SnyderShrugged Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 This is not the only conceivable way to vote. You can view representation as voting for the best person, or voting for the one that mirrors your take on the issues the best. (course there are a million other ways to vote too...)/tangent why wouldnt the one you view as the "best person" not also be the one who mirrors your take on the issues the most too? I dont see those two as mutually exclusive. ---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 08:16 AM ---------- logged in just to post I've officially fallen in love with RP. Never really followed him. Went on his youtube channel today and watched his debate clips. Got me interested so I read his views. I'm not a libertarian. I would say I'm socially liberal (pro choice, pro gay marriage, end the drug war, etc...) and fiscally conservative. I think taxes should be raised when economy is doing well and taxes should be cut when the economy is slumping. That was before I read into RP's explanation of our current federal reserve. The man did see a lot of things coming... he saw through all the political propaganda bull**** of the wars and saw the housing bubble collapse. The man is a genius in the sense that he looked outside the box for answers to our collapse. We as Americans put too must trust and faith in our government. Just like we should always question our faith we should always questions government. Welcome!!!!! There are many here that have had a similar epiphany! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 This is not the only conceivable way to vote. You can view representation as voting for the best person, or voting for the one that mirrors your take on the issues the best. (course there are a million other ways to vote too...)/tangent Either one of those would result in me voting for Ron Paul. He's the best person because he's very obviously shown himself to be willing to take up unpopular stances if he believes that those stances are right. He mirrors my take on the issues because, well, he mirrors my take on the issues. My biggest fear with Ron Paul is that he doesn't understand how enormous the transition from our current economic reality to that which would exist under his presidency would be. I've never heard him express the notion that there would be a painful period of change. Not just a little painful, either. The entire economy has been engineered over the past 30 years to depend on cheaper and cheaper money provided by the Fed. Electing Ron Paul would be similar to appointing Paul Volcker as chairman of the Fed at the end of the 1970's. He did what was necessary, but "what was necessary" meant the most severe recession since the Great Depression (at the time; obviously we're already beyond that now). I know Paul is a politician and he doesn't want to go around advertising the fact that his policies would be anything other than rainbows and unicorns for everyone, but I honestly believe that he'd undermine his own presidency if he plans to stick to avoiding an honest economic conversation with the American people throughout his entire campaign. The truth is that when it comes to the old story about the ant and the grasshopper, we've been electing grasshoppers for decades. It's really quite sad. We have a severe cultural problem. When given the choice between long-term thinking and short-term thinking, we've been choosing short-term thinking every time. It reminds me of a scene from West Wing, when a temporary tax cut is explained as a way to encourage people to run up their credit card bills under one administration, while the responsibility of actually paying off said bills will come with the next administration. Well, Ron Paul would be the proverbial "next administration." And I think he needs to acknowledge that fact. He needs to say that he's the chemotherapy to the economic cancer of the past 30 years, and while chemotherapy sucks, it's better than cancer. Because if he waits until the incredibly unlikely day when he's elected, it will be too late. He'll start establishing policies which will result in economic pain, people will cry, "This sucks!," and it will be over. His policies will be perceived as a failure. That's my prediction, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 why wouldnt the one you view as the "best person" not also be the one who mirrors your take on the issues the most too?I dont see those two as mutually exclusive. ---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 08:16 AM ---------- Welcome!!!!! There are many here that have had a similar epiphany! they aren't mutually inclusive, they aren't mutually exclusive ideally it would be both, of course, but when that's not the case those two choices outline fundamentally different paths you can take when you participate in our democracy. Either one of those would result in me voting for Ron Paul. He's the best person because he's very obviously shown himself to be willing to take up unpopular stances if he believes that those stances are right. He mirrors my take on the issues because, well, he mirrors my take on the issues. Yeah Paul does have integrity, which is the primary reason I'd vote for him. If a libertarian was on the ballot w/ equal sleeze factor as say Trump, Gingrich, Romney, or Cain, would you feel differently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I'm kind of in between you and the others on this one. I think he should have accepted the donations, and then re-donated the funds to a well known, worthy charity (like the Salvation Army or something). This way he isnt taking money from bad folks for use himself, yet they still are out the money and people in need still get help.If he did that many potential donors would question why in the world they should give him a dime when the money wound up going to a completely different cause. If that happened to me, my reaction would be that if I wanted to give to Salvation Army I'd have done so. "Ron Paul knows best what to do with my money" doesn't seem like a libertarian solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 You obviously believe he knows best if you give him your money...the giving is the libertarian part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Yeah Paul does have integrity, which is the primary reason I'd vote for him. If a libertarian was on the ballot w/ equal sleeze factor as say Trump, Gingrich, Romney, or Cain, would you feel differently? I mean, I wouldn't be as committed as I am with Paul, but if you're asking me if I'd vote for a libertarian with some questionable flip-flops versus a Romney or Trump with some questionable flip-flops, ultimately I'd vote for the libertarian and hope he reneged on as few promises