Republican 2012 Candidates

[Mario The World Champion]

He does. I agree with him.

So how come you're using paper money if you also believe that the American dollar is unconsitutional?

Too bad the majority of Americans disagree with him. He is stuck in the past and his views will not work in today's times. Let's say that if Paul does become President and leaves the other countries to their own vices. He's pretty much giving Iran the green-light to make nukes and to use them on Israel and maybe us. And once that happens, you know how I will want to blame for not doing anything to stop Iran.

Speaking of Ron Paul, he picked up a surprise celebrity endorsement today.
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-20112912

And once she questions his electability, his cult followers attacked her. You Ron Paul supporters are crazy sometimes. The constitution which was drafted when this Country was first formed is obsolete for today's radically different world.

 

[jpp8]

So how come you're using paper money if you also believe that the American dollar is unconsitutional?

That's kind of because there's no other choice.

In any case, though. Freaky's argument for a return to the gold standard is due to inflation and our dollar having no backing. I don't know too much about economics to fully understand the implications that backing a dollar by gold has, but Ending the Fed in order to do so? No. The poor, the old, and those just barely scraping by depend on "entitlement" services in order to keep themselves fed and in homes. The problem of inflation? Raise wages in order to match inflation. In this already unregulated system, we have mega-millionaires that get huge tax cuts under the pretense of "job creation" and "trickle down theory" alongside their 1% wages, but can't maintain a living wage for the majority of the working class. Deflation may give more value to the money of those with lesser wages, but there is still a huge wage gap between the two groups due to businesses "regulating" themselves for the most part.

Too bad the majority of Americans disagree with him. He is stuck in the past and his views will not work in today's times.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree here. Ron Paul has a seemingly huge backing. I feel that this is mostly because everyone has forgotten that Bush's tax cuts and bailout, not Obama, is to blame for most of our economic problems and just want to get Obama out. I've already started to see the signs and bumper stickers for Ron Paul 2012. It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible. I mean, Obama is not a perfect president. I understand that. But the degree of which Ron Paul supporters will defend his positions, even if they disagree with their own as illustrated by Freaky, is just worthy of awe.

 

[Mario The World Champion]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to disagree here. Ron Paul has a seemingly huge backing. I feel that this is mostly because everyone has forgotten that Bush's tax cuts and bailout, not Obama, is to blame for most of our economic problems and just want to get Obama out. I've already started to see the signs and bumper stickers for Ron Paul 2012. It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible. I mean, Obama is not a perfect president. I understand that. But the degree of which Ron Paul supporters will defend his positions, even if they disagree with their own as illustrated by Freaky, is just worthy of awe.

I would agree with you on that, but I wouldn't call it awe. More like sheep being led by the shepherd, the shepherd being Ron Paul and his political positions catering to people who are completely disillusioned with the Government right now, because they are ****ing morons. It's a bit scary seeing people protect him like he's Jesus, now that he's on top in Iowa (at least I think so) and every bit of negative dirt from his past is just being ignored by the Paulists despite that dirt having evidence of his past "racist" views.

People just don't like Obama. Period. They found their new scapegoat even though he inherited this mess in the first place. I would like to say he tried, but he could have done more in his first two years in office. Now he can't do **** with the Tea Party saying no to everything in the name of the budget.

I bet you the Established Republican base will do whatever it takes in secret to stop Ron Paul and protect the status quo. He may have the youth movement and have them under his spell, but the Established Republican base will not allow the Status quo to be upset with Paul's positions. And the Establishment hopes he doesn't run as an Independent because he will pretty much give Obama another term if the Republican vote is split or give the Future Republican nominee win the White House.

This race will get ugly. Very ugly.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And it is the governments duty to ensure that all its citizens are treated equally.

Also, here's the USA's welcome message under Paul
Welcome to the USA. While we believe all people should be treated equal, we are letting states to discriminate against certian genders, races, and sexual orientations because our 236 year old peice of paper makes no mention of how a government should involve itself to ensure discrimination doesn't occur.

The Constitution requires equal protection of the laws. A business owner refusing you service has nothing to do with how the government enforces its laws. In a free society, no one is compelled to engage in commerce with another person against their will.

 

[Mr. X]

He has a good backing, but only in certian parts of the US. Iowa is one of the states that he has a lot of support in. But still, with how events are going down right now, odd's are that foriegn policy will become to top topic before the election.

Still... I'm kinda expecting him to drop out like he did last race. He dropped out of the race even though he was doing really well.

Really though? I think he forsaw how everything would go to hell during the next 4 years and he didn't feel like becoming the scapegoat.

(Above @ Jpp8)
(This @ MTWC)

Haha, I use that line a lot but I didn't think of using to describe elections. Also, OWS protested against Paul. Apparently, the 99% don't like him. That should say a lot about just how truthful OWS is about how many people support them and about how truthful Paul is about how many people support him.

