Pick Your Candidate

[CrystalTears]

I found this site that someone blogged about in order to help you decide on a candidate based on your views and their importance.

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php

I thought it would be interesting to share what candidates come up.

Interesting, my top three are Guiliani, Obama and Clinton.

[AestheticDeath]

haha I dont even know what half the topics entail - he should have listed something about them

[Gan]

The list needed more economy related issues, such as balanced budget, congressional spending, taxes, fiscal/economic policy, etc.

My results in order:

Guiliani
Hunter
Romney

[Stanley Burrell]

Kucinich 41

Gravel 41

Obama 32

[Warriorbird]

:chuckles: Nobody ranked very high but I got a bunch of candidates that will never be nominated. Gravel and Paul ranked pretty high.

[TheEschaton]

Seems like Stanley and I are rabid liberals:

Kucinich 48

Gravel 43

Obama 33

[AestheticDeath]

i tried it anyways - but i didnt get anyone over 21 points. and some of them the points were different, but the listed differences were the same.

[TheEschaton]

That's probably based on the weighting of your key issues, and how they weight their issues. IE, they both may support something you supported, but to different degrees.

Edited to add: Ron Paul was the only Republican to score positive on mine. He got an 8.

[AestheticDeath]

I need a site that actually discusses what all those issues are - so I can vote properly.

[Skirmisher]

Kucinich 32
Gravel 25
Richardson 20

[Drew]

It gave me Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter both at 43, neither of whom I like, and both of whom I strongly disagree with on several important issues. McCain at 33 and Sam Brownback at 32. I don't really like either of them either. It gave me the candidate I'm supporting, Mitt Romney, at 28. Highest Democrat I got was Bill Richardson at negative 17. Lowest Democrat was Kucinich (no surprise there) at negative 43.

[Ilvane]

Kucinich 45, Clinton 35, Obama 33

Hmm. Kucinich by a long shot.

Angela

P.S Bottom three Huckabee -31, Tancredo -35, Hunter -36

[Gan]

I need a site that actually discusses what all those issues are - so I can vote properly.

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm

[Drew]

http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm



Haha, got this from the website Gan linked to, Michael Jesus Archangel:

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm#archangel

There's a dark horse candidate! His website has a definite TimeCube feel to it, if not so focused.

[grapedog]

i think they are ranking some items higher than i rank them...i'm not as concerned about the war in Iraq or No Child left behind as I am some other issues...yet, it looks like it weighted those very heavily as opposed to some others.

Also, they DEFINITELY need to include more economic issues...talk about a democratic leaning poll. Almost every single one of those issues was a societal issue.

[Bobmuhthol]

Obama 42
Edwards 32
Kucinich 32
Clinton 32

I'll take Edwards, tyvm.

[Parkbandit]

My results:

Guiliani
Romney
Hunter

Within 5 points of the top 3]

Bottom 3:

Richardson -11
Kucinich -12
Gravel -21


Gravel is a nutjob.. so it makes me feel a little better about the tool.

[DeV]

Kucinich 27
Clinton 23
Dodd 21

[Sean of the Thread]

That's probably based on the weighting of your key issues, and how they weight their issues. IE, they both may support something you supported, but to different degrees.

Edited to add: Ron Paul was the only Republican to score positive on mine. He got an 8.

8? You really must be a real flamer libby!! Even common sense dictates you agree with some/a lot of some conservative issues?

[TheEschaton]

Yes, which is why he scored an 8. If the scale is -n to n, that's not bad, it's on the top 50% of what he could have scored.

-theE-

[Jayvn]

Apparently none of them prefer torture.... I got bored and clicked on torture and support and key...

[Izalude]

Kucinich 46
Gravel 36
Obama 28

Heh...

[TheEschaton]

YES RADICAL LIBERAL.

[Gan]

They're everywhere!

They're everywhere!

:spaz:

[Back]

Kucinich 95
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions

Gravel 79
Death Penalty, Iran Sanctions

Edwards 71
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Clinton 71
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Dodd 66
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran - Military Action

Obama 66
Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Richardson 63
Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage

Biden 61
No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Same-Sex Marriage

Paul -16

------------------------------------------------

My money is on Obama no matter the outcome of this poll. I think grapedog is right... it is heavily weighted towards social issues. But, to say that social issues are the domain of democrats is a bit of a stretch considering that same-sex marriage is most definately a social issue that most republicans have a very strong opinion of.



On a side note, just for us internet nerds, I took the poll and opposed Net Neutrallity as key.

Giuliani 5
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Paul 5
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

McCain 5
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Brownback 5
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

Thompson 5
(you have no disagreements with this candidate)

[Bobmuhthol]

Here's a list of fucking idiots:

Giuliani
Paul
McCain
Brownback
Thompson

[Drew]

Here's a list of fucking idiots:

Giuliani
Paul
McCain
Brownback
Thompson


Not to threadjack, but I'd just like to mention how government regulation of long distance phone lines worked so well in past...

[grapedog]

I think grapedog is right... it is heavily weighted towards social issues. But, to say that social issues are the domain of democrats is a bit of a stretch considering that same-sex marriage is most definately a social issue that most republicans have a very strong opinion of.

Saying social issues are the domain of the democrats wasn't the best wording. Typically more democrats come out stronger for or against social issues, while republicans tend to focus more on economic issues. Obviously it's not that cut and dried...but you know what i mean, it's one of the main differences between the two parties. Before the crazy christian conservatives took over the party that is...and our current president. Our current president doesn't apparently give two shits about budgets or deficits...but regardless...

A poll like this is dickless without some equally heavily weighted economic questions. I could give two shits about Iran currently...but the exchange rate on the dollar, tax breaks for moving labor off-shore, immigrant workers taking up entry level U.S. jobs and so on, are all very important to me.

[Back]

A poll like this is dickless without some equally heavily weighted economic questions. I could give two shits about Iran currently...but the exchange rate on the dollar, tax breaks for moving labor off-shore, immigrant workers taking up entry level U.S. jobs and so on, are all very important to me.

The Iran issue is not dickless. Its very serious. Then again so is Iraq.

[grapedog]

The Iran issue is not dickless. Its very serious. Then again so is Iraq.

For you, and for a lot of people, the Iraq and Iran issues are paramount to other issues. For me they are not...

Those issues themselves are not dickless...but this poll, without more specific economy related issues, is dickless. It's half a poll...there are no points on this poll which a fiscally minded person can get a handle on who they match up well with. I already know I'm socially moderate...hence most of my top picks ended up being Democrats by default. It's unfortunate because I care much more about the economy of this country than I do some issues listed in this poll.

Parkbandit, which was one of two people who had mostly republicans at the top of his list might actually favor a democrat or two depending on how he stands on financial issues. He'll never know based solely on this poll. Not that he definately would, but I'm just using him as an example since he is one of the few who actually got republican matches.

All I'm saying is that this poll only represents one side, the social side...and while some of these issues will have an effect on the economy, there are no true economic issues on this list.

[grapedog]

as an aside, if you go to that 2decide.com link, Ron Paul has 3 boxes total checked, and 2 marked as other...how the fuck are you supposed to get him as a favorable response when he opposes 9/10th's of whats on the list? If you look at Ron Pauls website, some of those checks/X's are not correct. You look at Clinton, and shes against the war in Iraq, against the surge, but for phased withdrawl in Iraq...but shes also for military action in Iran which is strange....and she's got probably the same or more box's checked than any other candidate? Guliani I think might have more boxes checked, but by a slim margin.

This poll just has some flaws in it...

[Back]

This poll just has some flaws in it...

Good point.

[Tsa`ah]

Heh, Kucinich ranked tops with 38, followed by Clinton and Gravel.

Since I'd never vote for Clinton and really don't agree with her views, let alone how she vaguely proposes implementation ... it's pretty safe to say that there wasn't much thought put into the script.

It's really nothing more than pairing your limited input to scores given to each candidate in a specific category.

When it came to the war in Iraq, I do support a troop surge, a withdraw and oppose it in general. That doesn't mean I agree with any candidate that wants a huge troop build up to "win" the war. That means I believe we need to give the troops the numbers and equipment they need now to protect themselves and secure the areas we hold for some semblance of stability and to train the Iraq forces to do their jobs ... and then get the fuck out of there.

Someone who opposes a constitutional ban on same sex marriage may not believe in same sex marriage, but may also believe that it's not the Fed's right to involve themselves in the issue. Yet they'll be coupled with a candidate that wants such a marriage legally protected and recognized.

[Gan]

Here's a list of fucking idiots:

Giuliani
Paul
McCain
Brownback
Thompson

You missed a few Bob. Here, I'll help you.

Kucinich
Gravel
Obama
Clinton
Dodd

[Jessaril]

If you believe in this country as it was founded, you want this country to get out of debt, you want to perserve your personal rights...

