US Republician Candidates

[EGuitarStar]

With candidates now quitting the race to become the nominee it seems like it will be a two horse race between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. I for one would love to see Ron Paul become the next president of the US after all Obama promised "Change" but we got the same old crap.

Anyway, anyone trying to see who the real American is between Mitt and Ron and who will be best to take office here is a little video which should open your eyes a bit.

Any Americans here able to vote; please don't waste it by voting for anyone other than Ron

 

[StriderX]

Voting in the US elections is like voting for a 7 year old girl at a beauty pageant.

Most false, cosmetic, contrived pile of bull ever in the existence of this species.

A president cant do squat if 2/3rds of the government say no because, "well hes on the other team derp", completely ignoring that 300~ million Americans expect better (even if most are pointlessly apathetic to their own governance).

 

[[TW]Fox]

His policy of withdrawing from the UN seems odd.

 

[elmarko]

I'd take Ron over Mitt - don't like the idea of another religious nut-job in the white-house.

While religious himself, at least Ron does not believe the state should be enforcing Christian moral values on the population - besides, it would be interesting to see if he actually does reduce the US intervention in foreign affairs.

What am I thinking, they will cheat to make sure he doesn't or assassinate him if he does win.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Is it that hard to have a thread of this type without paranoid conspiracy delusions? Cheat or assassination? Just lol

 

[StriderX]

His policy of withdrawing from the UN seems odd.

The UN has failed again to do anything substantial, hell the Rio summit does more than the UN.

Its nothing more than another house to argue in for years only to set the argument back to 2015 or 2020.

The funds for the UN should be distributed to charitable organisations and the likes.

 

[elmarko]

Is it that hard to have a thread of this type without paranoid conspiracy delusions? Cheat or assassination? Just lol

Are you seriously suggesting that American presidents don't get assassinated ever?.

Are you also seriously suggesting that there was no voting irregularities in the bush election?.

I never said the US government would assassinate him, all you need is one red-neck who likes war with a gun.

Hardly a conspiracy theory.

 

[EGuitarStar]

Are you seriously suggesting that American presidents don't get assassinated ever?.

Are you also seriously suggesting that there was no voting irregularities in the bush election?.

Hardly a conspiracy theory.

+1

 

[King Damager]

I'd definitely prefer Romney to Paul....

Ron just seems like such a nutjob.... His disciples don't help with this too much.

(In 9 posts we already seem to have found 2 -.-)

On the other hand the article on Romney in the Economist this week made him seem like, on the whole, he could make a good president. Not to mention the fact he's walking all over Paul at the moment...

kd

 

[scorza]

I think Ron Paul is by far the most dangerous of the Republican candidates, a lot of people seem to forget he set up the Tea Party movement.

 

[DanTheMan]

The Republican candidacy elections of the past decade just seem to end up turning into a 'Let's show the world how crazy Americans can actually be' parade. I don't think there's been a Republican candidate since before G.W Bush that doesn't scream nut job.

 

[elmarko]

I think Ron Paul is by far the most dangerous of the Republican candidates, a lot of people seem to forget he set up the Tea Party movement.

The tea party isn't backing Ron Paul, he isn't even popular with them.

My preference to Ron Paul is based solely on the fact that world war 3 will be less likely with somebody who no longer want's to screw with other nations 24/7 (assuming he is telling the truth).

It's also refreshing to hear somebody attack corporate welfare (not just personal) & advocate cutting the US military budget/involvement in foreign affairs.

While I disagree with all republican candidates overall, it's a matter of preference.

 

[elmarko]

The Republican candidacy elections of the past decade just seem to end up turning into a 'Let's show the world how crazy Americans can actually be' parade. I don't think there's been a Republican candidate since before G.W Bush that doesn't scream nut job.

Can't argue there.

 

[Dunks]

I have to say I'd vote for Romney.

 

[scorza]

The tea party isn't backing Ron Paul, he isn't even popular with them.

He created a monster that he can't control, not the best track record for someone wanting to be president of the US

My preference to Ron Paul is based solely on the fact that world war 3 will be less likely with somebody who no longer want's to screw with other nations 24/7 (assuming he is telling the truth).

In my judgement, if the USA were to withdraw from the UN and NATO it would make world war 3 much more likely.

