• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Shouldn't I Vote for Ron Paul?

ARealConservative said:
post #30 by me contains nothing but facts.

now how about you back up your claims, show where I acted in the manner you accused me of.
Click to expand...

Post number 30 is you making claims.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think that his aggressive military policies are "less extreme".

And how do you know Romney is "significantly different" from Obama; we don't even really know what Romney is about. It changes as the wind blows. Which is rather standard. Obama too tried to bill himself as something he later could not live up to (or did not care to).
Click to expand...

I am basing it on what Romney claims to support in his run for president. That is the best we have to judge. If you don't know where Romney stands, how do you know he is the status quo?
 
Redress said:
I am basing it on what Romney claims to support in his run for president. That is the best we have to judge. If you don't know where Romney stands, how do you know he is the status quo?
Click to expand...

Because part of the status quo is to not have a firm platform people can examine and attack.
 
Redress said:
Post number 30 is you making claims.
Click to expand...

48 is a bunch of opinions, 30 is facts. sad you can't see the difference.

now about the personal attack you levied against me.... show where I did what you claim, you seem to be ducking it.
 
ARealConservative said:
48 is a bunch of opinions, 30 is facts. sad you can't see the difference.

now about the personal attack you levied against me.... show where I did what you claim, you seem to be ducking it.
Click to expand...

I have, in the very post I made the claim.

If post 20 is facts, then so is 48. If 48 is opinions, then so is 30. Sad you cannot see the difference.
 
Ikari said:
Because part of the status quo is to not have a firm platform people can examine and attack.
Click to expand...

So then Obama is not the status quo, since he does have a firm platform, and what's more, a record as president...

I think I see a problem with your definition.
 
Redress said:
So then Obama is not the status quo, since he does have a firm platform, and what's more, a record as president...

I think I see a problem with your definition.
Click to expand...

He lied about his, which is pretty much status quo. It's not that firm of an actual platform. Politicians will say whatever they need to say to try to get elected, but once in office reverse course. Romney has done the best of any candidate to keep his actual platform hidden from the people (though I would argue that is not a good thing). But its standard operating procedure and Romney has just been better at it than others. Obama through action endorses the status quo, Romney inspires no confidence that he'd be different. The top end Republocrats tend to be the same anyway.
 
ARealConservative said:
48 is a bunch of opinions, 30 is facts. sad you can't see the difference.

now about the personal attack you levied against me.... show where I did what you claim, you seem to be ducking it.
Click to expand...


“probably virtually impossible to function” is a really bizarre way to present a fact.
 
Amigo said:
First, Gold Standard. It is impossible to go back to the Gold Standard. Second, he is connected to George Soros. Third, there is a photo of him next to a neo-nazi. Forth, he thinks Ahmadinejad isn't crazy, which makes Ron Paul crazy.

I can give you more if you like.
Click to expand...

There's a picture of me next to a graffiti painting of Hitler, but that doesn't mean I support the guy's views or what he did.

I'm sorry, but that was a pretty stupid reason to list for why DA shouldn't vote for Paul. It means nothing in and of itself.

Also, crazy is relative. Ahmadinejad is pretty calculating, which means he's gotta have some level of sanity.
 
Ikari said:
He lied about his, which is pretty much status quo. It's not that firm of an actual platform. Politicians will say whatever they need to say to try to get elected, but once in office reverse course. Romney has done the best of any candidate to keep his actual platform hidden from the people (though I would argue that is not a good thing). But its standard operating procedure and Romney has just been better at it than others. Obama through action endorses the status quo, Romney inspires no confidence that he'd be different. The top end Republocrats tend to be the same anyway.
Click to expand...

He who?

567890
 
Redress said:
Who else has or would do this?
Click to expand...

Carter, Bush 2, and Obama were both pretty successful at failing to aid or improve the economy and all had a part in policies or actions that have directly harmed the country in the areas listed.
 
fredmertz said:
So, in order to save our economy, military, foreign policy and standing in the world, you are suggesting we continue along the same path we are on (which is to say, support anyone else but Ron Paul)... Which has ruined our economy, stretched our military far too thin to be adequate in protecting us and cost us hundreds of billions annually (which we cannot afford), a foreign policy that has lost our prestige and respect among foreign nations and overall lost our standing in the world.

Big Government has had its day.
Click to expand...

It's with his foreign/defence policy that I agree with him most.
 
Redress said:
1) The fed is an important part of the government and it is probably virtually impossible for a large country to function without a central bank.
Click to expand...

Probably? Are you not sure? I will argue against it when you are sure. Until then I can't see how you can be so sure to put this as number 1 for why he is insane.

2) A gold standard would limit the power of the government to control the flow of money and limit the effects of economic bad times.
Click to expand...

You don't want government handling money in bad economic times and having government control the flow of money just causes people to be poorer.

3) Cutting 1 trillion from the government in one year would devestate the US economy, certainly driving us back into recession and quite possibly into depression. This would of course further reduce government revenue, putting us into a cycle of cutting government to reduce the deficit, causing less revenue, requiring more cutting...
Click to expand...

