Re: Re: Vote Ron Paul in 2012!!!!
Originally posted by Robtard
Too old.
I don't think age is a relevant factor in determing a president. Look at Reagan and John Mcain who got 50 mill+ people to vote for him. I'd vote for a 98 year old who had sound policies that I was secure that he'd stick to after election. Common-sense knows no ageism. FDR was afflicted with Polio and was elected for how many terms? I'd also vote for a 40 year old if I felt that they had the right train of thought.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you have a seriously flawed view of how the US government works.
Originally posted by tsscls
How so? Because I wanted to float the idea of Ron Paul, a former candidate who I may or may not have supported, in a coversation about our next presidential election? Like I said before, I just wanted to initiate converastion on this topic. I think you have a seriously flawed view of what I've said, which is next to nothing.
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
Originally posted by tsscls
Right now, I'd feel a little more comfortable with a President who wasn't supported by either of the two parties. That would mean there was less of an agenda when it came time to veto or not the bills that passed through his desk.
But making vetoes would be the entirety of his power. The House, the Senate or the Supreme Court would still not be Libertarian.
Originally posted by tsscls
He would still have all of the powers of the executive office, and the power of the bully pulpit. You're saying that only an established DEM/REP should hold office, because they have more support from our corrupt goverment? I don't buy that. Plus, he's been a congressman for years, so he has some support, at least as much as Obama with his partial term as illinois senator.
You're making some wild leaps of logic. There's no good reason for anyone to support Paul until Libertarians are common enough to have at least some power in another branch. The US has this little thing called checks and balances that would make Paul powerless to effect any of his policies whether for good or ill.
Originally posted by tsscls
No, I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's eco/social theories. I also don't believe in his foreign policy. Just stay out of it. You just want to argue and troll.
Not really. I made a perfectly reasonable assumption based on the information I had at the time.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But making vetoes would be the entirety of his power. The House, the Senate or the Supreme Court would still not be Libertarian.You're making some wild leaps of logic. There's no good reason for anyone to support Paul until Libertarians are common enough to have at least some power in another branch. The US has this little thing called checks and balances that would make Paul powerless to effect any of his policies whether for good or ill.
Not really. I made a perfectly reasonable assumption based on the information I had at the time.
Oh yes, executive orders mean nothing. The bully pulpit is a completely ineffective weapon, as Obama has shown. checks and balances are reserved for the different branches of government to retain their autonomy, not the the parties. Unless, you're arguing, that given a third party president, the congress or the senate would vote against him just because he's not one of them. If that was the case, they'd have a great deal of explaining to do to their constiuients.
Originally posted by tsscls
Not being snarky, but what do you mean when you say, "too libertarian?"
His views on government are very libertarian in that he supports very little government. While this sounds good at first consider this:
There are four main groups that want to take our freedoms away..
1)Government
2)Corporations
3)Religious fanatics
4)Organized crime syndicates and gangs
At least #1 can be used as a tool against the other 3 which if left to their own devices would make serfs of us all. Libertarians support mostly #2.
Originally posted by tsscls
Oh yes, executive orders mean nothing. The bully pulpit is a completely ineffective weapon, as Obama has shown. checks and balances are reserved for the different branches of government to retain their autonomy, not the the parties. Unless, you're arguing, that given a third party president, the congress or the senate would vote against him just because he's not one of them. If that was the case, they'd have a great deal of explaining to do to their constiuients.
Obama has the support of the Democrats (who now have a majority in Congress I believe). Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't support Paul because they probably wouldn't agree with his policies due to not being Libertarians and having different beliefs, unless you think that Paul becoming President would suddenly make people convert to his beliefs.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Obama has the support of the Democrats (who now have a majority in Congress I believe). Congress and the Supreme Court wouldn't support Paul because they probably wouldn't agree with his policies due to not being Libertarians and having different beliefs, unless you think that Paul becoming President would suddenly make people convert to his beliefs.
Exaxctly as you said. And he'd have the power of veto! It would be exciting!
Originally posted by BigRed
The free market is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.
Communism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.
Fascism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.
Minarchism is exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.
Sacrifices to Chuthulu are exactly what we need during this current economic downturn.
Happily, none of those are likely to happen. Then afterward each group will claim that it would have been faster if we used their version and all of them will provide "proof" that they're right. Personally, I'll be laughing.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No because Ron Paul would be a useless president, not because of his policies but because of his lack of support in the government.
Bingo.
Tis a shame, though. I must say that I like more than 80% of his ideas.
Originally posted by tsscls
Exaxctly as you said. And he'd have the power of veto! It would be exciting!
And since he has the nickname of Senator "no" or "Dr. No" or something like that, I wouldn't doubt for a moment that he wouldn't vote no quite often.
Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
1)Government
2)Corporations
3)Religious fanatics
4)Organized crime syndicates and gangsAt least #1 can be used as a tool against the other 3 which if left to their own devices would make serfs of us all. Libertarians support mostly #2.
yes, but only #1 is able to allegate to itself the right to take these freedoms away, and it is the only one that can "legitimately" do violence to a person for non-compliance
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but only #1 is able to allegate to itself the right to take these freedoms away, and it is the only one that can "legitimately" do violence to a person for non-compliance
Who cares how it get's rationalized? And there's still less you can do against the other three.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Who cares how it get's rationalized? And there's still less you can do against the other three.
I think I disagree. I am not sure if I'm interpreting your statement correctly; but, yes, there is something you can against the other three in the U.S.
How many lawsuits are won each year against corporations? How many gang members are sent to prison each year?
Now, with those stupid religious fanatics, such as terrorists, we've been doing a pretty good job for our homeland since 9/11. But what about those seek to oppress others through majoritarianism? (My fellow brothers and sisters did this recently in California with Prop. 8.)
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I disagree. I am not sure if I'm interpreting your statement correctly; but, yes, there is something you can against the other three in the U.S.How many lawsuits are won each year against corporations? How many gang members are sent to prison each year?
Now, with those stupid religious fanatics, such as terrorists, we've been doing a pretty good job for our homeland since 9/11. But what about those seek to oppress others through majoritarianism? (My fellow brothers and sisters did this recently in California with Prop. 8.)
I was assuming a world/country where one of the four was in charge. Only governments are particularly beholden to the people (unless they become fascistic) because they're the only ones where the leadership changes regularly and at the behest of the population.
Also: lol at "majoritarianism"
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was assuming a world/country where one of the four was in charge. Only governments are particularly beholden to the people (unless they become fascistic) because they're the only ones where the leadership changes regularly and at the behest of the population.
You're referring to democratic systems and their various iterations, right?
Some of Paul's ideas rely too heavily on human altruism that simply doesn't exist in the amounts required for his ideas to work.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Also: lol at "majoritarianism"
馃檨
Did I do something wrong.