...You should really just vote for Ron Paul.

Stop the big government foolishness now.

[Latrinsorm]

So Ron Paul is for the 3/5ths rule and taking the vote away from women? Or is he for repealing the Constitution altogether and returning to the Articles of Confederation?

[Keller]

Kucinich, Gravel, and Obama.

This thing lacked economic issues and I think I went a little too far to the left because the only key issues for me were abortion rights, stem cell research, and no wire tapping. Other than that, I had a handful of importants and a BUNCH of "mehs."

[Sean]

Top 3
Gravel 40
Kucinich 37
Obama 25

Bottom 3
Tancredo -34
Romney -41
Hunter -43

[Jessaril]

So Ron Paul is for the 3/5ths rule and taking the vote away from women? Or is he for repealing the Constitution altogether and returning to the Articles of Confederation?

I'm alittle confused why you'd say this since Ron Paul is the only one of the candidates that actually believes in the constitution.

[Latrinsorm]

Just pointing out that the country "as it was founded" was a haven for bigotry and racism. I threw in the rope of sand for a little extra oomph.

[TheSmooth1]

What's "stem cell research"

[Jessaril]

Just pointing out that the country "as it was founded" was a haven for bigotry and racism. I threw in the rope of sand for a little extra oomph.

Bigotry and racism are not aspects of the constitution, they are an aspect of society. There is nothing in the constituion promoting bigotry, nor was it a founding ideal. Of course, in 1870 they felt that they needed to specify that rights were not barred based on race since some people decided other races were inferior, but to say it was a founding ideal is a bit of a stretch.

[Jessaril]

What's "stem cell research"

Stem cells are cells that still have the ability to divide mitotic cell division which gives them the unique ability to become many (any?) type of specialized cell in the body. Unfortunately the greatest concentrations of them are in Embryos (some are available in the spinal column). Harvesting of embryotic stem cells was outlawed by President Bush. Basically what they have on ice now, is all they'll have for research until the ban is repealed. Many scientists believe that stem cells hold the key to curing many diseases including cancer, aids, paralysis, Alzheimer’s, etc.

[Latrinsorm]

There is nothing in the constituion promoting bigotry,That's entirely correct; there is nothing in the Constitution promoting bigotry. There was something in the Constitution that did exactly that, however:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
nor was it a founding ideal.How careless of them to leave it in, eh?

More importantly, I'd like to reiterate part of the statement you quoted: "the country "as it was founded" was a haven for bigotry and racism." You're welcome to continue addressing the Constitution, but it's an inarguable fact that the republic of 1790 excluded 700,000 people from equal consideration as human beings. If that's what Ron Paul wants, I'd just as soon vote for Osama bin Clinton.

[Jessaril]

That's entirely correct; there is nothing in the Constitution promoting bigotry. There was something in the Constitution that did exactly that, however:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."How careless of them to leave it in, eh?

More importantly, I'd like to reiterate part of the statement you quoted: "the country "as it was founded" was a haven for bigotry and racism." You're welcome to continue addressing the Constitution, but it's an inarguable fact that the republic of 1790 excluded 700,000 people from equal consideration as human beings. If that's what Ron Paul wants, I'd just as soon vote for Osama bin Clinton.

You're reading far more into my first post then is really necessary -- I guess I should have just said he stands for the constitution instead of assuming people wouldn't bring up old repealed amendments made as a compromise between differing groups.

Ultimatly you can vote for whoever you want, and you can say and write what you want about anyone so long as it isn't considered libel or slander. If people took the time to actually look at the candidates, I just can't see how anyone could support most of them. Electing another big-government lacky is just going to continue to errode our economy, our rights and ultimatly the well-being of our country. Don't help elect another empty suit -- don't help elect Rudy or Hillary or one of the multiple carbon copies. Of course, if you do support them, don't blame us (the Ron Paul supporters) when NN or some other bill that further strips your rights is signed into law by your newly elected offical. If you're a Republican, I just don't see how you can actually support another champion of the welfare-state. Maybe it's time to actually elect a Repulbican that understand what the Republican party actually stands for?

Elect someone with some courage -- elect someone that actually stands up for your rights.

I would challenge anyone that hasn't to actually watch some of Ron Paul's message -- the 65 min video of him at google covers a broad range of his stances on issues.

Oh, and by the way, he's not against legalized marijuana.

