Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,426
- 7,485
- 136
That idea always felt very hand-wavy to me. I see absolutely no reason to suspect that states would do a better job dealing with the issues facing this country than the federal government would.
dank69, I would like to believe my bias is in the Golden Rule, but yeah obviously I have a bias. I'm a person I have to have a bias. That doesn't mean I'm not open to change it if a good argument is presented.
Rainsford, I think if we focused more on what we needed locally we could build a stronger national identity and present a better image to the rest of the world on cohabitation. Differences bring us together kind of deal. If we embrace the fact that we're different and we respect the fact we're allowed to be different, how can we falter?
Rainsford, I think if we focused more on what we needed locally we could build a stronger national identity and present a better image to the rest of the world on cohabitation. Differences bring us together kind of deal. If we embrace the fact that we're different and we respect the fact we're allowed to be different, how can we falter?
Ron Paul isn't a good choice for President because he's not at all Presidential. Being President MUST be about more than having the "right" set of political ideas, and as a result, I don't think I'd vote for Ron Paul even if I agreed with him on every single political point. I can't picture him working with politicians of different political views to come up with a democratic solution to problems. I can't see him basing decisions on expert opinions from the various non-elected folks that make up the executive branch. I can't see him exercising anything at all that looks like leadership.
I see Ron Paul as an interesting guy who relentlessly puts forward different political ideas, like a poly-sci professor who got all the way to Washington. And that's cool, and I think he plays a role in our political debate. But President? I don't think so.
I see Ron Paul as an interesting guy who relentlessly puts forward different political ideas, like a poly-sci professor who got all the way to Washington. And that's cool, and I think he plays a role in our political debate. But President? I don't think so.
Sure, I'll agree that there are significant differences between people around the entire country...and our system should respect and allow for that. But I'm not sure federal vs state is the important distinction there. For example, I'd argue that Denver is a lot more like Dallas than it is like Red Feather Lakes (tiny town in the mountains). I think our differences of urban or rural, rich or poor, blue collar or white collar, hell, maybe even liberal or conservative. I think most states have significant variation among them, and I'm not sure state governments will handle that any better than the feds.
Ron Paul would be faced with the exact same problems as any president. Just because he promises to cut 1 trillion in spending doesn't mean that it will happen. As soon as he proposes a cut in spending he will be hit by counterfactuals on why it is a bad idea and he will retreat or alienate a large portion of the population.
At the same time he would waste a lot of time on esoteric obsessions like the federal reserve and the gold standard and he might do a lot of real (debt ceiling level) damage on those fronts. He hasn't really thought through how he might reform them other than calling for abolishing them-- which is pretty irresponsible.
And he doesn't have any friends. He hasn't built any relationships with other lawmakers. So he will not have their expertise (which are valid in many ways, despite what you think about politics) and make many stupid mistakes.
I'm an Obama voter and so forth, but I would prefer Santorum over Ron Paul as president.
At the same time he would waste a lot of time on esoteric obsessions like the federal reserve and the gold standard and he might do a lot of real (debt ceiling level) damage on those fronts. He hasn't really thought through how he might reform them other than calling for abolishing them-- which is pretty irresponsible.
And he doesn't have any friends. He hasn't built any relationships with other lawmakers. So he will not have their expertise (which are valid in many ways, despite what you think about politics) and make many stupid mistakes.
I'm an Obama voter and so forth, but I would prefer Santorum over Ron Paul as president.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Buuzzzzzznt 30 volts to the wrongo buzzer. Federal law will always trump state's rights. Paul would be a bump on a log and completely ineffective. Voting for Paul is wasting a vote and always will be.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
The reason he would be bad is because he wants to do things by making major changes and that is something that cannot be done. While it would be nice to make major changes in government you can't do it with a system this complex. Everything he would try to do would be like with obamacare only x10, instead of any change there would be no change. He has some interesting ideas but isn't approaching them from a practical view.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 35,296
- 28,497
- 136
This country was partially founded on slavery. Was it a good thing that we changed that part at the federal level?
Lets say for the sake of argument that RP actually was elected POTUS. What could he do in relation to say, the Austrian Econ angle, that would be within his powers as POTUS? Other major angles?
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
He religiously believes in free market economics. The problem is that true free market economics will (and already are) transform(ing) us into a third world country where a small percentage of the populace will be very rich and the rest will be poor.
For example, one of the policies of free market economics is unrestricted free trade and immigration. The problem is that this would result in Global Labor Arbitrage--foreign outsourcing, H-1B and L-1 visas, mass immigration. The result would be (and has been) a merger and averaging out of the American standard of living with that of the third world, which means that the average American's standard of living would transform into that of the third world.
Another problem is in the area of health care. Right now thanks to the free market religion we have the world's most expensive and inefficient health care system. In contrast, other nations that have real socialized medicine spend a much smaller percentage of their GDP on health care but have 100% coverage (and businesses unburdened by health care concerns). But the free market nuts continue to rag on Obama instead of looking at the facts. (We're a nation chock full of Joe the Retarded Plumbers.)
The one good thing Ron Paul might do is in the area of civil liberties. Perhaps he would legalize drugs, especially marijuana. That alone might be a sufficient reason to support him. If he could accomplish that it would be monumental regardless of how much damage he does to the economy.
One other problem with Paul is that he might support or at least be sympathetic to other Republicans' attempts and desires to implement Christian Sharia, transforming the United States into Jesusistan.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 35,296
- 28,497
- 136
Make no mistake, RP isn't concerned with legalizing pot so much as he just wants the federal government out of the issue. If all 50 states wanted to keep it illegal, he would be fine with that.
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
People hate Ron Paul for the same reason a heroin junkie hates the person who tries to get him to go to rehab. It is no more complicated than that.
You have to understand that this country is controlled by debt pushers. They make their living off of the selling of debt. The owner class, the rentiers, whatever you want to call them. Their whole system fails when the masses stop allowing the pushers to capitalize their risks while socializing their losses. They will use all of their weapons on the masses to maintain their power. Since they own most of the media they control the way people think, and they are responsible for the kneejerk reaction to Ron Paul. They are responsible for the warmonger mentality, they are responsible for each and every 98-0 "for the troopz" spending bill that goes through the senate. Its all a bunch of bull and very easy to see through. But because people cannot or will not see it for what it is, it continues. Study cognitive dissonance. It is rampant throughout society.
You have to understand that this country is controlled by debt pushers. They make their living off of the selling of debt. The owner class, the rentiers, whatever you want to call them. Their whole system fails when the masses stop allowing the pushers to capitalize their risks while socializing their losses. They will use all of their weapons on the masses to maintain their power. Since they own most of the media they control the way people think, and they are responsible for the kneejerk reaction to Ron Paul. They are responsible for the warmonger mentality, they are responsible for each and every 98-0 "for the troopz" spending bill that goes through the senate. Its all a bunch of bull and very easy to see through. But because people cannot or will not see it for what it is, it continues. Study cognitive dissonance. It is rampant throughout society.
sm625
Diamond Member
- May 6, 2011
- 8,172
- 137
- 106
That is just flat out false. In the past 40 years, the United States government has spent more taxpayer money on health care than any 5 other nations combined. That has absolutely nothing to do with "free market religion". This is exactly why this nonsense continues unabated, because people have no idea what they are talking about. You are following the script ("free market religion") without even learning the actual words and terms on that script.
Study your history. The US was not always like this. We once did have a free market health system, and it once was the envy of the world (just like it is now for the very rich). We had a rich charity based system that worked far more efficiently.
The reason some socialized healthcare systems work is because the voting public in those countries is not so stupid as to allow in so much corruption and bad philosophy (ie "socialism good, free markets bad"). They kept tight reins on their spending and didnt fall for obvious scams. They didnt let companies like Monsanto come in and buy up their frickin government.
Last edited:
i really like some things paul says but honestly, i dont trust him. i think his sense of reality is skewed a little. like about bringing the dollar back to gold standard... gimme a break
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,593
- 474
- 126
Here's one thing to consider. He would have told any automaker who needed help that they should go to the banks to get a loan instead of going to the government...
As a result we would have a much smaller auto manufacturing base in the U.S. and would have to be dealing with the consequences of that...
As a result we would have a much smaller auto manufacturing base in the U.S. and would have to be dealing with the consequences of that...
Which is perfectly fine with me. If other States don't want cannabis cultivation and sale leaglized, then the States that do will prosper off of it and they will lose out. No reason to force either or.
WhipperSnapper
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2004
- 11,442
- 32
- 91
If we had real free market health care, would the inefficiency of having insurance companies and everything associated with the insurance industry disappear? What about consumers' extra expense of having to hire lawyers to parse over everything in their health care contracts? (You know, you wouldn't want to miss that line in 8 point font buried on page 325 of 700 about how your insurance can be cancelled at any time for any reason if the insurance company's commission-paid death panel feels like it.)
The reason why health care doesn't work very well as a free market service is because understanding health care needs is very complex, it's difficult to shop around for this advanced product when you need it ("Hey ambulance driver, take me to the best value hospital for a heart attack."), and people can't do without it. ("Purchase it or die," isn't much of a choice.)
Last edited:
WhipperSnapper, we'll never know because we no one alive has lived during free market health care lols and if they have they don't remember what the fuck it was like. Fact is health care spending and costs started to rise exponentially the more the Federal Government tried to get in on it. The more regulation they passed, the more it cost us. I personally do not care if people are unlicensed MDs or Dentists or whatever. I figure word of mouth and my own due diligence will be enough to sort through the junky doctors/dentists and find a good accredited one. Then again I never asked for my mom to always wipe my ass and feed me so I'm not used to being babied.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
With the understanding that every candidate (yes, including the Messiah) is bad for the country in some way . . .
A policy of letting into the country anyone who wants in would result in a collapse of the country due to exponentially expanding demand on social services. A policy of letting into the country anyone who wants in and ending social services might or might not result in a collapse of the country, but would certainly turn it into a third world-level country full of desperately poor people.
