Presidential Election: 2012

[ChaosStar79]

Damn that would make for some great TV. I bet cspan would have technical difficulties in Paul's speech even then.

 

[Touring Mars]

Vermin Supreme came fourth in the NH Democratic primary, scoring 1% of the vote, the same share as Rick Perry in the NH Republican primary...

 

[Keef]

Know what I can see happening? Ron Paul wins at the convention, Goldwater style. Romney has a meltdown and runs as an independent.

Oh boy that would suck.

Oh jeez, don't say things like that. Splitting the Republicans down the middle is the worst thing that could possibly happen.

I hope Newt Gingrich makes it to Ohio and he happens to walk into the restaurant I'm eating at. Oh boy would he get a mouthful from me; his only option would be to leave humiliated.

 

[Sam48]

I was just thinking, even if Paul goes on to become president, how will he get anything past congress? (I think this was posed in Sundays debate, but Paul's answer was oddly that of your average politician)

 

[Keef]

I was just thinking, even if Paul goes on to become president, how will he get anything past congress?

He will be able to petition the people to get on Congress's ass and tell them to stop ****ing around. Remember, Congress is the Federal government's link to the people. They're supposed to work in the interest of the people in their districts and the States they represent. They don't as it is - most of them work in the interest of their party and nothing more - but having Paul as President would be a powerful tool to inspire people to make sure the government works as it is supposed to.

Also, if anybody feels like contributing to Keith's Lifetime Premium Fund I would be happy to accept donations. Ten percent of the proceeds go to Ron Paul's campaign to Restore America Now.

 

[Tornado]

I was just thinking, even if Paul goes on to become president, how will he get anything past congress?

Bully pulpit. Congress can't even dream of having the power the President has to influence public opinion.

 

[ChaosStar79]

The military part of his promises could be accomplished largely on his own. The parts about slashing this and that program is the part he will need support for from the congress. Electing him would be a very clear message from the people to Washington DC. It should serve as an immediate wake up call to the party-lines office holders to either wake up and work for the people that elected them, or get ready to get kicked out.

 

[Biggles]

I didn't respond because your original statement wasn't directed at me.

You’re right it wasn’t you – sometimes I get the two of you mixed up!

(why are we talking about this?)

The reason were talking about this is because Keefe made this statement:

From it's conception, the Constitution has been as close to flawless as any document in human history. There was no need for the Civil Rights Act, as the Constitution already had provisions for every individual. The problem was that, at one time, whites thought blacks were animals, not people. Therefore, since the rights only applied to people, blacks were excluded. Do you get that dumb 250 year old logic? That's just the way it was back then. Today, gay people are the black people from 100 years ago. Gay rights is just as big an issue as black rights. But like I've said many times, rights apply to individuals, not groups, so the whole argument about black/gay/minority/religious rights is totally pointless anyway.

Which is typical of the kind of blanket statement he (& you) repeatedly make on these forums. "There was no need for the Civil Rights Act as the Constitution already had provisions for every individual". The reason there WAS a need is because (a) the Constitution was interpreted by some as to not provide certain human rights protection to the individuals/groups (African Americans) in question & (b) whether or not they believed in those Constitutional rights in theory, they opposed them IN PRACTICE. And they didn’t oppose them by writing blogs, or posting in opinion forums. They opposed them by physical intimidation, beating, abducting, torturing, blowing up & killing people. The Civil Rights Act is the result of more than 200 years of brutal oppression in the US which took place in spite of the provisions of the Constitution that should have prevented it.

I believe the reasons slavery continued to exist for so long in the US is because of the political influence of wealthy plantation landowners ("special interests") who felt that without slavery their prosperity would be threatened. Or, as I’ve said before: throughout history power & money trumps human rights repeatedly.

Keef's explanation for the Dred Scott decision:

The problem was that, at one time, whites thought blacks were animals, not people. Therefore, since the rights only applied to people, blacks were excluded. Do you get that dumb 250 year old logic?

poses an serious problem: if the people who created the Constitution DID think that “blacks were animals”, why on earth would it be reasonable to trust them (a bunch of racists) & their “dumb 250 year old logic” with the task of creating a human rights document (!) that would still be relevant 250 years later?

