Ron Paul's libertarian domestic policy is the only reason to vote for him because his personal views are rather loathesome. Essentially he's a racist who if elected would refuse to enact racist policies. I would consider him ethical in terms of ultimately adhering to his libertarian views but in no way would I consider him honest.
Off-topic: Obama or Romney?
- Thread starter SaintJabie
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Comparing uk politics to the U.S is a complete waste of time. There is no way that Obama is anywhere near to being a socialist for a start - he's got that reputation because - shock of shocks - he wanted to rectify an uneven and inequitable health care system that left millions and millions of people worrying how to pay the bill if (for example) they got cancer. For that he was villified by the rabid 'Im alright Jack' right wing. If poorer people can't afford the ludicrous insurance premiums then tough - that's their fault for not working hard enough. THAT's the mentality of the Republicans.
If you thought the Tory Right were crazy you should see elements like the Tea Party who should all be straight-jacketed in a rubber room. These are people who advocate invading Muslim countries and 'converting' them to Christianity (see the crazy Anne Coulter on YouTube) and who push the teaching of Creationism in schools - removing Darwin in the process. In completely loopy Texas they've already removed reference to the American hero, Founding Father & secularist Thomas Jefferson in shoolbooks and replaced him with Calvin, the FRENCH founder of Calvinism. This is really scary stuff, people.
I never cease to be amazed at the stupidy of some Americans and can't believe this is going to be so close. "Voting for a change" (like you MillwallSteve) just because times are hard (take a look around the world!) could open a dangerous can of worms. Obama was left with a god-awful mess to clean up and he's less than halfway through. Had Romney been in charge the defence industry and the U.S War Machine would have benefited but that's about it. He certainly wouldn't have bailed out the car industry like Obama did because that just benefits the ordinary worker, and that's someone Romney just can't recognise - unless he's laying them off.
If you thought the Tory Right were crazy you should see elements like the Tea Party who should all be straight-jacketed in a rubber room. These are people who advocate invading Muslim countries and 'converting' them to Christianity (see the crazy Anne Coulter on YouTube) and who push the teaching of Creationism in schools - removing Darwin in the process. In completely loopy Texas they've already removed reference to the American hero, Founding Father & secularist Thomas Jefferson in shoolbooks and replaced him with Calvin, the FRENCH founder of Calvinism. This is really scary stuff, people.
I never cease to be amazed at the stupidy of some Americans and can't believe this is going to be so close. "Voting for a change" (like you MillwallSteve) just because times are hard (take a look around the world!) could open a dangerous can of worms. Obama was left with a god-awful mess to clean up and he's less than halfway through. Had Romney been in charge the defence industry and the U.S War Machine would have benefited but that's about it. He certainly wouldn't have bailed out the car industry like Obama did because that just benefits the ordinary worker, and that's someone Romney just can't recognise - unless he's laying them off.
I like the Tories. It is good to be ruled by your betters and of course " we are all in this together" and that lovely Mr Cameron is suffering the same just as I am on my measly pension. I am also very pleased that they are looking after their friends the bankers as without their sterling efforts (forgive the pun) I would probably be getting a lot less than the 0.5% interest I currently get on my life savings of £137 at the Post Office.
Five thirty eight gives Obama a 92% chance. Seems like a done deal now. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...ains-for-obama-leave-romney-with-longer-odds/
Well I consider conservative libertarianism to be pretty loathsome, but from what I've seen of him he's always very straight with what his policies are, even if he knows his audience isn't going to be keen on them. He's the only politician I can think of who would stick to his guns even if it makes him extremely unpopular, so I admire him for that. In that regard I certainly prefer him to Mitt Romney, who has flip-flopped on every single issue and now we have no idea what his actual policies are. If you can show me one instance of Ron Paul lying to his audience in order to gain their favour, I'll be very surprised.
In my opinion his foreign policy is the only reason to vote for him. He's strictly against foreign intervention and wants the country to keep itself to itself. He's had a lot of stick from other Republicans for saying that America needs to accept that it was partly responsible for 9/11, and I totally agree with him on that. He knows he's never going to be popular saying stuff like that, so that makes him pretty honest in my book.
Anyone who doesn't want universal healthcare is an idiot. The rest of the developed world doesn't even consider this an issue: universal healthcare = better standard of living. That is supported by many, many facts.
And I'd say Obama's presidency has been better than George Bush (Jr and Sr), but perhaps not as good as Clinton. Obviously I don't remember any others, but I don't hear many great things about Reagan and Nixon so I'm going to assume he's been better than them as well. A lot of his long-term goals were always going to require a second term. He's still working on getting troops home, and he still wants to close Guantanamo. Unfortunately these aren't easy things to achieve.
But let's look at what he has achieved: the economy is recovering, the automotive industry has been saved, jobs are consistently being created, Obamacare is beginning to look like a success and Bin Laden is dead. Not bad really.
I admire his dedication to principles as well. I think he goes to far with it at times. There's difference (although admittedly it can be a thin line) between being very principled and just sort of stamping your feet like a child when you don't have your way. Compromise is not always a bad thing. For that reason, there's no way I'd vote for him for President. But it's good to have a sort of principled, pure, no BS voice in Congress so I had no real issue with him as a Senator or as a pundit/voice for libertarianism.
My issue with him is that he is very right wing personally. His libertarianism trumps his right wing-ism for the most part, which I do respect him for. But he's considered by many to be the "founder" of the Tea Party movement and his son is an out-and-out Tea Partier.
He has never really come clean about the newsletters (google "Ron Paul newsletters"), or why so many people who used to work for him have been later found out to be huge racists. Or why he courts extremists who to me hold very un-libertarian values. Or why he continues to run as a Republican while claiming to be Libertarian.
At worst, I get the feeling that Ron Paul believes in small government because he thinks government props up the blacks, hippies, gays, and freaks and if we simply pull the plug his side will win. At best, I would say that Ron Paul is not quite the pure voice he claims to be, which would not be such a bad thing if it weren't for the fact that he is thought to be above it.
I quite like Gary Johnson, who is the Libertarian Presidential candidate. I don't support his views but he is sort of what Ron Paul is supposed to be but isn't. If the supposedly small government "Tea Party" types really wanted to put their money where their mouths are they would vote for him. But they won't because he believes in gay rights and legalizing prostitution and smoking dope and things consistent with small government/libertarianism. Whereas the Tea Party's idea of small government is really more like let's just get rid of everything we don't agree with.
I might even have tossed a vote Johnson's way just to show my support for having another voice/party in the country and for certain libertarian principles I believe in but aren't represented by either major party. But the election is close, and I live in a "battleground state," so I couldn't afford to do it.
What the whole thing? Until 6am? There's got to be some kind of drinking game for this!
If Obama is 92% to win or whatever stat I saw on here, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but why do they keep saying on the News that its so close?
So that you'll keep watching the news.
Also that 92% stat is only based on one guys's algorithm. Though to be fair he was shockingly accurate in 2008. I was watching BBC News earlier, and they did mention a couple of times that Romney has an uphill battle and it's not looking good for him in the swing states. As far as I've gathered he's looking good in North Carolina, but that's about it. Ohio seems to have swung strongly in Obama's favour, and it looks like he'll be getting Florida as well. That's all I can remember off the top of my head.
- Status