Support NeoGAF

[Arrowgigantic]

It has virtually everything a country needs to sustain itself within it's borders

Except anti-tank weapons.

 

[SecretMoblin]

He'd probably support pot legalization.

Also, why are you mocking the graduated income tax, when Jebus took it 10 steps further than that?

I'm not mocking it! I support it. I just think it's weird to apply the views of one very religious, fatalist dude who lived 2000 years ago under a totally different system to modern, liberal democratic politics.

 

[TacticalFox88]

As dumb and hurtful to both Texas and the country secession would be, why would you assume it couldn't sustain itself? It's the second largest economy in the U.S., the largest exporter of goods, and it puts more into the federal government than it takes out. I don't think I'd want to live there once the influence of the federal government ceased, but I see no compelling reason that it would collapse. It has virtually everything a country needs to sustain itself within it's borders, and considering it contains a huge number of oil refineries, it isn't likely to run out of money any time soon.

I'm curious what your rationale is.

Purely because of the politics involved, sorta like the Confederacy but on a smaller scale to an extent. Economically, sure they'd be fine, but social wise? I doubt it.

 

[besada]

What makes your prediction more important/credible than SomeDude?

Because I'm smarter, more honest, and less crazy than SomeDude. More to the point, I'm not going anywhere. You're welcome to bookmark this and come back and make me eat crow. Hell, I'll even offer you a ban bet if you really want to put your money where your mouth is and show me the error of my ways. Or an avatar bet if that scares you.

 

[Mardak]

Yes, I'm trying to imagine my sixty year old aunts and uncles supporting his drive to legalize heroin, and I'm having a hard time with it.

Ron Paul does not drive to legalize heroin. He /has/ introduced legislation with Barney Frank to decriminalize it at the federal level where individual states with their residents can decide how they want to handle it.

It's unfair to attack Ron Paul on his principles instead of his actions just because other politicians don't have principles to begin with.

However life is not fair, and I would rather vote for someone that believes in the constitution as opposed to someone that believes in their wallets that get padded by corporations.

 

[leroidys]

It's almost as though you're unaware that airplane crashes are not strictly hypothetical constructs...

And judging by the discussion up-thread, institutional racism is an unsupported liberal alarmist theory which has no historical precedent. Yikes.

It has exactly nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. Where property rights give way to other liberties is a matter of social choice. It's not a physical law of nature.

This is just the problem. To the base libertarian, liberty and freedom are just that, strictly defined physical laws of nature made inviolable by the constitution, gifted to us exceptional Americans by the founding fathers on Mount Sinai.

 

[besada]

Purely because of the politics involved, sorta like the Confederacy but on a smaller scale to an extent. Economically, sure they'd be fine, but social wise? I doubt it.

Well yeah, that's true. I guess I figured we were talking about some sort of voluntary secession. It's really a silly discussion to be having. I should really just go back to ignoring SomeDude until he catches another ban.

 

[Puddles]

I just want to say that I would have NO problem with Texas seceding, and would in fact encourage them to do so as quickly as possible. There are several other red states I'd be happy to throw in as well.

 

[BanGy.nz]

There is no sane policy EXCEPT a graduated income tax.

Show me one good argument for a flat tax. Just one.

Something... Something Ayn Rand, something... Something Invisible hand? Bootstrap?

 

[besada]

Ron Paul does not drive to legalize heroin. He /has/ introduced legislation with Barney Frank to decriminalize it at the federal level where individual states with their residents can decide how they want to handle it.

It's unfair to attack Ron Paul on his principles instead of his actions just because other politicians don't have principles to begin with.

However life is not fair, and I would rather vote for someone that believes in the constitution as opposed to someone that believes in their wallets that get padded by corporations.

It's unfair to attack a politician for his principles? What sort of bizarro world do you live in? And I didn't attack him for that, since I'm actualy in favor of drug legalization. I was simply pointing out that the Tea Party, which SomeDude said had his back, feels differently about the issue.

I'm fully aware that you'd rather vote for someone who follows ideology rigidly under the flag of principles, regardless of who it hurts, because you already told me you were a libertarian.

I just want to say that I would have NO problem with Texas seceding, and would in fact encourage them to do so as quickly as possible. There are several other red states I'd be happy to throw in as well.

Which is one of the reasons you're treated about as seriously as SomeDude around here. That and your obsession with manhandling chimpanzees.

 

[Piecake]

I just want to say that I would have NO problem with Texas seceding, and would in fact encourage them to do so as quickly as possible. There are several other red states I'd be happy to throw in as well.

