Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by dazedandconfused, Dec 13, 2011.
POLL BOMBSHELL: Ron Paul Is Close To A Win In Iowa
He needs to win. I don't agree with everything he says, but we need someone like him in office to veto all the bullshit coming from the House and Senate via the DHS and NSA. Ron Paul 2012
Of all the Republican choices, I would vote for Ron Paul. He is the only one speaking truth
I hate how people over-generalize about him:
For him not continuing to prop up Israel equals anti-semitism and he does not support Israel. Ummm no, it just means we should not be shipping money to Israel when they are more than capable of defending them.
Delegalize drugs FEDERALLY means he will pass out doobies to everyone. He personally does not advocate drug use, but why should I or the governament care if you want to smoke pot, snort cocaine or shoot up heroin? I am REALLY sure someone is going "I would smoke this weed, but I am glad the government is there to keep me from making bad decisions."
He is personally pro-life so that means he will advocate pro-life agenda. No, he personally feels that way. However, he feels the federal goverment does not have the authority to tell women what to do. Heaven forbid an politician seperate what they personally believe against what they actually believe is lawful.
Foreign pollicy. What is wrong with bring the troops home? Why are we defending Japan? Why are we defending Germany? He wants have strong security here, but why the hell we should care what Iran does? If Iran tried to get nuclear, There are enough countries over there that will kick Iran's ass. Because being the aggressor has worked SO well.
sorry dazed, but as an outsider with only a passing understanding of US politics I cant work out which parts of your post are sarcasm and which straight comment on the guy.
There is no way I would vote for any of the Rs running for president in 2012, but if I somehow was forced to pick one, it would be Ron Paul. He is, for the most part, saner than the rest of the choices and doesn't pander to the extremes of the party faithful like the rest do.
So here's a tidbit about Paul, it wouldn't make me vote for him or against him but it does make him stand out: he was the only member of the House to vote against giving a Congressional Medal of Honor to Charles Schultz (of "Peanuts" fame).
He does not believe in using taxpayer money on that stuff. If someone else raised the money, he would be all for it.
H R 2061 | U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington PostThe Washington Post
So, let me get this right - he's AGAINST paying for a medal that honors the highest acts of bravery and honor in our armed forces, but he is FOR paying for a flag for any and every federal employee who wants one draped over his/her coffin.
Is that what you're saying?
There is no way he can win on the national level.
That seems to be a common response to every Rep. running. Gosh why even try then?
Because often the losers in a primary or a general election have a big effect on politics. Goldwater, for example.
I think Ross Perot's involvement in the election process years ago was a good thing because it forced the debate to stay focused on certain issues that Perot was vocal on.
I didn't necessarily agree with Perot or Ron Paul, but I do think the system is healthier when these iconoclasts are able to affect the electoral process a bit.
Paulite true believers never use sarcasm when discussing his virtues: that's a true thing. My issue with Libertarianism is that it seriously believes in a kind of dogmatic Utopianism that is unrealizable on a scale larger than a neighborhood, let alone an entire city or county.
I'm not sure you feel the same way about Ralph Nader, but maybe I'm wrong.
What affect Bbucko?
Regarding Perot, Paul (potentially) or Nader?
Perot could easily have carried the day if he'd been more Presidential, but he couldn't/wouldn't. I can easily say the same about Ron Paul; contemporary Presidential politics is at least as much about presenting a billboard-legible version of oneself to our highest position as much as any specific ideas. Therein lies both the vast strength of the office and the most fundamental flaw of our process of deciding who's fit to carry it.
Nader was, IMO, the ultimate spoiler candidate of the 20th century. He ran in open mockery of Clinton and of a Democratic party who found no one fitter than a stiff, aloof, holier-than-thou prig of the worst sort of the "eat your peas" sort.
It doesn't matter a whit whether or not Gore was a better or more effective candidate; I sincerely believe that a Gore win in 2000 would have changed history dramatically forever. But that's revisionism, which is a sport I disapprove of with every fiber of my being. So I shan't speculate.
Many have said that Nader cost Gore the election; I both agree and strongly disagree with that sentiment. 2000 was Gore's election to lose, and he did so spectacularly all by his lonesome; had he only carried his "home" state of TN, he'd have won the Electoral College that that'd have been that. He didn't, obviously, and lost deservedly so.
HOWEVER: Nader's candidacy in the race allowed a spoiler vote of desent, which cost Gore the votes to win. Much the same can be said about Buchanan's candidacy: did you know that he was declared the winner of Palm Beach County in FL, including Boca Raton
When he saw those results, even Pitchfork Pat conceded that winning PBC was a logistical impossibility. There's evidence abounding that certain powers that be simply would not award FL to Gore. That's not revisionism, it's plain old realpolitik, and it's especially ugly.
Nader was never going to win or was Periot and neither in the nutbag Paul or his wacko kid.
The scrutiny given at a national level doesn't match the local level by any means. Of course the districts have been engineered such that re-election doesn't have to be too hard. Then again look at Herman Cain, he seemed quite surprised and unprepared to be leader of the pack and when he got there he had no clue what to do. He was doing very good for awhile until the hard questions began.