Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
A big talker? Uh, he's been falling in line with everything he has been saying because he proposes bills and rejects bills that don't fall along those lines. Not to mention, for the most part, he has been saying the same thing for years. Not just recently with the introduction of him running for President.

He is a big talker. "I'm gonna do this!" When I get elected, this will happen!"...Well actually, he'll be to busy kissing ass and be too busy paying back people before he attempts to do anything he promised.

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

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. 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? [/QUOTE]
I don't like riddles, but I'll shoot. It is not Ron Paul's job to make your life better. It is not the job of the government to make your life better. They can set-up situations that may lead to a better life if YOU make the better choice (like as I've said, Ron Paul fixing the economy, cutting spending and cutting taxes). But they aren't there to cradle you in their arms and kiss the boo-boo.

Well if you end the War on Drugs and as I've said, fix the economy (in the various aspects he wants to), I think that will go a long way in dealing with inner city issues. Of course it also comes down to personal responsibility.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He is a big talker. "I'm gonna do this!" When I get elected, this will happen!"...Well actually, he'll be to busy kissing ass and be too busy paying back people before he attempts to do anything he promised.

You have absolutely no basis for anything you are saying.

Originally posted by BigRed
Haha. Ron Paul doesn't kiss ass. Ron Paul just says what he believes and has been saying it for well over thirty years and has followed through with those convictions in Congress. So therein lies no reason for me to believe when he becomes President he will suddenly stray away from his convictions.

You have absolutely no basis for anything you are saying.

Look at any politician. They talk a lot of stuff in order to get votes, and when they get the office how much of what they say actually gets done?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Look at any politician. They talk a lot of stuff in order to get votes, and when they get the office how much of what they say actually gets done?

Originally posted by BigRed
Well if you end the War on Drugs and as I've said, fix the economy (in the various aspects he wants to), I think that will go a long way in dealing with inner city issues. Of course it also comes down to personal responsibility.

This is where I feel libertarianism falls apart. Much like communism, it assumes very specific things about the nature of humans, society, and behaviour. For instance, the assumption that people always have a choice (other than what colour to represent) is one, the idea that everyone is capable of "taking care" of themselves is another.

Why would ending the war on drugs fix any inner city problems? If anything, it will make the people who kill each other for drug money more willing to kill each other for other forms of illegal funds. It will do nothing to fix use or addiction issues, nor will it fix the issues that drive people to drug use in the first place. Drug addiction is a symptom.

What sort of Libertarian economic fix are you talking about. I think you may have some misconceptions about these poor neighborhoods. In many, employment left, there are no jobs for people to have. This is compounded with poor education and lack of realistic role models. Companies, by following the simple rules of free market capitalism, left these areas for more profit.

Originally posted by Robtard
How am I being a ****wit, by believing that electability and potential/plausibilty for a candidate to actually do what he/she is running on, should both be considered when choosing to support?

Supporting someone just because they tell you/say things you want to hear and not taking into consideration thier potential to actually accomplish said goals, is ****witted.

Well, taking electability into consideration to decide who to vote for is of course rather ridiculous. If someone you don't vote for someone (anjd all other's don't either) that person is not electable which in turn makes you not elect them. It's contradictory, really.

Besides, it is a ridiculous assumption, if you agree with their views and just think they wouldn't be elected why do you assume all other Americans don't do exactly what you do and you'd get the perfect candidate elected if you hadn't taken this random assumption of electability into account?

Originally posted by Robtard
AND I HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

He won't to decrease the so far ever increasing power of the US government. So you think it is possible to make the government bigger and bigger, but if you want to go against that you are a dreamer and weirdo?

Why don't we just shoot ourselves right now?

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.

I would say the possibility is well worth your vote.

As far as I can see in this election you have the choice between getting a razor sharp steel rod rammed or a poisonous wooden spike rammed into your ass or the third, if unlikely possibility, of choosing neither of that to happen and getting a million bucks on top of it.

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.

Just shrug.

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

On a different note, apparently there are three people already here who are like "Well, what he says is awesome....but I wouldn't vote for him cause he can't get it"

Well of course, you idiots, if everyone thinks like you no one will vote for him. Just give it a try. What's the worst that could happen? You get Giuliani instead of Clinton? Oh golly.

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.

Originally posted by inimalist
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?

Let me ask you this in return. How does it make it any worse?

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

He's not a big talker. He truly believes what he says, of course he realizes the problems he would face, but rather have the guy who wants and believes what's right and work for that, than the guy who believes in ****ing everything up more, but is able to do so smoothly.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
He is a big talker. "I'm gonna do this!" When I get elected, this will happen!"...Well actually, he'll be to busy kissing ass and be too busy paying back people before he attempts to do anything he promised.

Originally posted by inimalist
This is where I feel libertarianism falls apart. Much like communism, it assumes very specific things about the nature of humans, society, and behaviour. For instance, the assumption that people always have a choice (other than what colour to represent) is one, the idea that everyone is capable of "taking care" of themselves is another.

That's not what libertarians assume though. What they say is that people that can't take care of themselves have no right to be taken care of by everyone else. If all the socialist scum in the US would get together and open a voluntary support system consisting of just themselves, they could accomplish immensely much in a free market without STEALING and ROBBING (AT GUNPOINT) all other people in the society.