Hardly. This is nothing but a falsity dreamed up by people that people like you follow. Cutting a trillion dollars would NOT send us back into a recession. It would hurt the economy but the damage would not be nearly as bad as a recession. The economy would recover quickly and be better off because of it as the wealth would be back into your hands.

4) In a global economy where military threats can come from anywhere in the world means that we need a forward deployed military and we need the power of federal aid to foriegn countries to influence them and we need things like GAT and NAFTA.
Click to expand...

No, we don't. And foreign aid is not a good tool for influence.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
Carter, Bush 2, and Obama were both pretty successful at failing to aid or improve the economy and all had a part in policies or actions that have directly harmed the country in the areas listed.
Click to expand...

1) None of them have done anything nearly as extreme as what Paul wants to do.

2) Carter was ineffective, not really harmful. Bush 2 was harmful, but most of what happened on the economy was not his fault, and while he did hurt our standing in the world, it was not drastic. Obama has at worst been neutral on the economy so far(though that is possibly as much from lack of historical perspective yet...ie that is subject to change) and has not hurt our standing in the world None of them have wanted to do, nor did anything nearly as drastic as the changes Paul proposes not have they harmed the country in any way near what Paul's proposals would.
 
AdamT said:
You do realize that the dollar is flirting with an all time high versus the Euro, and that it hasn't cratered at all as Paul has predicted, right? At the moment it's just about where it was before the Great Recession.
Click to expand...

What? That doesn't even begin to make sense.

And vs the Euro means just about nothing, just so you know.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Probably? Are you not sure? I will argue against it when you are sure. Until then I can't see how you can be so sure to put this as number 1 for why he is insane.



You don't want government handling money in bad economic times and having government control the flow of money just causes people to be poorer.



Hardly. This is nothing but a falsity dreamed up by people that people like you follow. Cutting a trillion dollars would NOT send us back into a recession. It would hurt the economy but the damage would not be nearly as bad as a recession. The economy would recover quickly and be better off because of it as the wealth would be back into your hands.



No, we don't. And foreign aid hardly is a good tool for influence.
Click to expand...

This is just silly. The easiest and quickest example: if you don't see how cutting 7 % from the US economy would not send us into a recession you have real problems. last quarter GDP GDP growth was under 2 %. What do you call negative GDP growth?
 
Redress said:
This is just silly. The easiest and quickest example: if you don't see how cutting 7 % from the US economy would not send us into a recession you have real problems. last quarter GDP GDP growth was under 2 %. What do you call negative GDP growth?
Click to expand...

After WW2, the economic outlook of our nation soared. People felt more wealthy, and they were. Yet using these GDP calculations, we were in a major recession following WW2. The government massively cut spending, and because government spending is a major component of GDP, we were technically in a recession.

People were so worried about the economic outlook from this “recession” that the baby boomer generation was born. You know how people all go and start families when the economic outlook is at its worse, right?

Your fears are just as grounded in sound economic reasoning as those terrified of the post WW2 “recession”.
 
Redress said:
This is just silly. The easiest and quickest example: if you don't see how cutting 7 % from the US economy would not send us into a recession you have real problems. last quarter GDP GDP growth was under 2 %. What do you call negative GDP growth?
Click to expand...

Government spending takes wealth out of the economy. Putting that wealth back into the hands of people would not cause a recession just by that act alone.
 
Henrin said:
Government spending takes wealth out of the economy. Putting that wealth back into the hands of people would not cause a recession just by that act alone.
Click to expand...

Really? So it's not to reduce the deficit? If it is deficit spending, then it is not taking it on a one for one basis out of the economy.
 
ARealConservative said:
After WW2, the economic outlook of our nation soared. People felt more wealthy, and they were. Yet using these GDP calculations, we were in a major recession following WW2. The government massively cut spending, and because government spending is a major component of GDP, we were technically in a recession.

People were so worried about the economic outlook from this “recession” that the baby boomer generation was born. You know how people all go and start families when the economic outlook is at its worse, right?

Your fears are just as grounded in sound economic reasoning as those terrified of the post WW2 “recession”.
Click to expand...

So you don't know the definition of a recession?
 
Redress said:
So you don't know the definition of a recession?
Click to expand...

of course I do. I also know how it is calculated, which is why I realize it isn't a great method of demonstrating good/bad economic times. The end of WW2 created a recession. It was an incredibly prosperous time to be alive, while also being a recession.

It must really suck having that kind of outlook as well.

Doing the right thing be damned, we can’t take any actions that might make the economy recede

Stop the wars? Hell no. that could hurt the economy. End slavery.. not so fast, our economy depended on using free labor.
 
Redress said:
Correct meanign what? By definition, if SCOTUS says the Constitution means this, then until another SCOTUS says otherwise, it is treated as the constitution means that. I don't always like what SCOTUS says the constitution means, but that is the system in place in this country and I do think it is a superior system.
Click to expand...

No. No one is given the power of defining/redefining/interpreting the Constitution. It is not a power that exists any where. The Constitution was written to be obvious. It is obvious. Only people that want to muddy the waters to gain powers not granted in the Constitution will tell you that the Constitution needs to be interpreted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom