Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Romney's Boring, Perry Failed, Cain Dropping

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 3:55:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Who does that leave us with? RON PAUL.

Romney has no energized base, Perry went from top tier to second tier candidate, and the Cain scandal whether true or not has hurt his favorability and is now dropping in the polls.

Ron Paul is winning straw polls left and right by devastating margins and is remaining double digits in national polls.

It's time to face it. The top tier is crumbling, not solid, and has too many weaknesses. Guess which candidate has remained unscarred? The Liberty Man. Never been caught flip flopping and never been involved in a scandal and never caught in a lie.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 3:56:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, he's certainly the only republican candidate I'd consider voting for.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:05:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Technically, next in line (polls wise) is Gingrich. Through all the shuffling of support and people going from one candidate to another, Paul has seen ZERO growth. Face it, republican voters are not interested in him, or his ideas.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:35:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 3:55:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Who does that leave us with? RON PAUL.

I wish, because I'm a big supporter, but you're wrong. It leaves us with Newt Gingrich. Here is a detailed explanation of why he is more likely than any of the candidates to receive the nomination.

True, Romney is very susceptible as he has no serious base, and recent polls indicate that it's starting to drop below 20%, really for the first time since polling started. No one's really enthusiastic about him, everyone knows he's a flip-flopper, and he just isn't conservative enough in any way for the current GOP. He probably won't get the nomination.

And yeah there's no way Cain's support will last as he's more prone to gaffes than any other candidate, he has zero experience politically and is as informed as a high school kid on the issues. He's really the biggest political joke in recent years if you ask me. He might sound good to some voters in theory as the blunt, feisty anti-politician candidate.... but not many will actually go to vote for a candidate with NO political experience whatsoever and who clearly appeals to his anonymous "advisers" for issues which he has no clue about. Like, everything foreign policy related for example.

Granted Bachmann, Santorum, and Huntsman have no chance either. That leaves three candidates:

Perry, Paul, and Gingrich.

Perry - Though Perry has fallen, he's got the money of a frontrunner which is enough for a climb in the polls. McCain was the early frontrunner for the 2008 nomination, lost steam, and ended up regaining it toward the end. However he is also prone to gaffes and absolutely stupid comments, and he can't debate for his life. Obama would destroy him in an election.

Paul - His support has hovered around very high single digits and low double digits in the polls. He has very very solid footing in early voting states, especially Iowa and New Hampshire - he's got great organization there and is campaigning hard all around those states. However, I don't see the GOP voters getting over his non-interventionist foreign policy. Same with his views on states rights, legalizing drugs and prostitution, and other "socially liberal" views.

Gingrich - By process of elimination I think Gingrich is the only one who could rise in the polls and actually maintain it. He's widely viewed as the most intellectual candidate. He's obviously got leadership experience in the political world. He touts how he would own Obama in a debate, which is probably true as he's a very good debater. The fact that he had an affair doesn't seem to be stopping his current climb in the polls. For each candidate there are obvious problems they face with the GOP electorate but the only one with Gingrich is his affair. He's conservative enough to be on good terms with the Tea Party but mainstream enough to get average, GWB-era Republicans.

My prediction is that Gingrich gets the nomination.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Gary Johnson anyone?

I honestly have to say, out of all the candidates, with the exception of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney has got to be the worst candidate. He doesn't stand for anything and he doesn't want to provide any solutions to our problems. He also doesn't have a "small government" reputation. Rick Perry recognizes that social security is a ponzi scheme, balanced the budget in his state, and Texas has a lower unemployment rate then the rest of the US. Newt Gringrinch has a track record of balancing the budget (although to be fair, much of the Bill Clinton surplus was a result of the economic boom of the 90s), favors school vouchers, and previously help enact welfare reform legislation.

What conservative/libertarian values does Mitt Romney bring to the table? Can't think of any. In most of the debates he either talks about how he is a "business owner" or attacks other candidates without standing on any issues himself.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really wish Ron Paul would win. I think he could do it if he starts really appealing to the moderate majority that don't vote. He has started to, but not enough effort is put into it.

@Ore_Ele- Are you going to say that people who support him are crazy too? Because you would be calling the majority of voting acting military crazy. Just saying.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 4:56:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@jat93

Newt Gingrich? Ron Paul will eat him alive.

What happens when you put Gingrich, the 33rd Degree Freemason, Bohemian Grove, CFR member, Catholic, wife cheater vs. Ron Paul the conspiracy theorist?

Gingrich will get slammed left and right and will be exposed as a New Worrld Order puppet!

Besides, nobody even knows what Gingrich stands for or what his solutions are. He's just the guy with smart remarks and a cheerleader for the GOP field.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:02:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:42:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gary Johnson anyone?

I honestly have to say, out of all the candidates, with the exception of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney has got to be the worst candidate. He doesn't stand for anything and he doesn't want to provide any solutions to our problems. He also doesn't have a "small government" reputation. Rick Perry recognizes that social security is a ponzi scheme, balanced the budget in his state, and Texas has a lower unemployment rate then the rest of the US. Newt Gringrinch has a track record of balancing the budget (although to be fair, much of the Bill Clinton surplus was a result of the economic boom of the 90s), favors school vouchers, and previously help enact welfare reform legislation.

What conservative/libertarian values does Mitt Romney bring to the table? Can't think of any. In most of the debates he either talks about how he is a "business owner" or attacks other candidates without standing on any issues himself.

Johnson is less than 1% in the polls. If Ron Paul can't gain any traction with his libertarian ideas than neither can Johnson. Perry might be fiscally conservative but his social policies and foreign policies are... well, they're neoconservative. Just another GWB in that regard.

Next to Ron Paul, Gingrich is the only major candidate who cares about restoring small, constitutional government to America. He's also gaining traction in the polls and I don't see him losing it easily like the unqualified, gaffe prone, unintelligent candidates Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. His foreign policy is hawkish which is horrible for libertarians such as myself, and I don't know much about his social views. If he somehow toned down his hawkishness a little bit and isn't a total neocon when it comes to social policies, I'd consider voting for him.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:04:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:52:49 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
I really wish Ron Paul would win. I think he could do it if he starts really appealing to the moderate majority that don't vote. He has started to, but not enough effort is put into it.

@Ore_Ele- Are you going to say that people who support him are crazy too? Because you would be calling the majority of voting acting military crazy. Just saying.

Several issues with that. "Having more donations from the military" =/= "having the majority military support." If you go to Ron Pauls 2012 website that makes the claim, it sources this article, which only talking about total dollar contributions, not individual support.

http://content.usatoday.com...

Additionally, most of his supporters are not supporting on 100% of the issues, but on a few key issues of his, and they view the whole package as a net positive. For example, many of the military that support him, do so because of his foreign policy or his economic policies, probably not so much for his drug policies.

So to those that support him for a few key issues, I wouldn't call crazy. Those that support all the same issues he does, I think crazy is a fairly close approximation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:03:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You forgot, "And Ron Paul's crazy."

If Ron Paul's crazy, so were the majority of the Founding Fathers. And so is everything this country was founded upon as embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's clearly not crazy. He just sucks at public speaking and has problems articulating his thoughts at debates and interviews. He's actually probably the most academic, intellectual, philosophic candidate. Him or Gingrich. He's probably the most well-read. He could definitely hold his own in a debate on this site, unlike 99% of politicians.

Also, he predicted the recession of 1987 back in 1983, he predicted the burst of the housing bubble and the economic collapse years beforehand (and everyone laughed at him and called him crazy for believing it even in 2007) and he predicted the blowback that came in the form of 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is crazy is crazy.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:14:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:02:26 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:42:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gary Johnson anyone?