as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 27, 2011 Author Share Posted December 27, 2011 If he did that many potential donors would question why in the world they should give him a dime when the money wound up going to a completely different cause. If that happened to me, my reaction would be that if I wanted to give to Salvation Army I'd have done so. "Ron Paul knows best what to do with my money" doesn't seem like a libertarian solution to the problem. I would think that only the questionable donors would feel that way, so the move would still attain its intended ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 "I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion, and stand up and defend the principles of liberty." -Congressman Ron Paul True wisdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rblgenius Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The thing that draws me the most is how much the media ignores him. As much as we hate to admit it, the media does control who votes what. If less attention is given to a candidate, the less of the general public knows about him. I voted Obama in 08 but I'm RP 2012. The man is not afraid to speak his mind even when the message is unpopular. That is a true President right there. You have to have the courage to do what you must even if the people don't want it. He sounds like the Dark Knight. He's the hero we need but don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Skins72 Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 This is EXACTLY where I stand. The one nice thing about Paul winning Iowa is it would dispel the belief that only the religious nuts can win Iowa. At this point I would take Huntsman over Obama as well. As for the rest, it's too close to call. They all have Obama sized warts (or worse.) RP DOES intrique me. He seems to have the biggest upside. He also seems to have the biggest downside. I definitely want more people like him in Congress, I just don't know if I want him as POTUS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The thing that draws me the most is how much the media ignores him. As much as we hate to admit it, the media does control who votes what. If less attention is given to a candidate, the less of the general public knows about him. I voted Obama in 08 but I'm RP 2012. The man is not afraid to speak his mind even when the message is unpopular. That is a true President right there. You have to have the courage to do what you must even if the people don't want it. He sounds like the Dark Knight. He's the hero we need but don't want. Or cant handle. Its so easy to get scared when he talks about getting rid of all the safety nets we think exist for our benefit, on the left and on the right. Meanwhile these same nets have us entangled and drowning. Its can be hard to distinguish. What will we do without this or that part of the government? How will things still work? The way things work currently is the only way people know. Its hard to imagine drastic change. Its hard to make objective objections. How could we know what the future will be? We very few comparisons to draw. Times change. People change. Thats why its best to focus on the means, doing things as best we can. Learning from the mistakes we have all made, me included. Getting as much of this government that we all know is out of control, under control. Lets find an acceptable median. But lets make that median drastically more towards less government by pursuing a philosophy of limited government. Even if the some of those philosophies, extrapolate out to a world which one might believe to be unrealistic or dangerous for us. Those worried about some scary, ron paul, libertarian utopia need not fear, The state will always remain at liberties throat and will try again to work its way back into every part of our lives. Many on both sides have fought wars of words over the policies Ron Paul wishes to repeal or at the best curtail, me among them. Its hard to go back and disavow stuff you said in the past. Thats the trap, you are invested. WIth seemingly nowhere else to go. Not anymore, lets hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 Apparently Gingrich said that it would be a tough choice between Obama and Paul. He also said that people should look at Paul's newsletters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The thing that draws me the most is how much the media ignores him. The media is not ignoring him. He is getting plenty of media attention now that he has taken leads and become a national attention grabber. The thing that the RP people don't seem to like is that a lot of the media attention is about potentially questionable things from his past, even though that is how it is for EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE who rises up quickly in the polls. Perry rises fast in the polls: he gets plenty of tough scrutiny about various things. Cain rises fast in the polls: tons of scrutiny...enough to where he had to quit his campaign. Newt rises in the polls: he gets hammered over all sorts of stuff from his past. Ron Paul rises in the polls: he faces scrutiny about problematic issues from his past. It really is NO different. The only difference is that the RP diehards see it all as some huge media conspiracy because people just can't handle Paul's message or they are "scared" of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rblgenius Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 The media is not ignoring him. He is getting plenty of media attention now that he has taken leads and become a national attention grabber. The thing that the RP people don't seem to like is that a lot of the media attention is about potentially questionable things from his past, even though that is how it is for EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE who rises up quickly in the polls. Perry rises fast in the polls: he gets plenty of tough scrutiny about various things. Cain rises fast in the polls: tons of scrutiny...enough to where he had to quit his campaign. Newt rises in the polls: he gets hammered over all sorts of stuff from his past. Ron Paul rises in the polls: he faces scrutiny about problematic issues from his past. It really is NO different. The only difference is that the RP diehards see it all as some huge media conspiracy because people just can't handle Paul's message or they are "scared" of him. Speaking as a non "diehard", I can tell you that is not the fact lol. I just started really liking this guy yesterday... so I wouldn't call myself a diehard. Check out this video (yes I know it has a bias but the clips are like wtf?!??!) I understand all the reports coming out about Ron Paul's racist past, etc. This is typical for all candidates. I have no problem