Ron Paul 2012

"
mdavis588 wrote:
Ron Paul
-50% of his ideas/beliefs make sense
-50% of what he says is bat-shit crazy

It's the latter that makes it impossible for him to ever be taken seriously or elected POTUS.

But given our last three presidents:
-Clinton(Horndog/liar)
-Bush(Retarded/liar)
-Obama(Unqualified/liar)

We went from Horndog > Retard > Unqulified.

I'm sensing a trend here into darkness. The obvious next step is to elect 'crazy'.

So, I am seriously thinking of voting for 'Crazy'(Ron Paul) in 2012.

Crazy > Unqualified


So what is "BAT-SHIT CRAZY" about his ideas?
[8bits of fury]
[I <3 LSDJ & Nanoloop]

"
Garbonzo wrote:
hes the best ever!


He most definitely is!
[8bits of fury]
[I <3 LSDJ & Nanoloop]

"
koldphlame wrote:
So what is "BAT-SHIT CRAZY" about his ideas?


Lets start with his Plan to Restore America

Here are some of the cuts that I find crazy:

-Eliminate the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. $173,677,000,000

No one would really miss the Department of Energy except subsidy-dependent companies like Solyndra or researchers who live off of federal funding to pursue innovation better left to the private sector.

Eliminating the Department of Education would be fairly simple, since state and local structures already exist to take up the slack. That might be true with HUD as well, although perhaps not in every state and county. States could coordinate the handoff with Congress if this plan came to pass.

However, Paul’s plan doesn’t come with any deep explanation of how to accomplish all that he proposes – or how to address the consequences.

It gets trickier with the last two agencies, however. The Department of Interior manages vast amounts of public land, and whether one believes that the federal government should own as much acreage as it does, the need for proper stewardship at least in the short term can’t be ignored. Even if we put every federal acre up for sale (Paul’s plan includes $40 billion in revenue from land sales over four years), we’d need to fund the management of the land until the sale could be made. Paul’s proposal would leave no funds at all for these tasks, nor does he transfer the responsibility for land management to any other agency.

The promise to eliminate the Department of Commerce is even more mystifying. For one thing, the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, as well as requiring a decennial census to reapportion representation in the House – a task assigned to Commerce. The department also produces data from and analysis of the national economy; analyzes weather and potential storm systems; and manages patents and trademarks – another explicit federal function in the Constitution. Not only does Paul not explain what happens to these subsidiary responsibilities, he doesn’t explain why he thinks the Department of Commerce is illegitimate in the first place.

-Cut Medicaid spending by $95,000,000,000 (34% cut)
-Cut Food Stamps program by $50,000,000,000 (62% cut)
-Cut Child Nutrition programs by $7,000,000,000 (33% cut)

Do I really need to go into why this is such an awful idea? Arbitrary steep cuts such as Paul proposes to these programs would do more harm than good. Not only does Paul not explain exactly what he would be cutting in these programs, he doesn't explain the benefit of doing so.

-The plan does not reduce Social Security, Medicare, or retirement program spending.


No surprises here. I wonder why there are no cuts in this area? Could it be that a majority of his voting block relies on Social Security, Medicare, or retirement program spending? Hypocritical if you ask me.

Foreign Policy

His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country.

If Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now.

This is just the begging of his 'craziness'. Like I said in my previous post, I like 50% of his message, mainly his fiscal and state's rights policies. But his views on Foreign Policy, Abortion, Gay Marriage & many, many other topics is 'way' out there.

Let me leave you with this:

He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

But I might still vote for 'Crazy'.

Crazy > Unqualified
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

-Christopher Hitchens

"
mdavis588 wrote:
Ron Paul
-50% of his ideas/beliefs make sense
-50% of what he says is bat-shit crazy


lol, so true.

we're never going to get anywhere in this country by electing republican or democrat but the puppet masters wouldn't have it any other way.
"
mdavis588 wrote:
"
koldphlame wrote:
So what is "BAT-SHIT CRAZY" about his ideas?


Lets start with his Plan to Restore America

Here are some of the cuts that I find crazy:

-Eliminate the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education. $173,677,000,000

No one would really miss the Department of Energy except subsidy-dependent companies like Solyndra or researchers who live off of federal funding to pursue innovation better left to the private sector.

Eliminating the Department of Education would be fairly simple, since state and local structures already exist to take up the slack. That might be true with HUD as well, although perhaps not in every state and county. States could coordinate the handoff with Congress if this plan came to pass.

However, Paul’s plan doesn’t come with any deep explanation of how to accomplish all that he proposes – or how to address the consequences.

It gets trickier with the last two agencies, however. The Department of Interior manages vast amounts of public land, and whether one believes that the federal government should own as much acreage as it does, the need for proper stewardship at least in the short term can’t be ignored. Even if we put every federal acre up for sale (Paul’s plan includes $40 billion in revenue from land sales over four years), we’d need to fund the management of the land until the sale could be made. Paul’s proposal would leave no funds at all for these tasks, nor does he transfer the responsibility for land management to any other agency.

The promise to eliminate the Department of Commerce is even more mystifying. For one thing, the Constitution explicitly gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce, as well as requiring a decennial census to reapportion representation in the House – a task assigned to Commerce. The department also produces data from and analysis of the national economy; analyzes weather and potential storm systems; and manages patents and trademarks – another explicit federal function in the Constitution. Not only does Paul not explain what happens to these subsidiary responsibilities, he doesn’t explain why he thinks the Department of Commerce is illegitimate in the first place.