Like Besada said, they give back more money than they take and have a crap ton of oil refineries. Itll definitely hurt America if they secede. Now, if you want to make our government more leftist by kicking out some southern states, you can't go wrong with the Deep South. Unlike Texas, they definitely do not give more than they receive in federal funding

 

[Mardak]

It's unfair to attack a politician for his principles? What sort of bizarro world do you live in?

That wasn't my whole sentence. I said that the playing field is not balanced because so many of the alternatives have no principles to begin with. Although I suppose it would be fair to attack on the lack of principles or such as Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on principles.

In fact, for a good portion of last week's debate in Ames, pretty much everyone except Ron Paul had to back-track and defend why they flip-flopped on issues. Ron Paul does not have to as the only thing he has really flip-flopped on is federal capital punishment.

And that flip-flop only comes from his experience seeing how the federal government is so wrong at many times that judgements are often times also just as wrong especially now with DNA evidence proving otherwise after judgement has been made.

Edit: In fact looking at statistics of capital punishment, judgement using capital punishment is skewed towards certain races and income groups.

 

[besada]

That wasn't my whole sentence. I said that the playing field is not balanced because so many of the alternatives have no principles to begin with. Although I suppose it would be fair to attack on the lack of principles or such as Mitt Romney's flip-flopping on principles.

I'll attack any politician on their principles, and often do, including those I've voted for. The fact that Paul is more principled than the people he voluntarily aligns himself with doesn't buy him a free ticket to not be attacked.

Although, again, I wasn't actually attacking him there, so you might save the righteous indignation for a post where I am. Here's what you don't get -- I mostly like Dr. Paul. I think virtually all of his economic ideas are ridiculous, but I do like some of his other positions. Paul isn't so much the problem, because he isn't the ideologue you guys think he is. Otherwise he would have refused to align himself with the Republican party, which can't stand him, and is in the process of tossing his ass out on the street.

Paul's supporters are vastly worse than he is, because unlike Paul, they've never actually had to get elected or deal with constituents, or make the compromises that any elected official makes. No, they can keep their principles pure and pristine on the internet, where no one really cares what they have to say, because they wield virtually no political power whatsoever. And they likely never will, because governance requires compromise, and it requires considering the real world implications of theoretical principles, and there are few Paul supporters who do that well.

I'm still waiting on an answer about that ban/avatar bet, by the way. I'm headed to bed now, but if you're interested, let me know and I'll round up a mod to handle it.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I just want to say that I would have NO problem with Texas seceding, and would in fact encourage them to do so as quickly as possible. There are several other red states I'd be happy to throw in as well.

Remember what happened the last time a state seceded? Yeah, me too.

 

[Puddles]

Which is one of the reasons you're treated about as seriously as SomeDude around here. That and your obsession with manhandling chimpanzees.

I fail to see what my desire for the complete extinction of chimpanzees has to do with my posts in Poli-GAF, where I'm generally on point.

 

[Sinoox]

No, he won't.

I didn't know you could see into future, or are you just reiterating things you heard from your television? If you really knew anything about Ron Paul supporters you wouldn't dismiss them so strongly. They're the most passionate and head strong individuals involved in politics, this is evident if you've witnessed what they're capable of first hand. Libertarianism (what Ron's message is ALL about, this should be blatantly obvious) will only become stronger because its message coveys what this country was founded on and so many more people have awakened to understand this thanks to Ron's breakthrough in these campaigns. As long as that revolutionary paper document in Washington, our constitution, exists this movement will never die. It does not matter if Ron is running or not, the energy isn't going anywhere.

 

[Oblivion]

This is one of those things that seem obvious, and that a person already knows, but is actually properly manifested when someone actually puts it into words. From the always awesome, K-thug:

What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Puddles]

This is one of those things that seem obvious, and that a person already knows, but is actually properly manifested when someone actually puts it into words. From the always awesome, K-thug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I am totally going to use that bolded line in the future. Invite that k-thug guy to come post here.

 

[Mardak]

I mostly like Dr. Paul. I think virtually all of his economic ideas are ridiculous, but I do like some of his other positions.

And just like you pointed out how Ron Paul had to compromise by being in the Republican party, voters need to compromise by looking at what they care about most and vote accordingly as no candidate (other than oneself as a candidate one would hope) is going to line up 100% with their ideas.