[Jorddyn]

Kucinich - No Child Left Behind, Minimum Wage Increase
Gravel
Obama - Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage

Sad that I don't even know who Gravel is. Kucinich and Obama typically rank high on my list on these things.

Jorddyn

[Flurbins]

Kucinich 47
Gravel 45
Paul 33
Biden 30
Obama 29

Cox -21
Tancredo -33
Huckabee -34
Hunter -43
Romney -52

[Bobmuhthol]

blag

[Jessaril]

Paul 41
Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling

Thompson 19
Death Penalty, Guantanamo, Iraq Troop Surge

McCain 9
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal

Brownback 7
No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iraq War, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban



Suprise, suprise

[Sean of the Thread]

Paul 41
Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling

Thompson 19
Death Penalty, Guantanamo, Iraq Troop Surge

McCain 9
Death Penalty, No Child Left Behind, Guns - Background Checks, Patriot Act, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Iraq War, Iraq Troop Surge, Iraq Withdrawal

Brownback 7
No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Iraq War, Same-Sex Civil Union, Same-Sex Constitutional Ban



Suprise, suprise

I highly doubt that many if any were SURPRISED about your stupidity.

[Drinin]

Kucinich, Hunter, Tancredo, Romney, and Giuliani are my top 5.

[TheEschaton]

How is that even possible? Kucinich is like the polar opposite of the other four.

[Jessaril]

I highly doubt that many if any were SURPRISED about your stupidity.

I'm the stupid one? Last time I checked most people embraced freedom. I guess stupidy, atleast for you, has a different definition them we're all use to.

So, who do you support then?

[Gan]

You're reading far more into my first post then is really necessary -- I guess I should have just said he stands for the constitution instead of assuming people wouldn't bring up old repealed amendments made as a compromise between differing groups.
He's actually reading what you wrote into your first post. You're just busy stepping back onto your own feet to admit it. For a moment you sounded purely like a Ron Paul commercial. Oh wait, you still do.


Ultimatly you can vote for whoever you want, and you can say and write what you want about anyone so long as it isn't considered libel or slander. If people took the time to actually look at the candidates, I just can't see how anyone could support most of them.
Thats just you assuming that most people have your perspective with regards to politics. Obviously they dont, so quit trying to insult them into thinking like you do.


Electing another big-government lacky is just going to continue to errode our economy, our rights and ultimatly the well-being of our country. Don't help elect another empty suit -- don't help elect Rudy or Hillary or one of the multiple carbon copies.
Yes, because our economy and well-being here in the US is so much in the shitter... LOL


Of course, if you do support them, don't blame us (the Ron Paul supporters) when NN or some other bill that further strips your rights is signed into law by your newly elected offical.
Quit trying to scare people to vote for your candidate. Its beneath most who post here in the politics folder of the PC.



If you're a Republican, I just don't see how you can actually support another champion of the welfare-state. Maybe it's time to actually elect a Repulbican that understand what the Republican party actually stands for?

Perhaps its time the Republican's figured out who actually defines their party, and then maybe they'll realize that it doesnt represent all who are social conservatives or economic conservatives. Personally, I think the party bandwagon is a crock.



Elect someone with some courage -- elect someone that actually stands up for your rights.
And none of the other candidates dont do this? Only Ron Paul does this??? Come on now. I mean seriously...


I would challenge anyone that hasn't to actually watch some of Ron Paul's message -- the 65 min video of him at google covers a broad range of his stances on issues.
Why waste 65 minutes when you can access his website and read it for yourself without the spin, in a fraction of the time. ;)


Oh, and by the way, he's not against legalized marijuana.
Read: Even though he's a Republican, he can still relate to the hippies!!! Vote for Ron Paul!!!

:lol:

Thanks for the laugh.

[Back]

Welcome to the PC, Jess. Where you get persecuted by morons for being intellectual. :)

[Jessaril]

He's actually reading what you wrote into your first post. You're just busy stepping back onto your own feet to admit it.


I misspoke (typed?) I already admitted that, do you want a formal apology or what?



For a moment you sounded purely like a Ron Paul commercial. Oh wait, you still do.


Yeah, I agree with the man on almost every issue, what's your point?



Yes, because our economy and well-being here in the US is so much in the shitter... LOL


Right, that 9 trillion dollar debt will just go away with the constantly increasing size and spending habits of our government. And you know, printing money when you need it is a terribly effective way to control inflation.



Thats just you assuming that most people have your perspective with regards to politics. Obviously they dont, so quit trying to insult them into thinking like you do.

