V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Dakryn, what do you think about how withdrawing US troops from everywhere in the world would destabilize so much shit it's not even funny?
2012 Presidential election thread
- Thread starter Peter Joseph
- Start date
Dak
mentat
Define "destabilize".
The author doesn't have an economic or political clue (other than the obvious fact that the possibility of a Paul nomination over Romney is slim).
King Richard
Hello there
That was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. You don't seriously believe anything that guy wrote, right?
Doesn't the fact that you had to type "everywhere in the world" make you think that something might be wrong here? And I'm not talking about wrong with the world, I mean wrong with our idea that we have to literally be everywhere.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
zabu of nΩd;10140911 said:
I keep seeing this damn commercial for CNN politics all the time (since I do watch CNN, I admit it), and the first woman on there always says "I don't think we can keep voting for parties, I think we need to start voting for the person." Every time I see that commercial and hear that woman say that, I cringe; because people honestly think that "voting for the person" will actually result in change.
That said, I think this Americans Elect thing could have potential impact, if it can honestly present a nonpartisan ticket. That at least would result in a more direct lineage between voters and representatives (i.e. candidates). However, I still believe that if we want to enact change regarding rights for homosexuals, pregnant teens, and other marginalized groups, no amount of voting will ever do anything. That sort of revolution needs to take place at the social, local, intimate level between individual components of a society. A politician can make into law whatever he or she wishes; but that won't change the underlying cognitive apprehensions or preconceptions that a large portion of citizens of this country have. Rights for marginalized groups will only be realized through intense education in the realm of the family/community; not in the political.
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between "troops" and "presence." Paul has explicitly said that he doesn't intend to cut off America from the rest of the world; he wants to stop "policing" the world. We need to be more diplomatic and less coercive. If countries in the Middle East maintain fundamentalist conservative politics, we need to consider that it might not be our business to enforce "liberty" through military occupation. That type of intervention does nothing to realize new ways of thinking, and only exacerbates the problem.
King Richard
Hello there
I agree with Eiorehjghierjer about that site. Great idea but until there is a legit revolution shit isn't going to change breh.
Draehl
Lurker
After hearing recent sound bites... Obama would slay Romney.
The more I see the candidates debate I'd really like to see a Paul/Huntsman ticket. Paul has the huge emphasis on the economy and can pull the Libertarian vote. Huntsman can pull on his diplomatic experience and his huge appeal to centrists. The more mainstream republicans might not show for the vote, but the combination of pulling from non traditional republican voters and simply the "get Obama out" crowd I think they could win it AND make it work.
The more I see the candidates debate I'd really like to see a Paul/Huntsman ticket. Paul has the huge emphasis on the economy and can pull the Libertarian vote. Huntsman can pull on his diplomatic experience and his huge appeal to centrists. The more mainstream republicans might not show for the vote, but the combination of pulling from non traditional republican voters and simply the "get Obama out" crowd I think they could win it AND make it work.
King Richard
Hello there
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Einherjar86
Active Member
That Huffington Post article was frustrating on a couple different points. It is true that plenty of Democrats, including some of my own friends, classify Ron Paul as a "nutjob." Personally, I think that kind of dismissal illuminates their own "cultish" perspective.
Dak
mentat
Just as frustrating, I watched The Daily Show from the other day, and Jon Stewart had Jim Demint on. While I feel Stewart is "genuine", I disagree with him a lot on the methods he would like to see, and where he sees the fault in the system.
Mr DeMint played right into his hands as far as I was concerned because he, just like pretty much everything other Republican sans Paul, do come across as heartless, ignorant old white men. Myself, or Ron Paul, or John Stossel, etc., could have answered Stewarts questions relatively easily.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Yeah most likely, but as far as efforts in the political realm i'd say Americans Elect is pretty damn solid. The goal of a directly nominated president is nice and simple, so it's easy to market as well as participate in. From what i've read they've already gotten ballot access in 30 states, so the chance of it having an impact is relatively high.
Probably, but compared to a revolution AE has a pretty low cost-to-benefit ratio
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Alright, challenge... (if you dont want to I understand, I thought it would be fun + I'm bored)
Stewart "with all the regulation and strangling of businesses why have the wealthy in this country over the last 40 years done so disproportionally better than the rest of the country if the policies that have been in place are so strangling to the job creators?
( on the subject of collectivism and freedom ) Stewart says "our country is a balance between collectivism and freedom, we're the united states of America, that's collectivism"
( on central power) is your problem that the government cant do it well or that its not supposed to because of the constitution?
"this idea that if you think the federal government has a role to play in regulating corporations that you think are unaccountable to the people or larger market forces that have put you in a bad place not that your lazy or dependent you're painted as someone who doesn't love freedom, and i think that that is an absolute distraction from the real issue, it is a different definition of freedom, so the idea that the federal government has a role in that doesn't mean you are a soviet state"
is the private sector doing our health-care well?
would you privatize veterans medical insurance/give vouchers?
Stewart "if you just repeal the bush tax cuts by 2026 the deficit is gone"
DeMint says"reducing taxes generally creates more revenue to the federal government" Stewart replies "but that's not true"
Stewart continues saying " we have lived with the bush taxs cuts for the last 10 years when is it going to trickle down?"
Stewart " i want government to be better not to be gone doesn't make me a communist"
demit replies " we cant afford the way big government is run now" Stewart "we could if the bush tax cuts expired"
Stewart " you wanna talk about collectivism, thats what this is, were either in a society or were not, why dont we go back to the days where the towns people took care of the destitute, we have 350 million people in this country thats just not workable,we need government, social security is the one of the best systems we have ever come up with in our history, its diminished poverty among the elderly, i dont understand this idea that any intervention from the government to provide a minor social safety net is freedom hating communist agenda"
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,850
- 113
A few quick points...
1. Ron Paul citing his congressional victories as potential for presidential electability is simply a feel-good marketing spiel. Dedicating two paragraphs to debunking it is silly.
2. Allowing states to allow or disallow abortion (Paul) < banning abortion (Perry, Santorum) on the crackpot scale.
3. I'm pretty sure it was tariff-warring in the 30's that really prolonged the Great Depression, not abstaining from war. And Ron Paul hates those tax things.
4. Defence contractors contributing to his campaign = oh shit a conspiracy? lol
5. The US government already assassinates people, and I don't see how it is inherently worse for a private group to do it with the favor and payment of government. tbh I never heard this brought up before (why didn't the article just bring up the obvious faults of Paul like abolishing the Federal Reserve and reinstating the gold standard?) but reading Paul's justification it actually makes sense. I had no idea that the Constitution had a provision for allowing the government to call for assassinating individuals irrespective of nationality. Sounds like a badass and sensible idea to me.
Dak
mentat
Every time I hear someone defend the Fed, what I hear is "I like getting economically ass-raped", because that's what our monetary system is doing.
King Richard
Hello there
King Richard
Hello there
Time to put your money where your mouth is people.
This is my second donation to the Paul campaign.
This is my second donation to the Paul campaign.
Dak
mentat
King Richard
Hello there
I think the TSA needs to start screening audience members before allowing them into those debates. That was one of the largest group of inbred, redneck, bloodthirsty assfucks I've ever seen. The amount of applause Gingrich got when he said "Kill them" was insane.
Similar threads