It's also refreshing to hear somebody attack corporate welfare (not just personal) & advocate cutting the US military budget/involvement in foreign affairs.

The problem is he puts ideology above pragmatism. No party would support the idea of bank bailouts, but when they became necessary there really wasn't any option as I see it.

While I disagree with all republican candidates overall, it's a matter of preference.

Agreed, this bunch of candidates are all hilariously bad.

 

[elmarko]

He created a monster that he can't control, not the best track record for someone wanting to be president of the US

To be fair, the tea-party was highjacked from christian fundamentalists quite some time ago - it was meant to be about libertarianism - not just as a method for the rich to pay less tax.

In my judgement, if the USA were to withdraw from the UN and NATO it would make world war 3 much more likely.

Time will tell on this one, but the USA's unyielding support of Israel (regardless of which nation is in the wrong) has always been a liability - combined with the regular flexing of military.

You need to look at the amount of wars the USA has been involved in the last 50 years to really appreciate this.

The problem is he puts ideology above pragmatism. No party would support the idea of bank bailouts, but when they became necessary there really wasn't any option as I see it.

I don't believe setting up the system in such a way the banks can use the tax-payers to cover the risk is very pragmatic.

Besides, it's possible to have an ideology of pragmatism.

Agreed, this bunch of candidates are all hilariously bad.

Again, can't argue here - I wouldn't want to vote for any of them, but the USA does need to reduce the amount of money is spends on military deployments around the globe - it's quite a large drain on the US economy & only causes the very actions they wish to prevent.

The purpose of the military is to protect the interests of the nation & it's people - unfortunately the kind of activities of the last 50 years have bred hatred & resentment for the USA which has helped breed terrorists around the globe.

They are spending over 20% of the budget on military spending (we spend about 6%)

 

[TJM]

Ron Paul is a libertarian lunatic. His isolationist policies might be great for the rest of the world, but America would suffer with a President who is rabid about government spending (going as far as to oppose vaccination programmes), is de facto pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (or, as he lamely puts it, pro-state rights) and opposes environmental regulation in any form.

 

[elmarko]

Ron Paul is a libertarian lunatic. His isolationist policies might be great for the rest of the world, but America would suffer with a President who is rabid about government spending (going as far as to oppose vaccination programmes), is de facto pro-death penalty, anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion (or, as he lamely puts it, pro-state rights) and opposes environmental regulation in any form.

I've read differently.

Firstly he anti-death penalty - personally against abortion (but does not believe the state should tell people they can't have abortions) - haven't heard much on his views on gay marriage.

It's hard to tell, as every single US news agency tells a different story pending on the political bias of the station - so you may be right.

But you have to remember that it's a matter of the best out of the bunch of idiots - the other contender made a political broadcast to specifically bash gay people (Serving in the military this time) - so there is no doubt on his views - I'm also pretty certain he's pro-death penalty, anti-abortion (& would legislate to enforce it).

 

[EGuitarStar]

It's hard to tell, as every single US news agency tells a different story pending on the political bias of the station - so you may be right.

This is a huge problem over in the US and how popular you are with the people depends on what news channel you watch and how that channel portrays you. It's Mad

 

[scorza]

Time will tell on this one, but the USA's unyielding support of Israel (regardless of which nation is in the wrong) has always been a liability - combined with the regular flexing of military.

You need to look at the amount of wars the USA has been involved in the last 50 years to really appreciate this.

How many of those wars developed into WW3? The only way we can really avoid major conflicts is by the global community coming together and discussing issues. The UN is an imperfect solution but it is a solution.

Regarding Israel, I also don't like the way they have been behaving of late and the backing they seem to get from the USA regardless. It's not much, but at least the UN is a global forum for criticism of Israel which imo is better than nothing.

I don't believe setting up the system in such a way the banks can use the tax-payers to cover the risk is very pragmatic.

Besides, it's possible to have an ideology of pragmatism.

I don't believe the system was set up that way, ironically it was allowed to happen by pursuing free market policies of non-interference - then all of a sudden the realisation that they were too big to fail occurred. Given the situation, there wasn't really much of an option. What would Ron Paul have done differently if he was president over the last 10 years? Interfered by for example breaking up the big banks? Passed regulation to stop them lending to each other? All kind of goes against what he stands for.