Quit trying to scare people to vote for your candidate. Its beneath most who post here in the politics folder of the PC.

Perhaps its time the Republican's figured out who actually defines their party, and then maybe they'll realize that it doesnt represent all who are social conservatives or economic conservatives.


It wasn't my intention to "scare" or "insult" anyone, but I find it alittle ridiculous that people consider themselves republicans/democrates/whatever and don't even seen to know what the parties stand for.



Personally, I think the party bandwagon is a crock.


It is terribly limiting, candidate wise, but as long as the majority of american's fall in line and vote along party lines it won't change.



And none of the other candidates dont do this? Only Ron Paul does this??? Come on now. I mean seriously...


Patriot act.



Why waste 65 minutes when you can access his website and read it for yourself without the spin, in a fraction of the time. ;)

Read: Even though he's a Republican, he can still relate to the hippies!!! Vote for Ron Paul!!!

Well, some people don't like to read, and it's more effective when you hear him deliever it, but either works.

And there is nothing wrong with hippies, they are people too. Of course, given the reaction to the guy with the thread looking for blunt weapons, I would imagine there are others around who might agree with that.

[Jessaril]

I would be interested to know what the reasoning behind the Anti-Ron Paul sentiment is based on.

[LordBacl]

I would be interested to know what the reasoning behind the Anti-Ron Paul sentiment is based on.

The following is not my opinion, nor is it not not my opinion, but it is an article that maybe sheds light on "anti-Ron Paul" sentiment.

Greg Saunders (http://thismodernworld.com/3892) writes:
Because it needs to be said…
Ron Paul sucks.

What? You want me to elaborate? Okay, let’s start with this quote from John Derbyshire (of “the best thing he ever did was get kicked in the head by Bruce Lee” fame) :

Ron Paul believes a lot of what you believe, and what I believe. You don’t imagine he’s going to be the 44th POTUS, but you kind of hope he does well none the less.
And why not? Look at those policy positions! Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve; balance the budget; go back to the gold standard; pull out of the U.N. and NATO; end the War on Drugs; overturn Roe v. Wade; repeal federal restrictions on gun ownership; fence the borders; deport illegals; stop lecturing foreign governments about human rights; let the Middle East go hang. What’s not to like?

First of all, abolishing the IRS is a batshit crazy idea. The idea that you can fix a problem by either abolishing the agency with problems (IRS, Fed) or pulling out completely (UN, NATO) is anarchy. It doesn’t make the need for those organizations go away, it just replaces one set of problems with a worse set of problems.
Ron Paul is one of those “free market” zealots (a scary breed of faith-based politician) who honestly believe unregulated capitalism is the cure for all of society’s ills. We tried that in the late 1800’s and we ended up with the Gilded Age, steel monopolies, children working in factories, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, etc. This “Invisible Hand” bullshit would lead us back to that awful time. Ron Paul’s rhetoric sounds good when you’re trying to get a crowd of people to pump their fists, but in terms of actually solving problems, it’s lunacy.

Another thing, and this can’t be repeated often enough, that Ron Paul caucuses with the Republican Party. The same one that wants to ban gay marriage, ban abortion, has exploded the deficit, etc. Odd that a principled, small government maverick would aid a party that has abandoned every ideal he stands for. It’s enough to make you wonder if “libertarians” like Ron Paul aren’t just a bunch of phonies or sellouts who will support a party whose platform they find abhorrent as long as they get their precious tax cuts.

Of course, the way liberals are jumping on the Ron Paul bandwagon, I can’t help but wonder if their support is equally based on a myopic one-issue platform, even if it means, for example, we get stuck with a small government conservative president who would likely oppose any effort to provide universal healthcare. As long as he ends the war, he can roll back Roe vs. Wade all he wants.

Normally, I’d just end the Ron Paul bashing there, but there’s so much more to cover, like this but from a recent NY Times profile :

A larger vulnerability may be that voters want more pork-barrel spending than Paul is willing to countenance. In a rice-growing, cattle-ranching district, Paul consistently votes against farm subsidies. In the very district where, on the night of Sept. 8, 1900, a storm destroyed the city of Galveston, leaving 6,000 dead, and where repairs from Hurricane Rita and refugees from Hurricane Katrina continue to exact a toll, he votes against FEMA and flood aid.

FEMA and flood aid are pork? I guess he gets points for not being one of those libertarians who favors abolishing everything only to backpedal when you start pointing out all of the things we really need the government to do, but voting against FEMA? Moreover, why is he the lone dissenter in these cases?

