Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Karl Henning]

That's the nub: the actual solutions to the problems are political poison. Much easier to caricature the other guy ("Obamacare! It's Socialism!")

[Todd]

The vitriol, lies and absurd accusations thrown against Ron Paul in this thread really demonstrates how infantile and irrational democrats really are.

Silly goose, one need not be a Democrat to think Ron Paul is a doofus of the first order.  Just like one need not be a Democrat to be appalled at the slop that comes out of the mouths of people like Bachmann and Santorum. 


By the way, care to offer an explanation of how competing currencies is beneficial, a Paul idea?  James opted not to.  I'm waiting for a Paul supporter/fan to show me the light.

("Obamacare! It's Socialism!")

Well, it is socialist to a degree, just like universal public education.  One could argue that Social Security is, as well.  A few other programs could be viewed thusly.  That doesn't make them bad things. 

[Florestan]

Ever heard of a little country called Iceland?

Little is indeed the keyword here. 250,000 people who are (a) ethnically and ethically homogenous, (b) mostly concentrated in two or three towns and (c) basically know each other since childhood could certainly have it the libertarian way - but I douibt that 200,000,000 with different ethnical and ethical backgrounds and spread over a whole continent can...

[Todd]

but I douibt that 200,000,000 with different ethnical and ethical backgrounds and spread over a whole continent can...

Bump up that first number by 1.

[Florestan]

Well, it is socialist to a degree, just like universal public education.  One could argue that Social Security is, as well.  A few other programs could be viewed thusly.  That doesn't make them bad things.

Not everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public. I know it only too well: I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania, where Obama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig. 

[Florestan]

Bump up that first number by 1.

300,000,000 Americans then?

[Todd]

300,000,000 Americans then?

A bit more, actually.  Big country.

Not everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public.

Perhaps, but these are Socialist programs to my way of thinking.   (Hell, free, univeral public education was one of the demands in the Communist Manifesto.)  That does not make them bad in and of themselves.

Obama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig.

Well, there is some evidence that at least some American presidents in the last 60-70 years have acted in a somewhat imperial manner.

[drogulus]

http://www.youtube.com/v/meFjza6BpEA

Aside from the Afghanistan government failing (with the implication that it completely collapses, which it hasn't), I don't see much wrong with what he details here. For somebody who wants to avoid foreign intervention, he seems to understand the web of foreign interest quite well. More so than most of the people in the same room as him during that speech, who were voting on things they had no inkling about.

    The problem is not that what Ron Paul says is not true, it's that he doesn't have a better solution, and his proposals would make things worse. We have experience with ignoring problems and letting things run their course, and that's why we sometimes decide we can't do that. There's a great deal of uncertainty about interventions, and sometimes the cure is worse than the disease, but it's good to remember that the politicians that oppose foreign entanglements never explain how the world would be better if we stayed out of all conflicts. Wars would still happen, and interventions would still be necessary. The disease would be treated at a later stage, as when we decided the Taliban had to go after the WTC was hit. We neglected Afghanistan for a decade after the Soviets left. We left Saddam in place in 1991. It's proper to blame interventionists for the consequences of their policies, and so it is with oppositionists. The trouble is that the consequences of not doing something are often difficult to read, and oppositionists often switch sides like this:

     Why are we bogged down in Iraq when we should be concentrating on Afghanistan?

     Why are we helping the rebels in Libya when we should be helping in Syria?

     What about Darfur?

     The way this goes is that wherever we do intervene somewhere else looks good to oppositionists, but only as an alternative. If we do intervene where they want, someplace else will start to look good to them. My view is that for temperamental reasons some people like to make the best of chosen policies and others prefer something else that they imagine would be better. That fine, I can imagine better policies, too, especially on the economy, but I try to live within the limits of what can be realized.

     

Not everything public is socialist and not everything socialist is public. I know it only too well: I was born and raised in the Socialist Republic of Romania, where Obama would have been chastized as an imperialist pig. 

     One thing I've come to realize over the past few decades is that people who come from hard socialist/Communist countries often have a distorted view of Western social democracy, seeing it as incipient socialism of the bad kind that they know all too well. Yet this has never been the case. There is no tendency on the part of America or Western Europe to emulate Stalin, Honecker or Mao. This is the kind of thinking that gave us "Austrian" economics. Fundamentally it's an antiempirical view, which is exactly why it doesn't get how social democracy works. Advanced economies are not really divided into 2 spheres, government and private. They exist but they are interwoven and how each "part" performs sensitively affects the other parts. IOW Western economies are an embarrassment to theory, so the lesson to learn is that theories should be built on successful practice. Hard socialism is built on the most wonderful theory imaginable for a world where theories magically turn into realities. It's a top down theory with the same kind of central direction as the religious models it was based on, only we have the Party instead of the Church. Oh, and have you noticed it didn't take long to get back to the Church once the Party was overthrown?