I honestly have to say, out of all the candidates, with the exception of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney has got to be the worst candidate. He doesn't stand for anything and he doesn't want to provide any solutions to our problems. He also doesn't have a "small government" reputation. Rick Perry recognizes that social security is a ponzi scheme, balanced the budget in his state, and Texas has a lower unemployment rate then the rest of the US. Newt Gringrinch has a track record of balancing the budget (although to be fair, much of the Bill Clinton surplus was a result of the economic boom of the 90s), favors school vouchers, and previously help enact welfare reform legislation.

What conservative/libertarian values does Mitt Romney bring to the table? Can't think of any. In most of the debates he either talks about how he is a "business owner" or attacks other candidates without standing on any issues himself.

Johnson is less than 1% in the polls. If Ron Paul can't gain any traction with his libertarian ideas than neither can Johnson. Perry might be fiscally conservative but his social policies and foreign policies are... well, they're neoconservative. Just another GWB in that regard.

Gary Johnson is a much more sensible libertarian then Ron Paul in my opinion. I think ending the FED and replacing it with the gold standard would be a disaster. Johnson also has a proven track record in New Mexico. He's younger then Ron Paul. I know he doesn't stand a chance, but he's my favorite candidate.

Next to Ron Paul, Gingrich is the only major candidate who cares about restoring small, constitutional government to America. He's also gaining traction in the polls and I don't see him losing it easily like the unqualified, gaffe prone, unintelligent candidates Bachmann, Perry, and Cain. His foreign policy is hawkish which is horrible for libertarians such as myself, and I don't know much about his social views. If he somehow toned down his hawkishness a little bit and isn't a total neocon when it comes to social policies, I'd consider voting for him.

I'm actually agnostic about foreign policy. I haven't analyzed issues enough to draw a strong enough conclusion about our foreign policy. It's not so simple to state that "all foreign intervention and wars are bad". Sometimes intervention is necessary to create a more stable world. But then again, US foreign intervention doesn't seem to have a good track record. We did save South Korea though :).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:26:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:10:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You forgot, "And Ron Paul's crazy."

If Ron Paul's crazy, so were the majority of the Founding Fathers. And so is everything this country was founded upon as embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's clearly not crazy. He just sucks at public speaking and has problems articulating his thoughts at debates and interviews. He's actually probably the most academic, intellectual, philosophic candidate. Him or Gingrich. He's probably the most well-read. He could definitely hold his own in a debate on this site, unlike 99% of politicians.

Also, he predicted the recession of 1987 back in 1983, he predicted the burst of the housing bubble and the economic collapse years beforehand (and everyone laughed at him and called him crazy for believing it even in 2007) and he predicted the blowback that came in the form of 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is crazy is crazy.

Agreed. Ron Paul has different ideas, so all of a sudden he is crazy!! Ore_Ele just shows how ignorant people are when it comes to Ron Paul. He isn't going to legalize drugs, but de-criminalize them at a federal level, and leaving it to the states whether to legalize them. Honestly...
Spritle
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:38:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
No one knows what the hell ANY of these people are going to do. Just because they say they will do it doesn't mean they will. It's all about gaining support.
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:39:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:38:21 PM, Spritle wrote:
No one knows what the hell ANY of these people are going to do. Just because they say they will do it doesn't mean they will. It's all about gaining support.

Well, Ron Paul has a voting record that has been consistent with his beliefs.

Anyway, it's more about who can buy the most support. Like prostitution.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 5:44:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:26:07 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:10:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You forgot, "And Ron Paul's crazy."

If Ron Paul's crazy, so were the majority of the Founding Fathers. And so is everything this country was founded upon as embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's clearly not crazy. He just sucks at public speaking and has problems articulating his thoughts at debates and interviews. He's actually probably the most academic, intellectual, philosophic candidate. Him or Gingrich. He's probably the most well-read. He could definitely hold his own in a debate on this site, unlike 99% of politicians.

