-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
TacticalFox88
Banned
If there is ever a repeat of 2000...shiiiit.HylianTom said:
Alcibiades
Member
Perry is unpopular in Texas even with many Republicans... in 2006 he didn't get a majority of the vote and in 2010 he won despite not being well-liked because Texas has move strongly Republican in the past couple of decades (it has always been conservative).
Once he gets torched by the national media (who are probably going to rekindle their love affair with Obama as soon as the Republican nominee is chosen) I wouldn't be surprised if he got less than 100 electoral votes (supposing he even becomes the nominee, which I think is unlikely).
EDIT:
I'm actually confounded by the enthusiasm around this guy, he is way too conservative to have a chance in the general election. Moderates and independents whose #1 concern is the economy aren't going vote for someone as socially conservative as him. MAYBE back in 2000, but the electorate has changed a lot in the past 10 years.
Once he gets torched by the national media (who are probably going to rekindle their love affair with Obama as soon as the Republican nominee is chosen) I wouldn't be surprised if he got less than 100 electoral votes (supposing he even becomes the nominee, which I think is unlikely).
EDIT:
I'm actually confounded by the enthusiasm around this guy, he is way too conservative to have a chance in the general election. Moderates and independents whose #1 concern is the economy aren't going vote for someone as socially conservative as him. MAYBE back in 2000, but the electorate has changed a lot in the past 10 years.
Ron Paul believes in states' rights, but he believes it's even sillier that people need to get government approval to get married in the first place. His ultimate stance is that the federal government should have no say in marriage so states do not need to define marriage. But because the federal government does tie marriage into issues like taxes, states need to define something.Mortrialus said:
Why should Utah defining marriage one way be able to force the ideas of its people on another state like California? States that are more accepting of the greater society's beliefs in marriage will attract families and businesses to support those families.
Are you against Ron Paul's position of states rights?
There is no freedom from implicit racial discrimination. People have their 1st amendment right to say whatever they want, and those people will suffer the consequences from their society for what they say. Just because you don't like what someone has to say means you have the right to prevent them from saying it? You although have the choice to get mad or ignore the person and his business and tell other people to ignore that person.Mortrialus said:
Nobody is forced to be negatively impacted by another person's racism. But truly hateful people will be hateful in one way or another even with laws that seemingly try to improve morality. What benefit does a store owner get for treating a customer poorly with bad food or bad service?
Are you against the freedom of speech?
Ages on what scale? What criticism have I ignored and not addressed?Mortrialus said:
Society has through government shown that the people want to let others know the harmful effects of tobacco. However this takes more responsibility away from parents to teach their children what is right and wrong. Just because smoking is illegal for minors does not mean they are any wiser when they become of age and can buy cigarettes themselves.Mortrialus said:
Similar to the situation with alcohol, European countries where society has parents that regularly drink a glass of wine and share it with their child has fewer issues of college students wanting to drink recklessly. Students who get introduced to alcohol by other students that drink only because they were never allowed to get into more trouble.
The same story repeats for sex. Parents who just ignore it or explicitly say no and say no more end up with more grandchildren earlier than those parents that talk about safe sex and explain their reasoning to the child as opposed to the child getting information from peers with equally little knowledge or ulterior motives.
Government stepping in to be the parent lets parents feel like they don't need to do anything and the child ends up so disassociated with the original intent of why the laws were passed in the first place.
Amusing Onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ne...ing-obama-making,21113/?utm_source=recentnews
http://www.theonion.com/articles/ne...ing-obama-making,21113/?utm_source=recentnews
Mardak, you seem to fail to understand what the status quo was BEFORE the Civil Rights Act. You paint a rosy picture of personal responsibility and the free market keeping racism in check when history does not support this at all.
Edit: in fact, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, since it bears repeating. Many of the government programs and agencies that libertarians want to get rid of and/or privatize exist because the previous status quo of no government intervention WASN'T WORKING.
Edit: in fact, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, since it bears repeating. Many of the government programs and agencies that libertarians want to get rid of and/or privatize exist because the previous status quo of no government intervention WASN'T WORKING.
Puddles said:
pointing that out won't make a difference. The reason why I think libertarianism is so popular with some is that it is a simple ideology that professes to have all of the answers to the world's problems. And that makes some people warm and fuzzy inside because they like always knowing what needs/should be done without having to actually carefully look and analyze specific situations/problems, they can just spout some tired ideological nonsense that applies to the issue at hand and feel good about themselves since they 'know' that they are right
besada said:
Bobby Rush beat him in a House primary in 2000 or 2002. It was also widely expected he'd lose his state seat in 2004, which is why he ran for the US senate, and he would have been trounced there were it not for some of the filthiest politics only Chicago money can buy.