Do you care to vote for someone that would bring the troops home and stop the marijuana drug war over someone that would not?

governance requires compromise, and it requires considering the real world implications of theoretical principles, and there are few Paul supporters who do that well.

The thing is that they don't have to defend the theoretical principles; unless as you point out, they're running to be a candidate. Ron Paul is not running to implement every single libertarian principle on day one, and he can't anyway without the approval of Congress.

A President Paul would only be able to sign and veto things that the rest of Congress has agreed to discuss and draft bills about. So arguing about libertarian ideals has little gain unless to clarify something that would actually reach a President Paul.

I'm still waiting on an answer about that ban/avatar bet, by the way. I'm headed to bed now, but if you're interested, let me know and I'll round up a mod to handle it.

I'm not the betting type and would prefer you to pick whatever avatar you want.

 

[SomeDude]

I'll attack any politician on their principles, and often do, including those I've voted for. The fact that Paul is more principled than the people he voluntarily aligns himself with doesn't buy him a free ticket to not be attacked.

Although, again, I wasn't actually attacking him there, so you might save the righteous indignation for a post where I am. Here's what you don't get -- I mostly like Dr. Paul. I think virtually all of his economic ideas are ridiculous, but I do like some of his other positions. Paul isn't so much the problem, because he isn't the ideologue you guys think he is. Otherwise he would have refused to align himself with the Republican party, which can't stand him, and is in the process of tossing his ass out on the street.

Paul's supporters are vastly worse than he is, because unlike Paul, they've never actually had to get elected or deal with constituents, or make the compromises that any elected official makes. No, they can keep their principles pure and pristine on the internet, where no one really cares what they have to say, because they wield virtually no political power whatsoever. And they likely never will, because governance requires compromise, and it requires considering the real world implications of theoretical principles, and there are few Paul supporters who do that well.

I'm still waiting on an answer about that ban/avatar bet, by the way. I'm headed to bed now, but if you're interested, let me know and I'll round up a mod to handle it.

Incorrect. Even Rush Limbaugh is scared of ron pauls amazing defeat of the "standard" republicans. He said that ron paul is destroying republican party.

 

[Puddles]

As President, Paul wouldn't be able to get a single piece of social libertarianism through. Not one.

However, there's a good chance that he'd be able to get some of his economic ideas passed, especially if Republicans take back the Senate.

There's no way I'd ever vote for a guy who would implement Austrian economic policies just because I agree that marijuana should be legalized.

 

[mj1108]

We really need a series of Jesus cartoons called "Right Wing Jesus".

 

[TacticalFox88]

We really need a series of Jesus cartoons called "Right Wing Jesus".

I think there is, but I can't find it, at the moment

 

[Dead Man]

Really amazing article on the contradictions between those who are the most devout Christians also being the most pro-free market:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-christianity/2011/08/12/gIQAziaQBJ_blog.html

Yeah, great piece, thanks for sharing.

That reminds me, on NPR recently there was a clip of some pro-Perry pastor denouncing the evils of Babylon, listing how it would teach tolerance, compassion, and good works... but for the wrong reasons! I was in stitches.

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

 

[besada]

Incorrect. Even Rush Limbaugh is scared of ron pauls amazing defeat of the "standard" republicans. He said that ron paul is destroying republican party.

Hey, you came back once you thought I'd left the thread. Shame you had to run away when I called you out on your lie.

And hey, you've now name checked Ted Rall and Rush Limbaugh, two of the dumbest commentators on politics ever to walk the Earth. Color me unsurprised.

The reality is that Ron Paul is running fourth or fifth -- behind candidates that aren't even running -- in virtually every poll for the Republican primaries. He wasn't able to beat Michelle Bachmann. That's how "dangerous" Ron Paul is.

I'm glad to offer you the same bet I offered Mardak, by the way. Nothing would please me more than three months without you in here.

 

[Mardak]

There's no way I'd ever vote for a guy who would implement Austrian economic policies just because I agree that marijuana should be legalized.

Are you saying you would rather keep the Federal Reserve around doing whatever it wants to do such as giving out $16 Trillion (with a T) of 0% interest loans to bank buddies?

A good portion of that money was given directly to banks of foreign countries as well. That $3.1 trillion given to foreign banks could have been given directly to the US population as a $10,000 stimulus!

If everyone was $10,000 richer, would they be able to buy more stuff? Would the prices of goods go up?

What in particular about Austrian economic policies don't you like and believe would potentially pass through Congress?

 

[TacticalFox88]

Hey, you came back once you thought I'd left the thread. Shame you had to run away when I called you out on your lie.

And hey, you've now name checked Ted Rall and Rush Limbaugh, two of the dumbest commentators on politics ever to walk the Earth. Color me unsurprised.

The reality is that Ron Paul is running fourth or fifth -- behind candidates that aren't even running -- in virtually every poll for the Republican primaries. He wasn't able to beat Michelle Bachmann. That's how "dangerous" Ron Paul is.

I'm glad to offer you the same bet I offered Mardak, by the way. Nothing would please me more than three months without you in here.

Come on Bes, you can't tell me he doesn't amuse you in cute sort of way.

 

[SomeDude]

Hey, you came back once you thought I'd left the thread. Shame you had to run away when I called you out on your lie.

And hey, you've now name checked Ted Rall and Rush Limbaugh, two of the dumbest commentators on politics ever to walk the Earth. Color me unsurprised.

The reality is that Ron Paul is running fourth or fifth -- behind candidates that aren't even running -- in virtually every poll for the Republican primaries. He wasn't able to beat Michelle Bachmann. That's how "dangerous" Ron Paul is.

I'm glad to offer you the same bet I offered Mardak, by the way. Nothing would please me more than three months without you in here.

in what polls is he running 4th or 5th? Meh, he's a big success.

 

[Suikoguy]

We really need a series of Jesus cartoons called "Right Wing Jesus".

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html

 

[Mardak]

The reality is that Ron Paul is running fourth or fifth -- behind candidates that aren't even running -- in virtually every poll for the Republican primaries. He wasn't able to beat Michelle Bachmann.

In the week before the straw poll, Ron Paul was placing third in a number of national polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

USA Today/Gallup 8/4:
Romney: 24%
Perry: 17%
Paul: 14%
Bachmann: 13%

CNN/Opinion Research 8/5:
Romney: 17%
Perry: 15%
Paul: 12%
...
Bachmann: 7%


Ron Paul effectively tied in 1st place at the Ames Straw Poll, which has no legal binding on the caucus or other polls. However, it indicates where Iowa is leaning, and the tie in first for Bachmann and Paul way ahead of 3rd place Pawlenty. Paul strictly beating Bachmann at the Ames Straw Poll was not necessary to show what Iowans wants.

 

[besada]

Come on Bes, you can't tell me he doesn't amuse you in cute sort of way.

He really doesn't. See, I live in Texas and I worked in IT for twenty years. If you can find me a place with more libertarians than a Texas software company, I will decline to ever go there.

I have had to listen to these same dumb arguments for a really long time, which might be interesting if these people had any hope of gaining political power, but they don't, so it's the equivalent of a dull droning noise to me. The Libertarian party has been around for forty years, and the best they've managed is a couple of state legislators who couldn't get anything done. And Ron Paul, who can't win as a Libertarian, and also gets nothing done.

And SomeDude is all that a big bag of crazy. Seriously, if I could, I'd permaban him right now. He was mildly amusing for his first couple of months here, but it got old for me a long time ago. I'd take three Jaydubyas if only I could be rid of SomeDude.

 

[XMonkey]

Maybe Ron Paul should run for governor of Iowa or something.

 

[Mardak]

And Ron Paul, who can't win as a Libertarian, and also gets nothing done.

The 2-party system in the US makes it almost impossible for a 3rd party to join in. Ron Paul realized that and ran as a Republican presidential candidate in 2008 as he is doing now in 2012.

And another poll a week before the Iowa Straw Poll, but this one just targeting Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...owa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

Iowa Rasmussen Reports 8/4:
Bachmann: 22%
Romney: 21%
Paul: 16%
Perry: 12%
Pawlenty: 11%

For Ron Paul to virtually tie with Bachmann, who was polling 6% higher (and spent much more money per vote), I would say the Ames Straw Poll was a big win for Ron Paul.

 

[Diablos]

I saw that article too. Pretty depressing.

Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/us/politics/14econ.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

It is disturbing that currently there are no actual economists advising the President. Just political hacks. Plouffe and Daley need to go away and find something else to do with their lives - but they won't.

I hope the Democrats can re-take the House and block whatever President Obama wants to pull as part of a "grand bargain". Assuming he gets re-elected, that is. If any President ever deserved a 39 percent approval rating, the second lowest for a post-war President at this point in their terms, it is him. Too bad the Republican party completely lost its mind.

Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering -- assuming Obama was surrounded by a team of highly experienced economic advisers, what would you want to see out of them opposed to the approach the administration is taking now?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Hmm .. ridding Poligaf of 3 non-sequiturs a week for a 300% chance of a user thread-bombing it with an abortion debate every month.

 

[besada]

In the week before the straw poll, Ron Paul was placing third in a number of national polls:

Third is now winning?

Seriously man, he's not going to win the primary. I'm not really that interested in arguing the point with you, particularly when you're unwilling to put your money where your mouth is. You can cherry pick polls off of realpolitics all day long, and claim his second place in Iowa was first place, and none of that is going to change it.

Like I said earlier, I'll be here when the primaries wrap up. I'll expect to see you here, too, so you can acknowledge how incredibly wrong you were.

 

[Misanthropy]

So when do you think America will change it's political election system so that it's not on the same level of stupidity as imported ice (just freeze imported water yourself)? Why would anyone have caucuses, primaries, some caucuses before primaries, some caucuses before other caucuses, and a winner take all system as opposed to the modest two-round plurality with a needed above 50% majority vote? And then the electoral college. Jesus Christ, Mary and Joseph on that one. I didn't know that voters in florida are worth more than, say, Rhode Island. This was exemplified in the 2000 presidential elections. If the country as a whole votes more for one candidate why should the other one become president solely based off of the location where the voter voted? If votes are your own independent voice then why are they worth more based on the population of where you live? That isn't fair at all.

 

[XMonkey]

For Ron Paul to virtually tie with Bachmann, who was polling 6% higher (and spent much more money per vote), I would say the Ames Straw Poll was a big win for Ron Paul.

Ask Romney how winning the straw poll in Iowa in 2007 worked out for him.

 

[Mardak]

Third is now winning?

It can be on the way to winning. Other candidates have been losing percentages as the hype dies down while Ron Paul is increasing constantly.

particularly when you're unwilling to put your money where your mouth is

I have put my money and time for Ron Paul outside of this board to help Ron Paul get his virtual tie for 1st place for the straw poll.

Like I said earlier, I'll be here when the primaries wrap up. I'll expect to see you here, too, so you can acknowledge how incredibly wrong you were.

What would I be wrong about? I've never said Ron Paul is definitely going to be the next President.

 

[TacticalFox88]

So when do you think America will change it's political election system so that it's not on the same level of stupidity as imported ice (just freeze imported water yourself)? Why would anyone have caucuses, primaries, some caucuses before primaries, some caucuses before other caucuses, and a winner take all system as opposed to the modest two-round plurality with a needed above 50% majority vote? And then the electoral college. Jesus Christ, Mary and Joseph on that one. I didn't know that voters in florida are worth more than, say, Rhode Island. This was exemplified in the 2000 presidential elections. If the country as a whole votes more for one candidate why should the other one become president solely based off of the location where the voter voted? If votes are your own independent voice then why are they worth more based on the population of where you live? That isn't fair at all.

The Constitution, quite frankly, is about 150 years or so outdated. It needs to be vastly revamped. But the Fathers, in their idiocy, decided to make the Amendment process a huge pain in the ass.

 

[Mardak]

Ask Romney how winning the straw poll in Iowa in 2007 worked out for him.

Are you saying that Ron Paul, like Huckabee who placed 2nd in the straw poll, will also go to finish 1st in the Iowa caucus?

I would think it's quite possible especially looking at how behind Huckabee was compared to Romney at the straw poll.

 

[besada]

What would I be wrong about? I've never said Ron Paul is definitely going to be the next President.

Who said anything about President? Were talking about the likelihood of Paul winning the primary. I say it's not going to happen, you think it is.

Jesus, I'll be glad when silly season draws to a close.

 

[XMonkey]

Are you saying that Ron Paul, like Huckabee who placed 2nd in the straw poll, will also go to finish 1st in the Iowa caucus?

I would think it's quite possible especially looking at how behind Huckabee was compared to Romney at the straw poll.

Sure, why not. Doesn't matter.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering -- assuming Obama was surrounded by a team of highly experienced economic advisers, what would you want to see out of them opposed to the approach the administration is taking now?

I'd prefer a huge, comprehensive green jobs/infrastructure bill. But there's no congressional support for that because STIMULUS. Maybe in 2013.

My idea would be to roll all of Obama's individual ideas (payroll tax cut extension, unemployment benefits, infrastructure bank, patent reform, etc.) into one bill. Checking off a laundry list of individual bills doesn't inspire confidence in anybody.

Weird that Gallup has him at 39 considering they had him beating Generic R 48-45 a week ago. Maybe the Republicans really do suck that badly. Sub-40s approval ratings and he's still winning.

 

[Wall]

Not trying to be a smartass, just wondering -- assuming Obama was surrounded by a team of highly experienced economic advisers, what would you want to see out of them opposed to the approach the administration is taking now?

Well, gonna be brief cause I'm going to bed, but basically I would want them to follow what modern economic theory and historical experience tells us to do in these situations, which is to have the government spend a lot of money in order to restore full employment and normal economic growth. In keeping with that, I would expect them to push back against anyone who argues for cutting programs at this time. Basically, the opposite of what is happening now.

We have a long term problem with our budget mainly due to health care spending and we have a disaster in the short term in the form of high unemployment and a depressed economy. We should be stimulating the economy now through increased spending and talking about ways to cut spending and reduce costs in the long term. What we are actually doing is cutting costs in the short term and leaving long term spending problems unaddressed.

As for areas to spend, it is almost too numerous to list. We have massive unmet infrastructure needs in this country. We need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels to the point where we can eliminate them entirely. We need to keep our education system from deteriorating further. We need to make higher education and job training more affordable, especially during a time of economic dislocation. Those are just starters, and involve more than enough spending in and of themselves to get the economy back on track.

 

[Misanthropy]

Who said anything about President? Were talking about the likelihood of Paul winning the primary. I say it's not going to happen, you think it is.

I'm going to have to agree with besada here. Ron Paul isn't going to win anything other than the undying love from his zealot fanbase. I'm not sure why he's even listed as a Republican. He might be on the right in terms of economics but in the social scale he's an anarchist. Not even sure if he would rally any part of Congress if he even became president. He would just sit up there ranting about how government is bad while he makes 250k a year off of the highest level job in said institution.

 

[Mardak]

We're talking about the likelihood of Paul winning the primary. I say it's not going to happen, you think it is..

Okay, sure. But I don't see the point of betting a ban. I gain little and you lose a lot.

Mardak: Join Date: 01-19-2007 Total Posts: 369 (0.22 posts per day)
besada: Join Date: 02-16-2007 Total Posts: 12,679 (7.73 posts per day)

And again, just like I would rather you pick your own avatar, I don't see any benefit of you not being able to post.

 

[Mardak]

Not even sure if he would rally any part of Congress if he even became president.

As long as we don't get more Patriot Acts and extensions. Or new agencies legally allowed to grope US citizens. Or not going into more undeclared wars without approval of Congress.

I would be pretty happy with that.

 

[exarkun]

This is what worries me. For as much as an ignorant dickhead Perry is and all the questionable shit he's done he has the disturbing ability to win elections. In the 2010 governor's race he tried to duck out of debating Bill White by insisting White publicize some tax forms. When those forms were presented, Perry just decided he wasn't going to debate White anyway. No one seemed to notice nor care, and soon after that here we are in our third term with this asshole.

EV said it best: Everything Bush tried to be, Perry actually is.

What a terrible thing to say. It sounds like you are from Texas, so let me ask you this: Did Perry even hold ONE campaign reception/meet and greet in Houston? No. Did he go to minorities and try to get their vote? No. Did he ever try to be a compromising Governor? No. The list can go on. You know what? For Bush, the answer to those three questions would be a Yes.

Say what you will about Bush, he genuinely tried. He gave ever city in Texas a fair shake, unlike dickhead Rick Perry who didn't touch Houston, and did much of his campaigning in Dallas and the richer parts of West Texas. Minorities loved Bush (especially Latinos) because he wasn't afraid to go to shady parts of Houston/San Antonio, Perry tries to feed off of that by relying on his religion but no minority group preferred Perry to White except Asians (which is sad).

What Bush is that Perry tries to be? Genuine. Perry is whatever the flavor of the week is so as to gain more votes. The man does well in elections for a reason.

 

[Misanthropy]

As long as we don't get more Patriot Acts and extensions. Or new agencies legally allowed to grope US citizens. Or not going into more undeclared wars without approval of Congress.

I would be pretty happy with that.

He would get rid of everything. This includes all the things which only a government can provide the people: healthcare, infrastructure, education, etc. Now I know we don't have a good version of those but it's better than having none at all. Also if you look at countries in Europe they are doing pretty well and that's because they don't lose their goddamn mind when something goes wrong in their government. Their first response isn't: shut it down herp derp! It's: Let's find a way to fix this as quickly as possible.