Also, he predicted the recession of 1987 back in 1983, he predicted the burst of the housing bubble and the economic collapse years beforehand (and everyone laughed at him and called him crazy for believing it even in 2007) and he predicted the blowback that came in the form of 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is crazy is crazy.

Agreed. Ron Paul has different ideas, so all of a sudden he is crazy!! Ore_Ele just shows how ignorant people are when it comes to Ron Paul. He isn't going to legalize drugs, but de-criminalize them at a federal level, and leaving it to the states whether to legalize them. Honestly...

Which is a special pleading fallacy. If the federal government has no authority to declare drugs as illegal, then the state government should not either. It's like saying "taxes are theft, we should remove all federal taxes and leave the states to tax themselves."

But his comments on things like border fences, drugs, government in general are what make him crazy ("...it's a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in.") He actually believes that the government is out to get you and just looking for ways to oppress people. And people buy it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:12:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 5:44:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:26:07 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:10:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You forgot, "And Ron Paul's crazy."

If Ron Paul's crazy, so were the majority of the Founding Fathers. And so is everything this country was founded upon as embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's clearly not crazy. He just sucks at public speaking and has problems articulating his thoughts at debates and interviews. He's actually probably the most academic, intellectual, philosophic candidate. Him or Gingrich. He's probably the most well-read. He could definitely hold his own in a debate on this site, unlike 99% of politicians.

Also, he predicted the recession of 1987 back in 1983, he predicted the burst of the housing bubble and the economic collapse years beforehand (and everyone laughed at him and called him crazy for believing it even in 2007) and he predicted the blowback that came in the form of 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is crazy is crazy.

Agreed. Ron Paul has different ideas, so all of a sudden he is crazy!! Ore_Ele just shows how ignorant people are when it comes to Ron Paul. He isn't going to legalize drugs, but de-criminalize them at a federal level, and leaving it to the states whether to legalize them. Honestly...

Which is a special pleading fallacy. If the federal government has no authority to declare drugs as illegal, then the state government should not either. It's like saying "taxes are theft, we should remove all federal taxes and leave the states to tax themselves."

But his comments on things like border fences, drugs, government in general are what make him crazy ("...it's a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in.") He actually believes that the government is out to get you and just looking for ways to oppress people. And people buy it.

Well, the states should decide independently on issues that are more social and directly effecting of the people in that state, I.E. drugs. If multiple states want to legalize marijuana, for instance, why is it that a select few (the government) get to tell them no. They want it. They are not going to legalize it for a neighboring state, obviously. And they aren't going to have supreme powers in every aspect of politics. But it's more of a social issue, therefore it demands that a more direct populace makes the decision.

Why do senators and represenatives from the east coast get to say that the people in the west coast shouldn't smoke marijuana, even though the majority over there believe they should? (just a hypothetical)

Also, with our government, it's hard to believe that they aren't supressing the people. Cancer can be cured, yet the government steal the patent on the cure, leaving billions to be spent on other ways to radiate people, furthering us from an actual solution to that problem as well. Pharma companies are too wealthy to let something like a cure for cancer come out. That alone causes me to completely distrust the government.

Stop being so myopic. We don't live in a perfect world. Put your government under objective scrutiny for once.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:16:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I disagree, perry did fail, Cain is rising, and even if Cain fails I am with bachman or Gingrich, Paul isn't our option... yet
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 6:25:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 6:12:15 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:44:31 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:26:07 PM, PartamRuhem wrote:
At 11/7/2011 5:10:42 PM, jat93 wrote:
At 11/7/2011 4:03:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You forgot, "And Ron Paul's crazy."

If Ron Paul's crazy, so were the majority of the Founding Fathers. And so is everything this country was founded upon as embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's clearly not crazy. He just sucks at public speaking and has problems articulating his thoughts at debates and interviews. He's actually probably the most academic, intellectual, philosophic candidate. Him or Gingrich. He's probably the most well-read. He could definitely hold his own in a debate on this site, unlike 99% of politicians.