Originally posted by inimalist
Why would ending the war on drugs fix any inner city problems? If anything, it will make the people who kill each other for drug money more willing to kill each other for other forms of illegal funds. It will do nothing to fix use or addiction issues, nor will it fix the issues that drive people to drug use in the first place. Drug addiction is a symptom.

It will decriminalize a pointless thing. It will make drugs more regulated and it will destroy the grip of gangs on drug trafficing and selling.

That's a theory of course, but I think one that makes sense.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, taking electability into consideration to decide who to vote for is of course rather ridiculous. If someone you don't vote for someone (anjd all other's don't either) that person is not electable which in turn makes you not elect them. It's contradictory, really.

Besides, it is a ridiculous assumption, if you agree with their views and just think they wouldn't be elected why do you assume all other Americans don't do exactly what you do and you'd get the perfect candidate elected if you hadn't taken this random assumption of electability into account?

He won't to decrease the so far ever increasing power of the US government. So you think it is possible to make the government bigger and bigger, but if you want to go against that you are a dreamer and weirdo?

Why don't we just shoot ourselves right now?

It's more "electability in who to support", because if they can't/won't be elected, then there wouldn't be a vote to begin with.

I'm not calling him a dreamer or weirdo, just living in reality; in reality, Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to accomplish what he wants.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's more "electability in who to support", because if they can't/won't be elected, then there wouldn't be a vote to begin with.

I'm not calling him a dreamer or weirdo, just living in reality; in reality, Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to accomplish what he wants.

In reality, who has what it takes to accomplish what people that share Ron Paul's views want and will do it?

Because, if there isn't anyone, their vote for Ron Paul just isn't wasted.

The bottom line really is, in this election, if you support Ron Paul's views you are either going to support Ron Paul as far as you can or you are a hypocrite, a sell out and a moron.

Originally posted by Robtard

I'm not calling him a dreamer or weirdo, just living in reality; in reality, Ron Paul doesn't have what it takes to accomplish what he wants.

On top of that, he has a poor speaking voice and looks like the old men who drink out of brown paper bags in Phoenix public parks.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
On top of that, he has a poor speaking voice and looks like the old men who drink out of brown paper bags in Phoenix public parks.

I base my decision on who to give support to on the amount of hair they have, I think it is the best system out there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Assuming all heavens ally and do get Paul into presidency...what would happen in your opinion?

As I said before, he won't last long. The governmental bureaucracy is a self-sustaining entity.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, apparently there are three people already here who are like "Well, what he says is awesome....but I wouldn't vote for him cause he can't get it"

And I'd agree to the point that the media machine, which is much like the government so far as bowing to special interest groups, refuses to report on him, seriously. I think it's tragic that he is actually laughed at by the reporters on FOX News. They actually laugh at him when they talk about what he has to say. It is from this that a majority of the popular sentiment on Paul comes. Reporters do it, the other Republican candidates do it. And, let's not forget that another large part of it comes from the (R) next to his name. That means A LOT to people in this election. Also, I never said I wouldn't vote for him because he can't get it. I said I wouldn't vote for him because I fundamentally disagree with a number of his aspirations.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well of course, you idiots, if everyone thinks like you no one will vote for him. Just give it a try. What's the worst that could happen? You get Giuliani instead of Clinton? Oh golly.

Well, the sad part is that we, as a nation, don't really have a say in who were actually going to vote for in this election. By the time we have to cast a ballot, the descision has been made for us by the outdated primary process we employ. People in Iowa and other primary states make that descision. So, voting for him and asking what's the worst that could happen is kind of a non-argument. If a national primary were held, he'd be out in front in a lot of states. (maybe not #1, but further towards the head of the pack than he's given credit) We get to decide who we want to elect, AFTER the two (and only 2) candidates are chosen for us.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
On top of that, he has a poor speaking voice and looks like the old men who drink out of brown paper bags in Phoenix public parks.

I think he kinda looks like Ian McKellen.

EDIT: Hey, why are you hanging out in parks with old men?

Originally posted by Bardock42
In reality, who has what it takes to accomplish what people that share Ron Paul's views want and will do it?

Because, if there isn't anyone, their vote for Ron Paul just isn't wasted.

The bottom line really is, in this election, if you support Ron Paul's views you are either going to support Ron Paul as far as you can or you are a hypocrite, a sell out and a moron.

I don't know who and the question remains, would it be the best thing to do in the larger scheme of things.

A-and I never told anyone they shouldn't support Ron Paul...

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know who and the question remains, would it be the best thing to do in the larger scheme of things.

A-and I never told anyone they shouldn't support Ron Paul...

I know hug

I was just making a point. Kinda, summarizing what I meant to say.

Originally posted by Devil King
I think he kinda looks like Ian McKellen.

EDIT: Hey, why are you hanging out in parks with old men?

See?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know hug

I was just making a point. Kinda, summarizing what I meant to say.

Of course you do...

Not much of a point, as the chance of RP winning the Republican nomination is all but zero. Not saying it can't happen as an absolute; just don't cut yourself when he doesn't win it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Of course you do...

Not much of a point, as the chance of RP winning the Republican nomination is all but zero. Not saying it can't happen as an absolute; just don't cut yourself when he doesn't win it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I won't. We libertarians don't cut tourselves. I think Democrats do that....Republicans cut others I believe hmm

A lone tear just ran down the rotting cheek bone of Thomas Jefferson...