You ninjad me on the scapegoat comment. Agreed with the first two years though. Although he tried, he didn't have his priorities set right. And agreed on the last two years. He can't get **** done now because of Congress. (Con is the opposite of Pro. Therefor, the opposite of Progress is Congress.)

I'd be with you on that bet. Odds are, most Republicans in power would do whatever it takes to ensure he doesn't get the nomination. I'd like for him to run as a Independent though. It would be lulz worthy.

Race is already ugly. Just look at the mugs of some of the candidates we have. Scary.

(@Freaky)

If you believe in something, you fight for it. If you truly believe in equal rights for all genders, races, and orientations then you would fight for them no matter what a outdated document says.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

He has a good backing, but only in certian parts of the US. Iowa is one of the states that he has a lot of support in. But still, with how events are going down right now, odd's are that foriegn policy will become to top topic before the election.

Still... I'm kinda expecting him to drop out like he did last race. He dropped out of the race even though he was doing really well.

Really though? I think he forsaw how everything would go to hell during the next 4 years and he didn't feel like becoming the scapegoat.

He didn't do well last time. He's a frontrunner this time.

I also love when people use the Blame Bush card as a reason to vote for Obama. Even if it were all true, that does nothing to promote why one should vote for Obama. Also, comparing Ron Paul to Bush is laugable. The two are worlds apart.

 

[Mr. X]

I forget, under who's policies did this entire mess start and who was the person who was in charge when this mess started?

Republicans, and Bush.

So yes, I blame Bush for starting this mess. I also blame Obama for not doing enough to end this mess, but with the Republicans cutting him off on every turn you can't really blame him for not doing anything since his inaction is a result of Republican power games.

 

[jpp8]

The Constitution requires equal protection of the laws. A business owner refusing you service has nothing to do with how the government enforces its laws. In a free society, no one is compelled to engage in commerce with another person against their will.

Ideally, that would be the case. A "free society" however is something we do not live in. Individuals who are White and/or Male will inherently get special treatment and better opportunities than women and those of color. Whites don't have much to fear because they already own all the better kept establishments and are the least likely to suffer from the repeal of anti-discrimination "regulations".

And did I say "Vote Obama? No. Same with comparing Bush to Paul. I was pointing out that for some reason, people want to blame the guy who inherited the problems for all of our troubles rather than the guy who started it. And through blaming that guy, candidates, whoever they may be, can garner support because of it. I myself see little reason to vote for Obama either other than the fact that he is not the other guy. And that is reason enough for me considering the reasons I have not to vote for the other guy, whoever the other guy may be.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ideally, that would be the case. A "free society" however is something we do not live in. Individuals who are White and/or Male will inherently get special treatment and better opportunities than women and those of color. Whites don't have much to fear because they already own all the better kept establishments and are the least likely to suffer from the repeal of anti-discrimination "regulations".

And did I say "Vote Obama? No. Same with comparing Bush to Paul. I was pointing out that for some reason, people want to blame the guy who inherited the problems for all of our troubles rather than the guy who started it. And through blaming that guy, candidates, whoever they may be, can garner support because of it. I myself see little reason to vote for Obama either other than the fact that he is not the other guy. And that is reason enough for me considering the reasons I have not to vote for the other guy, whoever the other guy may be.

If the government is discriminating against people, that needs to be addressed. The private sector; however, should not be subjected to anti-discrimination regulations.

 

[Mr. X]

Essentially the government should turn a blind eye to how its citizens are being treated?

Edit - You know what? How about we just disband the US and let the states (Now nations) govern themselves, fold into other countries, or create a new higher government?

 

[Keiran]

Rick Perry, opposer of frivolous lawsuits, sues Virginia for requiring that he obtain 10,000 signatures to be placed on a primary ballot.

I found this pretty hilarious.

 

[Mr. X]

Not really. The picking of our leader for the next 4 years is not a frivolous matter.

Edit - I get the point. My comment was refering to the name of the article though.

 

[Keiran]

I think you missed the point completely.

EDIT: No one said it was. The 'frivolous' was in regards to his actions towards lawsuits in Texas. Which is why it's ironic he is making one himself now. Therefore point missed!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

How do you guys feel about Rick Santorum's Iowa rise and Newt Gingrich's fall?

 

[Mr. X]

Its a proven fact that once you hit top, all you can do is go down.

Cain had top numbers. Scandal appears. Numbers tank, and he quits.
Gengrich gets top numbers, all canadiates start a massive campaign against him. His numbers tank.
Paul gets top numbers, letter scandal. He's already lost some numbers. His momentum will keep him going, but once FP becomes the topic of choice? His numbers will tank.

The closer the primaries get, the more of a dick waving contest the race becomes. Which explains Bachmans low numbers.

Edit - As for Santorum, he hasn't reached top numbers yet but he's already taking pot shots from the other candidates.

 

[Trance and Moss]

I can't beleive people are scare mongering about Ron Paul's alleged racism. I don't know him personally, so I can not say for sure. But the most important thing is that his voting and his beleifs are the least racist of anybody. He truly beleives inequality it seems.