-Cut Medicaid spending by $95,000,000,000 (34% cut)
-Cut Food Stamps program by $50,000,000,000 (62% cut)
-Cut Child Nutrition programs by $7,000,000,000 (33% cut)

Do I really need to go into why this is such an awful idea? Arbitrary steep cuts such as Paul proposes to these programs would do more harm than good. Not only does Paul not explain exactly what he would be cutting in these programs, he doesn't explain the benefit of doing so.

-The plan does not reduce Social Security, Medicare, or retirement program spending.


No surprises here. I wonder why there are no cuts in this area? Could it be that a majority of his voting block relies on Social Security, Medicare, or retirement program spending? Hypocritical if you ask me.

Foreign Policy

His foreign policy ideas are simply the same recycled bad ideas that Jimmy Carter had. A foreign policy of ”let’s hide our head in the sand like an ostrich and blame big bad America and hope that everyone leaves us alone” is not only ignorant, but also dangerous for our country.

If Ron Paul had been president during World War 2, we would all be speaking German now.

This is just the begging of his 'craziness'. Like I said in my previous post, I like 50% of his message, mainly his fiscal and state's rights policies. But his views on Foreign Policy, Abortion, Gay Marriage & many, many other topics is 'way' out there.

Let me leave you with this:

He has no real political power. And this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in 2008. Yes, he can win any ONLINE presidential poll. So what. In 2007 the paulbots hijacked the same online polls and Ron Paul won them all. His followers then posed articles all over the internet touting his candidacy. He then suckered his gullible followers telling them that the ”polls showed he could win” and send to him money. Then came the 2008 primaries. Out of the 50 states that were availible for Ron Paul to win, guess how many he won? ZERO. And that is spelled Z-E-R-O. Now let’s go to the present day. His internet saavy paulbots are again winning all the online and straw polls for their idol. His followers are again posting articles about him like he actually has a legitimate chance to win. Next is going to come the annual ”moneybomb” when Ron Paul once again fleeces his followers by pointing out that he is ahead in the polls and has a chance to win this time. But their delusional fantasy is going to run into a buzzsaw called Republican primary voters. Paul got absolutely destroyed when he ran in 1988, got whipped by John McCain in 2008, and he will be a three time loser in 2012.

But I might still vote for 'Crazy'.

Crazy > Unqualified


MOVE ON TROLL NOT WANTED HERE!!!
[8bits of fury]
[I <3 LSDJ & Nanoloop]

Excellent rebuttal, sir.
The problem is that nobody is qualified to make any judgement on who would or would not make a good president... we're just too ignorant of a population. The job of the president has become so complicated and clandestine that it's not even possible to tell how someone is performing DURING office let alone before.

Most voters don't know anything (this more than likely includes whomever is reading this.) Some voters check candidate positions on, at most, 4-5 issues that pertain to them personally, colored by the news source they obtain it from (this category contains everyone else.)

There might be a few people who truly know who would make a great president, but those people are already very close to the presidential seat...

Fiscal policy is a crap-shoot. If you think any of these presidents have ANY idea what they are doing when they muck around with their budgets... they simply don't. They aren't Prometheus, and at best, they make symbolic gestures towards their constituents. Explaining how or why particular changes will be good or bad is far far above their pay grade :P
If you have account problems please [url="http://www.pathofexile.com/support"]Email Support[/url]
"
Excellent rebuttal, sir.


lmao. It was sooo in depth. I imagine it will sway many opinions.

I was under the impression that..
"
koldphlame wrote:
This thread is for the people who will be voting for Ron Paul in 2012 or people who are curious about him. :)


I'm pretty sure mdavis supplied some useful information for any who are curious about RP. I didnt know the term 'troll' was designated for those who actually do stay on topic and offer their own useful opinion.
Last edited by FaceLicker on Nov 24, 2011, 8:01:12 PM
"
zeto wrote:
The problem is that nobody is qualified to make any judgement on who would or would not make a good president... we're just too ignorant of a population.
This is at least trivially false: somebody who runs on a platform of killing kindergarteners for no reason would probably make a bad president, even if the rest of the government doesn't let them kill children.
"
koldphlame wrote:

MOVE ON TROLL NOT WANTED HERE!!!



This was the most usefull post in a entire thread full of superficial nonsense you are commenting on. I dont agree 100% with the poster, (I think he is wrong about Pauls foreign policy since the world is not black and white but all shades of gray, wich means there are alot of steps between the warmonger USA of today and dont care hide in the cabinet policy) but he points out alot that is wrong with Ron Paul. His politics dont fit the Republican party or the Democrat party what leads to some points in his programm that dont fit at all just for the sake of beeing part of that party. And alot of his ideas are not thougth out and you often get the impression he is dealing with problems just by shifting them from federal to state so they have to deal with them now. Also unlike the countries in Europe the states in the US cant compete that well with each other, because unless you cut way more on the federal side then Paul wants to, they are not independent eneugh. And doing so would be the end of the US as a nation !

Ron Paul is "good" because he seems competent and is very consistent and I highly doubt he is that famous in the internet for his politics,its much more likely its because of this two attributes.

Maybe its because I am european, but I vote programms and not persons. (unless they are realy horrible)


Last edited by Droggeltasse on Nov 25, 2011, 7:36:29 AM

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info