no less...

It is going back to what the government should do and cutting off what the government shouldn't be doing. How is that "tearing apart the foundation" of government? If anything, it is cutting off the fat on the foundation.

Because you made the speech/statement "And by electing Ron Paul to office, we would be doing just that. At least making a step in that general direction."

...and I repeat, I'm not talking about the pros/cons of doing what he wants to do; I do agree with some of his views. It's the probability of him actually doing it, if he were to get elected. Which in my opinion, is all but nil.

Originally posted by inimalist
would you care to speculate on what would happen when the IRS, social security and any other major government program is cut. I agree that it is "fat", but these things are actually fundamental to Western infrastructure.

I don't see how most of those things are needed to continue "America" as being a great country and a prosperous one at that.

Originally posted by inimalist
I agree with you Robtard. As much as I support Ron Paul, his ideals, even if he had the political clout and backing, even instituted over the course of 8 years, would cause such massive changes to the infrastructure of the Western world that any benefit from the policies could potentially be lost in the transition.

**Note, this isn't necessarily because his ideals are flawed, just that there are too many people who benefit from the current structure (the people who made it the way they did to benefit themselves). The way things are is too engraved into society for sweeping radical change, at this point.

Thank you, I am glad to see that at least one person gets my point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, what happens if he is elected in your opinion. And is there any reason why it would be any worse than what will actively happen if Giuliani or Clinton get elected?

If he's elected? That's where I'd lean towards a conspiracy theorist's perspective. He simply won't get elected, even if he gets the nomination.

Originally posted by BigRed
Other than the IRS, Ron Paul realizes there are people dependent on these programs and what have you. So they aren't high on his priority list, but eventually he would work to phase them out.

I don't see how most of those things are needed to continue "America" as being a great country and a prosperous one at that.

care to answer my question?

Originally posted by Robtard
Because you made the speech/statement "And by electing Ron Paul to office, we would be doing just that. At least making a step in that general direction." If you don't think I'm trying to sway you away from RP, then ignore.

...and I repeat, I'm not talking about the pros/cons of doing what he wants to do; I do agree with some of his views.It's the probability of him actually doing it, if he were to get elected.

But I don't get that. If Ron Paul is elected by the people, wouldn't Congress be wise to go along with Ron Paul and essentialy the American people in getting done what Ron Paul wants to get done (of course within the limits of the Constitution)? Otherwise they would be out of a job.

Originally posted by inimalist
care to answer my question?

We need to get out of mindset that the government is there to serve us and take care of us from cradle to grave.

Originally posted by BigRed
Because that is what I believe. If I was trying to sway you, I'd say, "Hey look at these points" and go point by point, direct you to some links and videos and say you should vote for him.

But I don't get that. If Ron Paul is elected by the people, wouldn't Congress be wise to go along with Ron Paul and essentialy the American people in getting done what Ron Paul wants to get done (of course within the limits of the Constitution)? Otherwise they would be out of a job.

It doesn't run as perfectly as you think.

Originally posted by BigRed
I said I don't see any reason why America can't be great and prosperous. Although I should have added: again because right now it isn't. And I think with Ron Paul implementing the kind of things he wants to do, cutting what he desires to do and so forth, that will happen.

We need to get out of mindset that the government is there to serve us and take care of us from cradle to grave.

****ing christ, let me narrow it down into something that doesn't require you to actually interpret what it is that I am asking you.

People require government hand outs to live. American society run on many government handouts and on bloated bureaucracies. While it is admirable that Paul wants to eliminate these, and I agree with the sentiment, the "reality on the ground" is that there is potential for greater suffering in the transition between the status quo and "idealized libertarian freedom orgy".

How does someone who is dead set against government involvement support people dependent on the government as he takes away their lifeblood?

I mean, ideology is wonderful, but look what it did to communism.

Originally posted by BigRed
But I don't get that. If Ron Paul is elected by the people, wouldn't Congress be wise to go along with Ron Paul and essentialy the American people in getting done what Ron Paul wants to get done (of course within the limits of the Constitution)? Otherwise they would be out of a job.

actually, congress just "going along" with a president is what has gotten America into the mess it is in today

Originally posted by inimalist
****ing christ, let me narrow it down into something that doesn't require you to actually interpret what it is that I am asking you.

People require government hand outs to live. American society run on many government handouts and on bloated bureaucracies. While it is admirable that Paul wants to eliminate these, and I agree with the sentiment, the "reality on the ground" is that there is potential for greater suffering in the transition between the status quo and "idealized libertarian freedom orgy".

How does someone who is dead set against government involvement support people dependent on the government as he takes away their lifeblood?

I mean, ideology is wonderful, but look what it did to communism.

Nonetheless, of course people do. Hence the reason for Ron Paul not putting that high on his priority list. He realizes there is a dependency on government to serve the people through various programs and so forth.

It is an entire situation here. Once Paul corrects our foreign policy, cuts the taxes and fixes the economy; I sincerely believe our prosperity with rise (not immediately -- but over time) will curve the dependency. Along with Ron Paul's Healthcare plan and the eliminating of the Income Tax. His ideas for Eduction. Charity would increase.

It is all a chain reaction of sorts. Ron Paul does not aim to put people depedent on government out on the street. But with all his policies and ideals coming together and reshaping the way government 'ought to be; I think it would do a world of good. Of course some people will still be worse off, but no system can completely rid of that. But I think this system designated by Ron Paul has a good chance.

Originally posted by Robtard
It doesn't run as perfectly as you think.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, congress just "going along" with a president is what has gotten America into the mess it is in today

This is what Ron Paul says on the matter briefly:

My goal is just to have a transition period so you don't have a collapse of the economy and a breakdown of the political system, which happens if you don't deal with this. And this is what's happened so many times over history.

Originally posted by BigRed
Once Paul corrects our foreign policy, cuts the taxes and fixes the economy;

lol

will he walk on water after he does that too?

🙄

I've seen Paul talk, he is very convincing. He is the type of person I would have liked to have been in charge when many things happened, like moving away from the the gold standard or whatever. However, "fixing" the economy isn't just going to be a matter of creating ideologically motivated policies to remove government from people's lives. I get that he isn't interested in doing it all at once, but that just seems to be him using wordplay and evasive techniques to avoid actually addressing the fact that either a) some of these programs cause more good than harm, even if they aren't ideologically contingent with open market libertarianism, or b) will cause more harm to dismantle than to leave running.

Riddle me this, then: I'm a 13 year old black kid who live in a rough, minority part of LA. How is Ron Paul going to make my life better? How does less government involvement in the inner city improve the lives of minority youth and prevent them from making choices that hurt people or further burden the prison and judicial system?

Originally posted by BigRed
Once Paul corrects our foreign policy, cuts the taxes and fixes the economy; I sincerely believe our prosperity with rise (not immediately -- but over time) will curve the dependency. Along with Ron Paul's Healthcare plan and the eliminating of the Income Tax. His ideas for Eduction. Charity would increase.

Ron Paul's a big talker. You believe he's gonna accomplish everything he says he will?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ron Paul's a big talker. You believe he's gonna accomplish everything he says he will?