I think in practice Ron Paul's methods may be a bit extreme, but atleast he will actually change some things. He will never get his beleifs going full tilt, but he can set the system in a better direction.

It amazes me how many people can be disillusioned by this man and believe he is infallible.

What does him being fallible have to do with anything? Sure some of his supporters are a bit off the deep end, but it is so trivial to sit back and say "ahhh he can't be so great, he is a human he will screw up just like everybody else".

You should vote for who has the policies you beleive in, not put so much weight on personal issues. Besides, as far as character goes, Paul seems like a pretty decent man.

 

[jpp8]

I wouldn't be so concerned with this "alleged" racism were it consistent and reflected in his policy making. Key word. He did not vote for Rosa Park's congressional medal, he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, and was for the Defense of Marriage Act. He accepts support from quite a few members of white supremacist groups and has even had a couple on his staff. He also continues to DENY any responsibility for newsletters with racist undertones even though they're authored under HIS name, yet profited off of them. I cannot see this man as someone who believes in true equality. Just a twisted equality akin to "separate but equal".

Leaving power to the states is just going from the singular oppressive federal government to several oppressive state governments. Leading to inconsistency on important issues within the "United" States of America.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I can't beleive people are scare mongering about Ron Paul's alleged racism. I don't know him personally, so I can not say for sure. But the most important thing is that his voting and his beleifs are the least racist of anybody. He truly beleives inequality it seems.

I think in practice Ron Paul's methods may be a bit extreme, but atleast he will actually change some things. He will never get his beleifs going full tilt, but he can set the system in a better direction.


What does him being fallible have to do with anything? Sure some of his supporters are a bit off the deep end, but it is so trivial to sit back and say "ahhh he can't be so great, he is a human he will screw up just like everybody else".

You should vote for who has the policies you beleive in, not put so much weight on personal issues. Besides, as far as character goes, Paul seems like a pretty decent man.

I agree. No candidate is perfect. A lot of the candidates have had scandals. I'd say Paul's newsletters that were authored by someone else aren't as bad as Obama's ties to Weather Underground and Jeremiah Wright.

 

[jpp8]

No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul should man up. There's a difference between receiving support from a radical group of persons and accepting support between a radical group of persons. It's laughable that you bring up these incidents in an attempt to defend Dr. Paul. Obama's connections to Weather Underground were overblown. Obama vocally disapproved and condemned the actions of his pastor. I have not heard Ron Paul outright saying that he does not condone the actions or attitudes of the many white supremacist groups that support him despite he and his supporters spouting "Liberty" as if it's some abracadabra. As for the newsletters:

Saying "he didn't write them"/"he disavowed them" isn't good enough. And don't give me any of that "well he didn't know what was in them" crap either. Sending handwritten ink letters is enough evidence that he should've known what was written in those letters or, at the very least, condoned them. The fact that he denies RESPONSIBILITY is the problem here. No effort made to affirm that these newsletters were deplorable. No effort made to reveal who was the true author of the letters. Keeping the money he made off of them rather than taking the suggestion to donate to charity (charity, churches, and neighbors will take care of people, but I won't donate to them). Just "I disavow them". Everybody shut up about all the other scandals of the other candidates once they took responsibility for or fully clarified them. I don't want someone who will deny responsibility for himself or those who work under him to run this country. Heck, he's pretty much already said that he doesn't want to take responsibility of this country by drastically reducing the power of the executive branch.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

No candidate is perfect, but Ron Paul should man up. There's a difference between receiving support from a radical group of persons and accepting support between a radical group of persons. It's laughable that you bring up these incidents in an attempt to defend Dr. Paul. Obama's connections to Weather Underground were overblown. Obama vocally disapproved and condemned the actions of his pastor. I have not heard Ron Paul outright saying that he does not condone the actions or attitudes of the many white supremacist groups that support him despite he and his supporters spouting "Liberty" as if it's some abracadabra. As for the newsletters:

Saying "he didn't write them"/"he disavowed them" isn't good enough. And don't give me any of that "well he didn't know what was in them" crap either. Sending handwritten ink letters is enough evidence that he should've known what was written in those letters or, at the very least, condoned them. The fact that he denies RESPONSIBILITY is the problem here. No effort made to affirm that these newsletters were deplorable. No effort made to reveal who was the true author of the letters. Keeping the money he made off of them rather than taking the suggestion to donate to charity (charity, churches, and neighbors will take care of people, but I won't donate to them). Just "I disavow them". Everybody shut up about all the other scandals of the other candidates once they took responsibility for or fully clarified them. I don't want someone who will deny responsibility for himself or those who work under him to run this country. Heck, he's pretty much already said that he doesn't want to take responsibility of this country by drastically reducing the power of the executive branch.

That logic is absurd! By that logic, if you get attacked on the street by someone who happens to work at McDonald's, McDonald's is responsible for your injuries.