It still isn't.

So, you are apparently in agreement with me that Constitution has never been properly implemented. In that case, the next logical step is to ask: WHY? Why has the US Constitution never been fully implemented? Although people like to blame “politicians”, it’s completely pointless to blame shortcomings on a handful of elected representatives & officials. If the system keeps turning out unsatisfactory results over decades & centuries, at what point do you stop to ask yourself if something in the system itself needs to be fixed?

I don’t have a problem with the US Constitution itself – for the time it was an admirable document & the best expression of basic rights that had been achieved. However, the Constitution, IN PRACTICE, has often proven ineffective in promoting the rights described. You can only disagree with that by ignoring a mass of historical evidence.



With regard to the Republican nomination: I believe Romney will win because:

(a) He's rich.

(b) He's tall & good-looking.

(c) He has the backing of the GOP "establishment".

(d) He has experience in the corporate world & in government.

(e) He's knowledgeable on the issues & not an idiot or a freak like some of the other GOP hopefuls.

His negatives are his Mormonism & the unavoidable fact that he was governor of one of the most liberal states in the US.

Ron Paul has done impressively well so far, but will hit a ceiling because many of his positions alienate "Christian conservatives" & other positions alienate "neocons" (plus he doesn't have Romney's (a), (b) & (c).



The "libertarians" on here might like to take a look at Jon Stewart's show from last night (Jan 10th). Other than a very funny segment on CNN, Stewart has a conversation with "the Judge" - they are great together. I can't provide a link for the US because in Canada the Daily Show is available only on the Canadian Comedy Central website.

Consensus is over rated and has led to some of the worst chapters in history. (Figurative) Lemmings arrive at consensus.

This is one of the saddest statement I've ever read on here. It's an indication of how extreme a Randian groupie you really are. Without some kind of consensus (& compromise) how are you going to get anything done? Your assumption is that you are going to be able to persuade everyone else to adopt your position?

 

[FoolKiller]

So, a former Bush strategist inadvertently calls Ron Paul incorruptible while trying to make him sound stubborn.



"Can't offer him a deal" in politics = Can't be bought.

The "libertarians" on here might like to take a look at Jon Stewart's show from last night (Jan 11th). Other than a very funny segment on CNN, Stewart has a conversation with "the Judge" - they are great together. I can't provide a link for the US because in Canada the Daily Show is available only on the Canadian Comedy Central website.

I think you mean January 10th. At least in the US, Tuesday's show was The Judge. The 11th, Wednesday, was Jim DeMint. But that episode did have a good bit about how quickly pundits will write off Ron Paul's second place finish.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So, a former Bush strategist inadvertently calls Ron Paul incorruptible while trying to make him sound stubborn.

For such a short video, it's a great look at the mentality of the people working in the government.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh jeez, don't say things like that. Splitting the Republicans down the middle is the worst thing that could possibly happen.

I hope Newt Gingrich makes it to Ohio and he happens to walk into the restaurant I'm eating at. Oh boy would he get a mouthful from me; his only option would be to leave humiliated.

Why? The repubs aren't that great to begin with, them not electing a guy like Paul on just the sheer numbers alone that Romney will never get seems deserving enough of those numb skulls to have that happen. If they can't look at a stat sheet and pick the right guy then being split seems fine to me, even if Obama won.

For such a short video, it's a great look at the mentality of the people working in the government.

Sad it takes a video for people to realize that this has been going on for a long time, and most others (average non-political people) that idly watch politics from a distance wouldn't believe it.

 

[Biggles]

I think you mean January 10th.

Yes, I mean the 10th.

them not electing a guy like Paul on just the sheer numbers alone that Romney will never get seems deserving enough of those numb skulls to have that happen.

What does this mean?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yes, I mean the 10th.



What does this mean?