Also, he predicted the recession of 1987 back in 1983, he predicted the burst of the housing bubble and the economic collapse years beforehand (and everyone laughed at him and called him crazy for believing it even in 2007) and he predicted the blowback that came in the form of 9/11.

Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is crazy is crazy.

Agreed. Ron Paul has different ideas, so all of a sudden he is crazy!! Ore_Ele just shows how ignorant people are when it comes to Ron Paul. He isn't going to legalize drugs, but de-criminalize them at a federal level, and leaving it to the states whether to legalize them. Honestly...

Which is a special pleading fallacy. If the federal government has no authority to declare drugs as illegal, then the state government should not either. It's like saying "taxes are theft, we should remove all federal taxes and leave the states to tax themselves."

But his comments on things like border fences, drugs, government in general are what make him crazy ("...it's a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in.") He actually believes that the government is out to get you and just looking for ways to oppress people. And people buy it.

Well, the states should decide independently on issues that are more social and directly effecting of the people in that state, I.E. drugs. If multiple states want to legalize marijuana, for instance, why is it that a select few (the government) get to tell them no. They want it. They are not going to legalize it for a neighboring state, obviously. And they aren't going to have supreme powers in every aspect of politics. But it's more of a social issue, therefore it demands that a more direct populace makes the decision.

The exact same logic can be used against any degree of government. "Why should the state government tell my city that we can't have drugs?" to "Why should the city government tell my house hold what we can and can't do?"

There is no logical reason to say that it is immoral for a federal government, but not a state government. They are the exact same thing, only of different size.


Why do senators and represenatives from the east coast get to say that the people in the west coast shouldn't smoke marijuana, even though the majority over there believe they should? (just a hypothetical).

Why should people in Portland (in Oregon) have any say what the people in Eugene smoke (also in Oregon)?


Also, with our government, it's hard to believe that they aren't supressing the people. Cancer can be cured, yet the government steal the patent on the cure, leaving billions to be spent on other ways to radiate people, furthering us from an actual solution to that problem as well. Pharma companies are too wealthy to let something like a cure for cancer come out. That alone causes me to completely distrust the government.

I didn't say that they aren't oppressing the people, I said that they are not intentionally suppressing people. The president doesn't wake up and think "oh boy, what can I do to infringe on more rights today."

It is the old parabole "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

As for the government holding the cure to cancer, link please.


Stop being so myopic. We don't live in a perfect world. Put your government under objective scrutiny for once.

you're making baseless assumptions. Just because I don't agree with you has no logical baring on if I've placed objective scrutiny on the government. Here on DDO, it is difficult to find past posts (because we do not have a "all posts by this user" feature that many other forums have), but I can probably find plenty of places where I've critizied the government for it's actions and pointlessness (one that pops into my head right away is the $200+ million a year spent on profiling people's body language at airports).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JuiceSqueeze
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:37:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ron paul is crazy and has no popular support. the only polls he is able to win are internet polls.

romney is the only realistic choice and is shown to be beat obama if an election were to occur today. paul would lose.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 6:16:12 PM, 16kadams wrote:
I disagree, perry did fail, Cain is rising, and even if Cain fails I am with bachman or Gingrich, Paul isn't our option... yet

Cain had hit record fundraising targets in spite of the scandal. It may have made him even more popular. As a result, Stephen Colbert sexually harassed an intern to try to raise more money for Colbert Superpac.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Spritle
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:45:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course you can't trust the government. Can you actually fully trust anyone?

And if you don't trust the government why do you trust Paul or any other Senator or political person. They ARE the government. And by saying that you don't trust the government you are basically saying you don't trust that person you are voting for or what not.
Spritle
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:47:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I mean I don't trust Bluesteel but I'm participating in the Mafia game he is modding!

By the way, you should join and play!!! All of you!
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:48:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:45:26 PM, Spritle wrote:
Of course you can't trust the government. Can you actually fully trust anyone?