for it. I think a candidate's past should be questioned. I think its just funny to look at the media's bias towards a candidate. One has to be completely ignorant to think big media is NON-BIASED. I think RP handles it perfectly fine. He never complains nor ****es. He just keeps delivering his message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I certainly don't disagree or question that the GOP establishment in general is not happy with him being in the lead, though I would dispute the notion, so often thrown out around here, that it is because they are "scared" of him. He is just wildly divergent from them in key areas and they don't like it. It is obvious that conservative talking heads and Fox News are going after him. But the theory that all news media is out to get him because they're bringing up questionable stuff from his past is just silly, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rblgenius Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I certainly don't disagree or question that the GOP establishment in general is not happy with him being in the lead, though I would dispute the notion, so often thrown out around here, that it is because they are "scared" of him. He is just wildly divergent from them in key areas and they don't like it. It is obvious that conservative talking heads and Fox News are going after him. But the theory that all news media is out to get him because they're bringing up questionable stuff from his past is just silly, IMO. I completely agree with you. Just out of curiousity, what is your political leaning and candidate choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 27, 2011 Share Posted December 27, 2011 I completely agree with you. Just out of curiousity, what is your political leaning and candidate choice I am socially liberal and fiscally I am "middle of the road", I suppose you could say. I recognize that we have major budget issues that need to be solved and that there will have to be some tightening of the belt, etc. However, at the same time I don't subscribe to some of the more radical and (IMO) reactionary solutions that are out there. That is one area where I definitely diverge from Ron Paul. As far as social issues, I agree with him on pretty much all of that. Economic, not so much. National security, I am 50/50 with him; he has some good overarching ideas as far as being anti-war in general (or at least anti-starting-wars-we-didn't-need-to-start) but some of his ideas there, again, go too far as well. If I had to choose from the R candidates (I'm not a Republican) I would say Huntsman because he seems to be the most level headed and is quite intelligent. As far as the overall vote, I will most likely be going with Obama unless something happens to change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Did you guys know that Ron Paul accepts campaign funds from openly racist and separtists groups and refuses to return them?. Oh NO- Obviously can't vote for him then!!! However Obama was a member of and gave money to an openly racist church? Which is worse - what are we to do as voters IYO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 Oh NO- Obviously can't vote for him then!!! However Obama was a member of and gave money to an openly racist church? Which is worse - what are we to do as voters IYO? bloody uprising, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 bloody uprising, of course. Sounds like the reasonable man solution to me. All kidding aside just another reason we are ****ed with the political gridlock. Don't fix anything - attack the message w/out a better alternative - attack the messenger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 http://twitter.com/#!/ReutersPolitics Gary Johnson officially quits the GOP race to run for president as a Libertarian http://reut.rs/sns6eR http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-campaign-johnson-idUSTRE7BR0VL20111228?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/PoliticsNews+(News+/+US+/+Politics+News Will this have any effect on Paul's numbers? Positive? Negative? None? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I had forgot about Sacha Baron Cohen pranking him in Bruno Born This WayWhy Ron Paul’s anti-gay newsletters don’t bother liberal gays http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/12/ron_paul_s_anti_gay_newsletters_why_they_don_t_bother_liberal_gays.html Paul met with Cohen when he was disguised as the very gay, very Austrian fashion reporter Brüno, shooting his 2009 movie.* It didn’t go so well.The congressman got to the meeting place—a dark hotel room that could have been decorated by Sasha Grey—and started to answer a question about who designed his suit. The lights blew out. Brüno invited Paul to a bedroom, where the congressman tried to distract himself as his host offered strawberries and grinded his hips to dance music. Then Brüno dropped his pants. Paul, already pacing, barreled past him and yelled “Get out of here!” A camera captured Paul ranting as he fled the hotel. “That guy is queerer than the blazes,” he said. “He took his clothes off. He’s queer, he’s crazy, he put a hit on me, he took his clothes off.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 http://twitter.com/#!/ReutersPoliticshttp://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/28/us-campaign-johnson-idUSTRE7BR0VL20111228?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Reuters/PoliticsNews+(News+/+US+/+Politics+News Will this have any effect on Paul's numbers? Positive? Negative? None? I wouldn't think it would affect his numbers in the Republican Primary. (Might actually be a positive, with Johnson not being available as "the other Libertarian".) In the general? It won't affect Paul a bit, because Paul isn't going to be in the general. Net effect, IMO? It means that the libertarians will vote for Paul in the GOP primary, and then some of them will vote for Johnson in the general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I had forgot about Sacha Baron Cohen pranking him in Bruno [/Quote] F7RnlPQCKBQ And Newt with Ali G. 6w9XI79TK_k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted December 28, 2011 Share Posted December 28, 2011 I had forgot about Sacha Baron Cohen pranking him in Bruno http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/12/ron_paul_s_anti_gay_newsletters_why_they_don_t_bother_liberal_gays.html When Curtis Sliwa asked about the incident on his radio show, Paul worried that he’d gone a little soft, imagining what one of his supporters would have wanted him to do. “Why in the world,” he asked, “didn’t I sock this guy in the nose?” The mental image of Ron Paul punching someone is absolutely hilarious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.