Page 6 of 8 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Of the following, who would you support for the nomination?
Newt Gingrich 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Sarah Palin 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Herman Cain 15%  15%  [ 4 ]
Mitt Romney 19%  19%  [ 5 ]
Tim Pawlenty 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Michelle Bachman 7%  7%  [ 2 ]
Rick Santorum 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Ron Paul 44%  44%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 27

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

13 Jun 2011, 8:00 pm

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. :roll:

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. :roll:



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

13 Jun 2011, 8:20 pm

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.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

13 Jun 2011, 8:24 pm

Dantac wrote:
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.



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

13 Jun 2011, 8:28 pm

Orwell wrote:
Ron Paul
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



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

13 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm

pandabear wrote:
Dantac wrote:
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.


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?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jun 2011, 10:02 pm

How about another choice: none of the above.

ruveyn



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

13 Jun 2011, 10:34 pm

Burzum wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Ron Paul
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


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

14 Jun 2011, 1:20 am

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



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

14 Jun 2011, 8:43 am

Orwell wrote:
Paul has extreme stances- for one, he wants to completely dismantle the social safety net, including Social Security and Medicare.


Isn't that what all Republicans want, in their heart-of-hearts?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive ... gop-debate

Quote:
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has run for president before, did little to shake his image as a fringe candidate by talking too fast and dropping obscure subjects like "Keynesian bubble'' and "monetary policy'' into the conversation.


:roll: Our news reporters can't process words like "Keynesian bubble" and "monetary policy" :roll:

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. :roll:



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Jun 2011, 4:57 pm

Burzum wrote:
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

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


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

14 Jun 2011, 6:11 pm

Pandabear wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110613/pl_yblog_exclusive/romney-bachmann-dominate-gracious-gop-debate

Quote:
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who has run for president before, did little to shake his image as a fringe candidate by talking too fast and dropping obscure subjects like "Keynesian bubble'' and "monetary policy'' into the conversation.


:roll: Our news reporters can't process words like "Keynesian bubble" and "monetary policy" :roll:

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. :roll:


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.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

14 Jun 2011, 8:05 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
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.

Orwell wrote:
Panda: Paul is much more brazen, and more extreme, in his desire to destroy the safety net.


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.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

15 Jun 2011, 2:57 am

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 8:49 am

Thanks for that. Now, we have the opportunity to pick apart specific points and promises on the part of the various candidates.

Quote:
PAUL: Pretty important because everything we've done in the last 20 or 30 years we've exported our jobs. And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money.

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.

Quote:
First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed.

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.

Quote:
If you want to, we need to get the Fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and take the taxes office, set up a financial system, deregulate and de-tax to invite people to go back to work again.

This makes no sense at all.

Quote:
But as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade.

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.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

15 Jun 2011, 9:46 am

Quote:
BACHMANN: Thank you, John. Sylvia, thank you for that great question. I was the very first member of Congress to introduce the full-scale repeal of Obamacare. And I want to make a promise to everyone watching tonight: As president of the United States, I will not rest until I repeal Obamacare. It's a promise. Take it to the bank, cash the check. I'll make sure that that happens.

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.

:roll: Why doesn't this wench just dye her hair blonde? :roll:

Here is the CBO explanation for the reduction in jobs:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/cbo-o ... 0000-jobs/

Quote:
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed Thursday during a House Budget Committee hearing that President Barack Obama’s health care law will reduce the workforce by 800,000 by 2021 because some individuals will no longer have to work just so they can afford health insurance,

...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. :roll:

AARP is generally in favour of President Obama's health care reform laws. :wtg:



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Jun 2011, 10:01 am

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.