A self-regulating free market would be an economic wonder, but would have incredible booms and busts. Most of us are not willing to trade the certainty of more recessions (if not depressions) for the promise of greater societal wealth. Also, a self-regulating free market coupled with ending government handouts would inevitably lead to segregation of society into the very wealthy and the very poor. This would either lead to a Marxist revolution or to a change in enfranchisement to dis-empower the poor - which would lead either to a Marxist revolution or to us being a third world-level country. None of that is an acceptable trade-off for increased societal wealth.
I don't think you CAN set aside the racist newsletters. I don't think Paul is in any way a racist, but whether motivated by profit or personal relationships he tolerated these newsletters and even attempted to defend them. That's a serious lack of good judgement, and judgment that might be overlooked in a Congressman can be catastrophic in a President. It's not really comparable to Obama and Wright, because of degree of racism, degree of connections (tacit acceptance by church membership is much weaker than something published in one's name), and potential effect - racism of the majority against a minority can potentially carry much more power than can racism of a minority against the majority.
I like some things Paul says/stands for, and I'd like to see the federal government cut back. I think in general, government governs best that is closest to those governed. But I'm much closer to Romney than to Paul in my idea of how (and how much) the federal government should be cut.
A policy of letting into the country anyone who wants in would result in a collapse of the country due to exponentially expanding demand on social services. A policy of letting into the country anyone who wants in and ending social services might or might not result in a collapse of the country, but would certainly turn it into a third world-level country full of desperately poor people.
A self-regulating free market would be an economic wonder, but would have incredible booms and busts. Most of us are not willing to trade the certainty of more recessions (if not depressions) for the promise of greater societal wealth. Also, a self-regulating free market coupled with ending government handouts would inevitably lead to segregation of society into the very wealthy and the very poor. This would either lead to a Marxist revolution or to a change in enfranchisement to dis-empower the poor - which would lead either to a Marxist revolution or to us being a third world-level country. None of that is an acceptable trade-off for increased societal wealth.
I don't think you CAN set aside the racist newsletters. I don't think Paul is in any way a racist, but whether motivated by profit or personal relationships he tolerated these newsletters and even attempted to defend them. That's a serious lack of good judgement, and judgment that might be overlooked in a Congressman can be catastrophic in a President. It's not really comparable to Obama and Wright, because of degree of racism, degree of connections (tacit acceptance by church membership is much weaker than something published in one's name), and potential effect - racism of the majority against a minority can potentially carry much more power than can racism of a minority against the majority.
I like some things Paul says/stands for, and I'd like to see the federal government cut back. I think in general, government governs best that is closest to those governed. But I'm much closer to Romney than to Paul in my idea of how (and how much) the federal government should be cut.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
This has been discussed ad-nauseum, but here are the reasons Paul isn't electable and would be an awful, awful POTUS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p - People close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/ - Ron Paul says South was right about Civil War in front of big Confederate flag, video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B85TJJyKyKw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/ - implicated with many KKK, white supremacist, Stormfront, etc.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/ - Paul does not support 14th Amendment in full
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539: - HOR bill sponsored by Paul (and others) trying to get anti-14th Amendment into law.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - Paul denies incorporation doctrine of 14th amendment
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d - 1996 interview where he takes ownership of his words, but flips in 2008.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/ - CNN interview where he gets grilled about newsletters, equivocates on whether he would look for these 6-8 people.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/ - Paul gets testy about newsletters
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-1995-video-ron-paul-takes-credit-for-the-ron-p-4vfo - takes ownership of newsletters in 1995 video.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-paul-movie-john-birch-society - New World Order stuff, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/23/ron_paul_on_the_trilateral_commission.html - Ron Paul on the Trilateral Commission secretly running country, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PartyPe/start/1481/stop/1621)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p - People close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/ - Ron Paul says South was right about Civil War in front of big Confederate flag, video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B85TJJyKyKw, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz3PZSLjhmA
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gan...-attempted-white-supremacist-island-invasion/ - implicated with many KKK, white supremacist, Stormfront, etc.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/ - Paul does not support 14th Amendment in full
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539: - HOR bill sponsored by Paul (and others) trying to get anti-14th Amendment into law.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - Paul denies incorporation doctrine of 14th amendment
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d - 1996 interview where he takes ownership of his words, but flips in 2008.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/ - CNN interview where he gets grilled about newsletters, equivocates on whether he would look for these 6-8 people.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/ - Paul gets testy about newsletters
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-1995-video-ron-paul-takes-credit-for-the-ron-p-4vfo - takes ownership of newsletters in 1995 video.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-paul-movie-john-birch-society - New World Order stuff, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/23/ron_paul_on_the_trilateral_commission.html - Ron Paul on the Trilateral Commission secretly running country, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PartyPe/start/1481/stop/1621)
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,787
- 6,035
- 136
Really a RP presidency can be boiled down to one thing. How many bills has he authored and gotten passed in his long tenure in Congress. One. How can he guide/lead the country when no none supports his ideas?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter