Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 157,151 views
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
3spddrft
Considering Ron Paul would be president and that position is part of the Executive Branch and you want green energy legislated, I don't know if you would have that under Ron Paul because the Legislative Branch creates legislation.
But if he had the power to act as a dictator or force Congress to act he would not do what you want because he believes in a free market and will not take money from successful industries now in the hope of creating successful new industries in the future. Considering how that has turned out for the Obama Administration it is likely a good lesson for others to learn. We can't keep spending taxpayer dollars on failing companies.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Danoff
The sitting president does. Paul Krugman has made a career on talking about. Don't be surprised when average joe believes it.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Um, how does government encourage green jobs? If it gives money, which includes tax incentives, it has to come from somewhere else. 1)From taxing people and businesses, thus taking it from the current economy. 2) From debt spending, thus taking it from the current( devaluing currency) and future economy (still has to be paid back).3spddrft
If it is through regulatory pressures on current industries, such as how the EPA has been recently doing to coal, it slows current economic growth by literally slowing production until the new standards are met, by costing money to do what is necessary to meet the new standards, and/or possibly even causing businesses that find it too expensive to meet the new standard to shut down, taking their production and jobs with them.
Simply put, government does not get the ability to do anything out of nowhere. Every penny and every power it has comes at the cost of the citizens. I work for my state government and I sat in a meeting where budget issues were discussed. We had two choices: reassign funds so that our primary duties were met then reallocate the rest based on priority and available local funding, or raise taxes to bring in more money. We are currently reallocating funds, but taxes aren't off the table. Every option mentioned came at the cost of someone else. That is how it works. There is no way around it. If your professors can explain a way around it the state of Kentucky would love to hear it.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,300
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Four more years?
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Technically he hasn't - yet. The magic number is 1,144 hard/bound delegates - that is, delegates that will go to the GOP convention in August who must vote for Romney. He doesn't have that number yet, since the majority of bound delegates for Texas (as well as some other states) are not yet decided. According to this site (which has been the most accurate source for delegate counts throughout the campaign so far), Romney has reached the magic 1,144 number on soft delegates only (that is both bound and projected delegates), but he still falls a bit short on bound delegates - for the time being anyway.
However, Ron Paul supporters have a sneaky strategy, and are quietly filling quite alot of Romney's bound delegate slots with their own supporters... that means that a significant number of Romney's 'in-the-bag' delegates are not actually Romney supporters, and hence could pose a problem at the GOP convention (although they probably won't - see below). Since they are bound to Romney, they cannot vote for Ron Paul - but, as far as I understand it anyway, they might be able to abstain. While this won't help Ron Paul's vote tally, it just might be enough to prevent Romney from scoring 1,144 in the GOP convention i.e. There could be 1,400 delegates bound to Romney, but if only 1,100 of them actually vote, then Romney will not win on the first ballot. If it goes to further rounds, all delegates become unbound and then they can vote for whomever they want... hence, this is Ron Paul's only hope of snatching an unlikely victory.
However, my understanding is that this is not only unlikely (i.e. Romney is likely to have more than enough real supporters to win outright on the first ballot anyway), but it would also involve individual Ron Paul supporters breaking GOP state rules, and hence leave them open to the possibility of fines or other punishments. Ron Paul supporters cite 'Rule 38' in the hope that it means that there is actually no such thing as a bound delegate, but that is apparently not correct.
edit: You will notice that the mainstream media are declaring a final Romney victory today, but that is because they are not making (and never have made) a distinction between soft and hard delegates, hence they are assuming that the soft delegate counts (which are bound plus projected delegates) are completely accurate... they aren't though. In actual fact, even the hard/bound delegate counts may change for a number of reasons. That said, Romney still has a few hundred guaranteed hard/bound delegates to come - 262 from the remaining 'winner-takes-all' states, and another 100 from superdelegates, so Romney will comfortably take atleast 1400 bound delegates to the convention.
Last edited:
livemusic
Premium
- 10,239
- Blumenau, SC
- livemusic81
Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/, then select Issues > Fiscal Responsibility. 
Edit: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6776063/november-is-coming
Edit: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6776063/november-is-coming
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Keef
Premium
- 25,166
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
This survey is more well done than almost any candidate-matching quiz I've ever seen. It offers you other choices that help clarify issues so they're not yes or no answers. I sided with Gary Johnson (who's that?) 92%, and Ron Paul 91%. Johnson isn't a factor anymore so it's effectively Ron Paul.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,058
- Mile High City
Turns out I'm a libertarian. 88% Gary Johnson, 86% Ron Paul, 75% Mitt Romney, 46% Barack Obama.
Some of the answers it didn't think agreed well with Gary Johnson were actually ok. His position was closer than they realized, so his score should probably increase. With Ron Paul there were some odd disagreements. He said yes to subsidies for farmers? That makes zero sense. Otherwise the ron paul percentage was about right.
Some of the answers it didn't think agreed well with Gary Johnson were actually ok. His position was closer than they realized, so his score should probably increase. With Ron Paul there were some odd disagreements. He said yes to subsidies for farmers? That makes zero sense. Otherwise the ron paul percentage was about right.
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Apparently...
...I side with Barack Obama on issues of the Economy, Science, and the Environment.
...I side with Mitt Romney on issues of Foreign Policy and Immigration.
...I side with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy.
Go figure
...I side with Barack Obama on issues of the Economy, Science, and the Environment.
...I side with Mitt Romney on issues of Foreign Policy and Immigration.
...I side with Ron Paul on issues of Domestic policy.
Go figure
- 29,378
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
If you mean 'Rule 38', then you should read this and watch this video, because it seems pretty clear that the 'Unit Rule' does not mean that there is no such thing as bound delegates - bound delegates who fail to vote for the candidate they are bound to could face fines and other penalties, and could simply be stripped of their delegate status and replaced.
Last edited:
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Sam48For some reason I always thought you were an Obama supporter. Then again, it doesn't really matter which one of them you support given that they're actually quite similar.
They are. But I think less then Obama and McCain. He was literally Obama lite.
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
Very much so. We didn't even have a choice in 2008. Regarding that, I really hate how the media/Republican establishment is the one picking our candidate for us. They always settle for the most average/safe candidate so they don't have to cover their butts when the flamboyant one they could have supported does something that seems out of line (You know, crazy things like obeying the constitution and what not) 
- 10,116
- Maryland, USA
- swift-bass
Sam48
This is very true. The establishment hated Reagan. But of course he owned in two elections. The establishment is SO stupid!
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Danoff
Here's another one for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in-wasting-time-online.html?_r=2
In trying to solve the digital divide problem the government has created a "time-wasting gap." Who knew handing computers to lower class kids would result in them becoming the fat guy playing WOW instead of studying?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