[Josquin des Prez]

That comment really demonstrates the kneejerk, unthinking, two-dimensional world you really live (or think) in.  Not a month ago, I heard a former Republican Senator dismiss Paul as "goofy," so this discussion is not at all the occasion to sneer at Democrats which you are fond to think.

Except there are no republicans here, and not being a republican myself, i'm not particularly interested in what they have to say on the subject. Since most of the criticism directed at Ron Paul in this forum comes from democrats, its only logical for me to discuss the issue from that perspective.

[Josquin des Prez]

Warning: I know this is a political debate and things are bound to become heated now and then.

But DON'T call each other names - no "silly him", "silly her", "infantile" or whatever.

I won't bother tinkering with posts that don't conform with this rule - I will delete them in their entirety.

Q

But will you conform to posts using terms like charlatan, or lunatic?

[Josquin des Prez]

Both parties & and the candidates are the same, there are no differences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCQ8NGfcCE&feature=player_embedded

Pretty much, yes. Note that i'm going to be called an extremist here for merely quoting Alan Keyes. Democrats are not as open minded as they'd like you to believe.

[Henk]

Those Republican candidates are no opponent for Obama. It's just a show they perform, in which they seem to believe in, and the public likes it. Can't take people serious who think these Republic candidates can actually be a political leader of the USA.

[Josquin des Prez]

It's just a show they perform, in which they seem to believe in, and the public likes it.

Isn't this the very definition of democracy? I always find it bizarre that democrats seem to think that what they believe is what's best for the public. Sounds a bit like fascism, doesn't it? 

[Todd]

Clearly you don't know a thing about Paul's positions if that's all you have to say. He's a "nut", "fruitcake", he's a "doofus". Yea VERY informed, thoughtful positions. Again, get on YouTube and check him out more in depth, and read some of his books. Open your eyes! He has no equal intellectually, and he's the most genuine & consistent choice; he's the only one speaking 'the truth'  .. and he understands the system & the psychology behind-it, and what's really going down more than anybody. He understands history, civil liberties & the constitution more than anybody. He understands the economic issues & current crisis more than anybody and is the only one proposing real changes. Heck, he predicted a lot of it years ago and understands 'the heart', psychology and origins of many of the major issues that your country faces today. He gets the biggest support from troops. All the other status quo flip-floppers are for more of the same, their flimsy 'records' prove that .. the endless wars/entanglements, bigger govt, undermining civil liberties .. and ultimately more careless spending etc. If you get on YouTube alone .. you can witness first hand with video footage how Obama and the others just do not practice what they preach, the empty rhetoric, flip-flopping, horrible choices, and the hypocrisy is just sickening. They say one thing and do the opposite, none of them are for real necessary changes .. can't trust any of them, and their priorities are all messed up.

That's a pretty long response, followed by a few others.  Yet I do not see you, or Josquin, or any other Paul supporter/fan explaining his take on competing currencies.  It should be quite simple to explain, especially if the esteemed Dr Paul is so cogent in his arguments.  No, I see just another lament about other politicians.  Replacing establishment-type figures with charlatans is not a solution, sorry. 

Except there are no republicans here

And how did you determine this?

[Josquin des Prez]

And how did you determine this?

Well, if i'm not a republican, despite being the most right-wing person on this forum, i think its safe to say there aren't many others who would qualify, don't you think?

[Todd]

Well, if i'm not a republican, despite being the most right-wing person on this forum, i think its safe to say there aren't many others who would qualify, don't you think?

No, I don't think so.  It appears you don't know what a Republican is.

[Henk]

Isn't this the very definition of democracy? I always find it bizarre that democrats seem to think that what they believe is what's best for the public. Sounds a bit like fascism, doesn't it?

Republicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business. Do democrats say they know what's best for the public? It's way too black-white thinking.

Henk

[Josquin des Prez]

It appears you don't know what a Republican is.

Right. I'm sure you know more about being a Republican then the Republican themselves, correct?

[Josquin des Prez]

Republicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business. D

Ho? And yet Democrats bitch all the time about business interests taking precedence over anything else in this country. Isn't that the very definition of leadership? Or am i missing something?

[Todd]

Republicans are also democrats, but without being able to be a leader, too much involved they are with interests of business.

You should probably dig a bit deeper than the current presidential candidates.  It appears that you have a typically European understanding of US politics; ie, you only know a little about current national level candidates.

Do democrats say they know what's best for the public?

Yes, all the time.

Right. I'm sure you do more then the Republican themselves, correct?

I'm a lifelong Republican, that's why I'm interested in knowing how you concluded there are none here.  Let me guess, none are sufficiently conservative to meet your definition.