And which of those programs or agencies would President Paul work to get rid of or privatize?Puddles said:
Just because someone wants to talk about the role of the FAA in an ultimate libertarian world does not mean it makes sense to not vote for Ron Paul because that is not something Congress will get to President Paul, and not something he would see as a priority.
I think there's something genuinely appealing in the ethos of individualism and self sufficiency.Gonaria said:
I really do, and on a personal level, I can even relate to libertarianism.
But at the same time I think it's extremely naive to believe it's something that can be applied lock stock and barrel to a modern society.
And the history books can teach us what happen if we try.
Edit: I will say this, the habit some libertarians have of saying "President Ron Paul", like enough repetitions are going to make it true is getting on my nerves.
Yeah, I'm a petty little man.
Mardak said:
Okay, let's assume that this is true.
Obviously I'd like to see both wars we're involved in stopped ASAP. What else do you think Ron Paul has to offer for a progressive voter?
Gonaria said:
I had a discussion with a libertarian one time, and we got around to talking about healthcare. The guy told me "If government would just stop regulating everything and let the free market do its job, someone would figure out how to insure everyone for like a dollar. Wouldn't you want to have health insurance for a dollar?"
Indeed we can look to history of electing Bush and Obama and see that the candidates presented to us by the corporate media want to keep spending money on wars. They might differ on which countries they want to attack, but they all just want to spend your money to kill people.Chichikov said:
Why not vote for Ron Paul who will stop the wasteful military spending if you also agree on that position?
Why get caught up in with tiny issues of ideological libertarianism that have little effect in today's Congress?
elrechazado
Banned
yeah, paul has a few key libertarian positions, but many more that are the opposite.eznark said:
elrechazado
Banned
Yes, that's what he said. Way to go.besada said:
Economy.Puddles said:
Ron Paul predicted the housing bubble and explained why it would burst and even provided steps to avoid the bubble.
President Paul would have a stronger voice with a listening audience to have potentially avoided the crash.
President Paul also would have vetoed the corporate bailout of Wall St where debt and malinvestments of those corporations were bought by the federal government and dumped on the taxpayers.
elrechazado
Banned
Far be it from me to get between a man and his hilarious jokes. I crave your pardon sir.besada said:
teruterubozu
Member
Premature Perry Panic is getting out of hand here.
Chichikov said:
Sure, individualism, self-sufficiency, and the whole what you earn/do for a living is what you deserve, etc sure sounds great at first, but if you think about it more deeply I would hope that most people would realize its a crock of shit.
If every baby born had the exact same opportunity to succeed, the same access to education, wealth, connections, etc, then I would be a libertarian as well. I mean, that system right there is totally fair and perfect, your achievements and failures are your fault alone. Well, too bad that mythical fairy land doesnt exist, though I am sure in the minds of libertarians it does
Mardak said:
If thats the case, then President Paul would have lead us towards another Great Depression
Byakuya769
Member
He lost in a race for a congressional seat in 2000 to Bobby Rush, who seems like a clown.besada said:
I keep seeing people positing variations on this hypothesis that people won't vote for Perry because both he and Bush were governors of Texas.Branduil said:
I didn't think it was actually possible to overestimate the unbridled idiocy of the electorate, but this might be pushing it. The idea that people would care about that over all other considerations? Really?
PhoenixDark said:
It's all part of the Republican plan for lots of jobs below federal minimum wage with no benefits. Give them enough rope and they'll go after abolishing the minimum wage so they can pay even less then.
Evlar said:
No doubt people will raise the issue of Perry wanting to secede.
Byakuya769
Member
Beaten in multiple ways!
I blame amtrack and their lack of wifi along with at&t's shitty 3G coverage
I blame amtrack and their lack of wifi along with at&t's shitty 3G coverage
As opposed to what we're going through now? Sure, the effects might be more pronounced, but the good parts of the corporations will be kept running and perhaps sold to smaller banks that did not participate in the mortgage fraud. And this would have let the depression pass faster than what we're going through now. A faster recovery means more revenue for governments.Gonaria said:
But the reason why the crash existed in the first place was partially triggered by the Federal Reserve's policy. Ron Paul understands that and would have avoided the bubble and subsequent crash.
What makes the people at the Federal Reserve so smart that they can pick out the correct interest rates? After the dot-com bubble, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low and people got themselves into the attractive adjustable rate mortgages. The Federal Reserve then quickly increased interest rates and when the adjustable rate mortgages changed upwards to the new interest rates, home owners were stuck with a monthly payment they could not afford.
teruterubozu
Member
Evlar said:
On the other hand, Obama can also be accused of retaining some of Bush's policies.
Both of them are better off not mentioning Bush at all. And frankly, equating opponents to Bush is so yesterday's tactic.
- Status