Republican Primaries
I caught a little bit of the first debate.
Although I don't necessarily agree with him, Ron Paul is the only intelligent, coherent one of the lot.
Mitt Romney--they ask him one question, and he talks on and on about another topic completely unrelated. He might just as well join our ass-burger forum.
They're a bunch of intellectual midgets.
Ron Paul is the only one who would give us a decent choice against President Obama, with a coherent debate.
The rest of them might as well just give up now.
Ron Paul. I became a US citizen last election to be able to vote for him.
Sadly though Orwell is right. The GOP and the power elite will not support him and will actively sabotage his campaign like they did last time around.
Popular vote oth... I think that he has a good chance at it if he is not sabotaged while trying to get his campaign message out. Everything he has been saying AND DOING all his career has been consistent, constitutionally sound and honorable.
Although I will not be supporting Mr. Paul, I concede the above points.
No-one harps more on "constitutional soundness" than Mr. Paul himself.
Is he an atheist?
EDIT: Ah, he is an Episcopalian, which probably isn't too far removed from atheism.
Not gonna happen. The GOP establishment won't support him, and neither will the general public.
Take a look at the comments section on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ
Although I will not be supporting Mr. Paul, I concede the above points.
No-one harps more on "constitutional soundness" than Mr. Paul himself.
Is he an atheist?
EDIT: Ah, he is an Episcopalian, which probably isn't too far removed from atheism.
Would it not be interesting to see someone like him be president for a change? All other candidates are the same turd wrapped in a different suit.
and why does his religious affiliation matter?
Not gonna happen. The GOP establishment won't support him, and neither will the general public.
Take a look at the comments section on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ
Youtube commenters are not the general public. Paul has extreme stances- for one, he wants to completely dismantle the social safety net, including Social Security and Medicare. Those two stances alone make him unacceptable to 80+% of Americans who want those programs preserved. Of the remaining tiny minority of social Darwinists who might accept destroying social welfare programs, a large portion are foreign policy hawks who will not accept his push toward demilitarization. Already we are probably at less than 5% of the broader US population that would be willing to support Paul, and that's without getting into his economic positions, which are also fringe. He has no chance in hell.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I know YouTube does not represent the general population on the whole, but it is still an interesting source of information, and the consensus on the internet at the moment is that most people support Ron Paul.
Here's another video full of Ron Paul comments, this time Mitt Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcxwfkAdDY
Isn't that what all Republicans want, in their heart-of-hearts?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive ... gop-debate
Our news reporters can't process words like "Keynesian bubble" and "monetary policy"
Dumb questions, like "do you like Conan O"Brian or Dancing with the stars?' our reporters can handle. But, when a candidate brings up the subject of monetary policy, it is too "obscure" for them.
Here's another video full of Ron Paul comments, this time Mitt Romney: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcxwfkAdDY
All any of that demonstrates is that Paul supporters spam comment threads everywhere they find them.
Panda: Paul is much more brazen, and more extreme, in his desire to destroy the safety net.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Our news reporters can't process words like "Keynesian bubble" and "monetary policy"
Dumb questions, like "do you like Conan O"Brian or Dancing with the stars?' our reporters can handle. But, when a candidate brings up the subject of monetary policy, it is too "obscure" for them.
I probably should read over the debate, but WTF is a "Keynesian bubble"? Is it an economic bubble described by Keyne's framework or a New Keynesian framework or is it the "bubble" policy analysts versed in (New) Keynesian economics are in? If it's the later, that hardly inspires confidence in Ron Paul's "wonk" credentials - all it proves is that he's a typical vulgar Austrian who'll blame everything on "Keynesianism" without even really understanding what it is.
Well, the news reporters really should be calling him out on this. But, they won't.
Well, is that better than George Bush last time, who immediately upon being re-elected, went about trying to destroy Social Security? He never mentioned a word of this during the campaign, and would certainly have lost the election had he made his intentions clear.
Well, I suppose that it could be argued that President Bush at least gave up on his cockamamie scheme, whereas a President Paul really wouldn't give up, which makes President Bush less evil.
Still, I would prefer candidates to be clear, rather than just blaming President Obama for everything and then equivocating about what they would do differently.
Thanks for that. Now, we have the opportunity to pick apart specific points and promises on the part of the various candidates.
You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it's a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back.
It is true that ours is the world's reserve currency, and that our politicians have taken full advantage of that situation. However, he has it backwards. A weak currency would invite capital and create jobs. A strong currency encourages imports.
Of course, other countries are using our currency, especially for international trade. Various countries may tax the transactions as they wish. Using the dollars for transactions within the USA may also result in taxes.
This makes no sense at all.
Deliberately weakening our currency would discourage jobs from going overseas. In fact, the Chinese have been accused of deliberately weakening their currency, in order to attract capital and build jobs.
Okay, Ron Paul is nuts.
This is the symbol and the signature issue of President Obama during his entire tenure. And this is a job-killer, Sylvia. The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs. What could the president be thinking by passing a bill like this, knowing full well it will kill 800,000 jobs?
Senior citizens get this more than any other segment of our population, because they know in Obamacare, the president of the United States took away $500 billion, a half-trillion dollars out of Medicare, shifted it to Obamacare to pay for younger people, and it's senior citizens who have the most to lose in Obamacare.
Why doesn't this wench just dye her hair blonde?
Here is the CBO explanation for the reduction in jobs:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/cbo-o ... 0000-jobs/
...which is actually a good thing.
And, suddenly, the Republicans are crying for Senior Citizens, when they really want to eliminate social security and medicare in the first place.
AARP is generally in favour of President Obama's health care reform laws.
Right. And it's not literal jobs, it's an abstracted estimate of a reduction in man hours. One element of that is the very sick reducing their workload to seek treatment. Another is people not having to work x hours to get health insurance access.
She's a politician saying stupid things for the sheep.