And if you don't trust the government why do you trust Paul or any other Senator or political person. They ARE the government. And by saying that you don't trust the government you are basically saying you don't trust that person you are voting for or what not.

We don't trust the government as an entity. We can trust the people who are in it at our own discretion. Ron Paul has given no reason not to trust him when he says he'll make all attempt to limit the power of government, and all in all, he's our best bet.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:51:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ron Paul has never changed his political stances for political gain, throughout his long career, so I don't see why he'd start now.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 8:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:37:36 PM, JuiceSqueeze wrote:
ron paul is crazy and has no popular support. the only polls he is able to win are internet polls.

romney is the only realistic choice and is shown to be beat obama if an election were to occur today. paul would lose.

What does it even mean that "Romney is the only realistic choice?" Yeah, if you want to see the country continue down the same route it's been going for the last decade then sure. Romney is the biggest flip-flopper in the race. Considering that's comparing him to a bunch of other politicians, that should say something. He blatantly contradicts past promises and epitomizes the "say anything to get elected, do something else once in office" kind of politician. Romney = more of the same. Big government, corruption, perpetual warfare, lies, no real changes to our current unsustainable and destructive welfare/warfare state.

On what basis do you say Paul would lose? Paul is the ONLY candidate who can take away from Obama's base. That should be the #1 priority for those looking solely to get Obama out of the white house. Or else it will really just be Republicans vs. Democrats and then it's a toss-up. But not only could Paul get a large portion of disillusioned Democrats, he would also get the most independents out of any Republican candidate. Of course he'd get many of those who normally vote Libertarian as well. Paul vs Obama would be a landslide election of epic proportions in Paul's favor.
PartamRuhem
Posts: 1,559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 10:03:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 8:45:26 PM, Spritle wrote:
Of course you can't trust the government. Can you actually fully trust anyone?

And if you don't trust the government why do you trust Paul or any other Senator or political person. They ARE the government. And by saying that you don't trust the government you are basically saying you don't trust that person you are voting for or what not.

When that representative (paul) argues against the oppression of rights, and favors limiting that untrustworthy government, it get's my attention. He isn't going to get elected, then turn around and do everything differently. The whole point of that tactic for any other representative is to sound good to the people. Appeal to the majority. Ron Paul has not appealed to the majority with his views. He ran in 2008 as well, and didn't get a popular following. He has been a representative for 25 terms (I think). He doesn't have ideas that everyone get's behind, but more and more people are starting to listen to his stoic, well maintained ideas. The more his word spreads, the more of a chance this country has of actually going in the right direction.

These other candidates...they are all the same, just different faces if you ask me. They are appealing to the masses (attempting to anyway).

You can't just say "If you can't trust the government, you can never trust another senator again!" That's so ignorant. What advise would you give someone under the dictatorship of Mugabe? That nothing will ever get better because they can't trust the government? That there will NEVER be a government that does right by them because there isn't one now? FAIL
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 10:23:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/7/2011 4:42:10 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Gary Johnson anyone?

I honestly have to say, out of all the candidates, with the exception of Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney has got to be the worst candidate. He doesn't stand for anything and he doesn't want to provide any solutions to our problems. He also doesn't have a "small government" reputation. Rick Perry recognizes that social security is a ponzi scheme, balanced the budget in his state, and Texas has a lower unemployment rate then the rest of the US. Newt Gringrinch has a track record of balancing the budget (although to be fair, much of the Bill Clinton surplus was a result of the economic boom of the 90s), favors school vouchers, and previously help enact welfare reform legislation.

What conservative/libertarian values does Mitt Romney bring to the table? Can't think of any. In most of the debates he either talks about how he is a "business owner" or attacks other candidates without standing on any issues himself.

Rick SANTORUM! he is one of the best! I am a libatarian and I like him! I like cain more because he has a chance of winning, and I like gingrich too. I useed to like perry until he failed the debates. perry has good deas but cant win a debate for his life.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2011 11:45:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.intrade.com...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.