Okay...simple Romney can't get the younger votes, so if Paul were to run as Third candidate there are two places they can go. They can go to Paul or Obama, which would split the Republicans potentially. Or we could also look at the fact that independent voters also would go for Paul instead of Romney, which further splits the vote for republicans. Then you have other groups that would be in favor of Paul over Romney.

Not to count states that would hurt Romney, but that are massive to an election night: Florida, Ohio, New York, New Hampshire (which Romney had much trouble in), Pennsylvania. There are a host of other things as well.

The point is, if a large number of votes went to a third party candidate that was also a Republican candidate and hurt the chance of the nominated GOP winning, the Republicans are going to end up with pudding on their face at the end of the day. The more logical choice (to me) is vote a guy that can get votes from a wide array of groups and not hard core conservatives and corporation CEOs. Conservatives are already going to vote against Obama no matter what just for the sheer hate they have toward him and not for any other reason than that.

 

[livemusic]

Regarding the younger's votes:

 

[YSSMAN]

Oh jeez, don't say things like that. Splitting the Republicans down the middle is the worst thing that could possibly happen.

Well, let's be realistic for a moment. This is Obama's race to lose. Whomever the Republican candidate is, aside from Ron Paul, they have a major hill to climb when it comes to breaking down how their positions and policies are going to help an average, middle-class worker. The actions of the party in Congress over the past year or so haven't helped things either. Ramping up the "values" aspect of things (Romney's "Soul of America" or Santorum's abortion/anti-gay rights/Christian hoobaloo thing) won't help either. Paul would do well to keep things on an anti-war, Constitutionalist stance, but to the average voter, it may all fly over their heads.

If Paul or Romney decided to split, it has one major upside: It demonstrates the feasibility of a third party as a major force in American politics while also showing how unstable the GOP is. It will almost certainly hand the election off to Obama if Paul gets the nomination and Romney runs third-ticket. I think the same can be said if it were put in reverse. While Paul will certainly take away some Obama voters, it won't be enough to offset things for a win. Not even close.

 

[Keef]

I don't think Romney would run on a third-party ticket. I don't think he's that dishonorable. I don't think his God complex is that bad, and I don't think he's that desperate to be President. I believe he would take his step back and support Paul as the GOP nominee in order to get them both in the White House and the Democrats out. If Romney runs third-party, that will color him a blatant traitor to the Republican party by guaranteeing they lose the White House.

If Paul gets the nomination, Iowa Republicans will just have to put up or shut up, or vote Obama. I have a feeling that Romney's endorsement of Paul - out of respect - would convince those Iowa boneheads to make the right choice.

 

[Dotini]

If Paul or Romney decided to split,

Should Paul be knocked out, I don't see him splitting from the GOP at this late juncture. Number one, much of his doctrine has penetrated the thick skulls in politics and media - hey, if the college kids can grok it, why not the old folks??

Number two, he has invested a lifetime raising a fine son who is now a Republican Senator and being mentioned for the GOP nomination of '16.

So would he potentially scupper these long-term achievements for a last grab at the ring for his own gratification? I think he has been playing a longer game all along.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Touring Mars]

One thing is for sure, Ron Paul is stubborn (sorry, "principled") enough to do whatever he thinks will promote his own policies best, and if that means splitting from a GOP that seems so heavily at odds with his own policies, I could see it happening, no matter what the potential cost to Rand Paul's political future. If anything, Paul running as an independent would only strengthen his (and his son's) credentials as idealogues (as opposed to courting popularity), and it might ultimately make US politics alot more interesting in the long run.

 

[Dotini]

One thing is for sure, Ron Paul is stubborn (sorry, "principled") enough to do whatever he thinks will promote his own policies best, and if that means splitting from a GOP that seems so heavily at odds with his own policies, I could see it happening, no matter what the potential cost to Rand Paul's political future. If anything, Paul running as an independent would only strengthen his (and his son's) credentials as idealogues (as opposed to courting popularity), and it might ultimately make US politics alot more interesting in the long run.

What might make this more plausible is an Independent party raised to full legal equality from the present entrenched two-party system. The revolutionary new factor is that the percentage of independent voters now seems to outnumber either Republicans or Democrats.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Keef]

One thing is for sure, Ron Paul is stubborn (sorry, "principled") enough to do whatever he thinks will promote his own Constitutional policies best, and if that means splitting from a GOP that seems so heavily at odds with his own Constitutional policies, I could see it happening, no matter what the potential cost to Rand Paul's political future. If anything, Paul running as an independent would only strengthen his (and his son's) credentials as idealogues (as opposed to courting popularity), and it might ultimately make US politics alot more interesting in the long run.

First of all, these aren't his policies. Secondly, idealogues will never garner broad support in this country because the older generations are typically incapable of rational thought. Thirdly, Rand Paul has a name that Ron Paul's supporters recognize and roots that garner trust, and I doubt Ron would compromise Rand's political future simply out of respect for his son and his supporters.

 

[livemusic]

This is awesome:

 

[Keef]

Wow. Sounds like the Texans have a tough choice on their hands. Elect ALL the Senators!

 

[Joey D]

The more I read the more I think Ron Paul is going to be lesser of all the evils with the GOP. I still think he's a crazy old man with no since of anything beyond the American boarders but on most issues domestically he seems decent enough. If he gets the nomination he needs to pick a running mate who's strong in foreign policy, if he does that he'll cause way less issues abroad and he'll probably end up to be a decent president.

I'd almost like to see a Ron Paul/Jon Huntsman ticket. I think I could vote for that.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'd almost like to see a Ron Paul/Jon Huntsman ticket. I think I could vote for that.

Since someone was clever at some point in time here in Michigan, we can vote in whichever primary we like without having to register. I'll be voting for Ron Paul, just like I did in '08.

Its one of a few things that I like about living here.

 

[Keef]

Hopefully the people of Virginia will be voting for Ron Paul too. The judge threw out Perry's case which means the other candidates officially won't be on the ballot there.

 

[Conza]

No one is better than Obama, but if I was forced to pick someone else, it would be Jon Huntsman

 

[Sam48]

No one is better than Obama,

Sorry, what? First time in the opinions & current events thread eh?

...but if I was forced to pick someone else, it would be Jon Huntsman

All I can say to that is

 

[Biggles]

First of all, these aren't his policies. Secondly, idealogues will never garner broad support in this country because the older generations are typically incapable of rational thought have a little more life experience & are not stupid enough to be taken in by simplistic ideologies.

There I fixed that for you.

 

[hambone8611]

^ well done

 

[Keef]

There I fixed that for you.

Life experience? As in a life of living paycheck to paycheck, their existence seemingly bound to whether or not they make their house payments on time, leaving them worrying day in and day out with no time left to teach themselves anything but what is absolutely necessary? Their life experience pertains to their life and nothing else. If it weren't for my efforts neither of my parents would have ever connected the dots of historic events that happened in their own lifetimes and never would have embraced my ideas about the world at large, but they do now because they realized there was no support for their contradictory and hypocritical positions. Same goes for the 10 other guys I work with, none of them with college experience (not that it really matters), but all of them fans of Harleys and guns and hunting, and all of them the type who win their arguments by bullying their opponent. That only lasted a little while until they realized all their "life experience" didn't count for squat.

Most of America is far too busy working to pay their bills to consider the things that actually matter to society at large. All I can do to help is try and convert these stubborn and misinformed baby boomers one by one.

EDIT: I've got a lot of kind words for whoever voted to have the government subsidize student college loans, making it difficult for private banks and credit unions to compete in the student loan market. Because of government subsidization, private loans are difficult to afford for tightly strapped families like my own, and that's before you consider the interest rates which are much higher than the government's own. Banks and credit unions can't simply print their own money to subsidize these services like the government can.

I sure as hell didn't vote for that, but whoever did should be greeted with a smile, politely corrected, and pursueded to take a free-market stance on the issue.