In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks: Paul voted against similar medals for Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He routinely opposes resolutions that presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Robert Mugabe’s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

And let’s not forget that he’s a racist too. DailyKos diarist phenry found this choice nugget from the “Ron Paul Political Report” :

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Oddly enough, Paul’s excuse for this stuff now is that his offensive articles were ghost-written. Don’t worry folks, Ron Paul just outsourced his racist rants.

A friend of mine was in an argument with a Ron Paul cultist the other day whose answer to criticism is that we’re just scared of “people with big ideas”. You know what’s even scarier? People with bad ideas.

[Drew]

I'm glad he voted against a medal to honor Rosa Parks. If someone or some group wants to honour someone, they should make the medal themselves. The only people government has a legitimate reason to honour are military or police officers. I don't really agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things, but at least he votes for the small steps to keep government small. How much money does a boondoggle like a medal for Rosa Park or PJP II cost? This is not what government should be there for, to waste our money.

[Gan]

While the subject is on Ron Paul.

His site outlines that Congress is runaway spending and yet he's on record (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4934728.html)in 2008 for requesting over $104 million in earmarks.

His idea of going back to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve is probably the most scary of all his ideas. Hell, I'm a free market capitalist and yet I feel that there is still the need for moderation by the government to a certain extent simply because there needs to exist some rules in our market economy.

And as we discussed in the tax thread, abolishing the IRS and our current form of Federal Income Taxes, while a novel idea, is not feasable without bringing the economy to its knees.

The other thing that troubles me is that if Paul is so against foreign investment, I'd like to know how he plans to combat it; especially since there would be no investment without consumption by the American people. Does he plan on placing limits on our consumption? How? And how does that fit into his paradigm of a pure free market economy?

Another thing that doesnt ring true is again, his championing a free market economy and yet is on record against NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. I think he needs to go back and read up on his economics and the principal of comparative advantage relating to trade and how that fits into a global economy.

All in all, his issues are heavily based on protectionism. You see evidence of that in his stance on the war in Iraq, economic policies of the gold standard and limiting free trade with neighboring countries, foreign relation policies and his idea of withdrawing to a lesser presence in the world community. And yet even with these ideas prevailing his speeches he still tells everyone who visits his website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/),
"At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. " Does he just not get it?

Eh, no thanks. This Texan isnt voting for Ron Paul. He may be a good congressman, but I dont think he'll make a good President.

[TheEschaton]

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.


ROFFLE MAO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEWgs6YQR9A)

[Jessaril]

While the subject is on Ron Paul.

His site outlines that Congress is runaway spending and yet he's on record (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/4934728.html)in 2008 for requesting over $104 million in earmarks.

His idea of going back to the gold standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve is probably the most scary of all his ideas. Hell, I'm a free market capitalist and yet I feel that there is still the need for moderation by the government to a certain extent simply because there needs to exist some rules in our market economy.

And as we discussed in the tax thread, abolishing the IRS and our current form of Federal Income Taxes, while a novel idea, is not feasable without bringing the economy to its knees.

The other thing that troubles me is that if Paul is so against foreign investment, I'd like to know how he plans to combat it; especially since there would be no investment without consumption by the American people. Does he plan on placing limits on our consumption? How? And how does that fit into his paradigm of a pure free market economy?

Another thing that doesnt ring true is again, his championing a free market economy and yet is on record against NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. I think he needs to go back and read up on his economics and the principal of comparative advantage relating to trade and how that fits into a global economy.

All in all, his issues are heavily based on protectionism. You see evidence of that in his stance on the war in Iraq, economic policies of the gold standard and limiting free trade with neighboring countries, foreign relation policies and his idea of withdrawing to a lesser presence in the world community. And yet even with these ideas prevailing his speeches he still tells everyone who visits his website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/), Does he just not get it?

Eh, no thanks. This Texan isnt voting for Ron Paul. He may be a good congressman, but I dont think he'll make a good President.

Everyone knows, atleast I hope they do, that the IRS and the Fed (even if it was founded illegally to protect the rich) are here to stay. For me, it's more a matter of him being willing to stand up on his own and say they're a waste of resources (He actually addressed it in the google video).

As for the gold standard, he doesn't want the gold standard specifically, all he believes is money should be backed by hard assets, it's anti-inflationary, and one I firmly agree with.

NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA:

I believe his actual belief on this is he is for foreign trade, just not managed foreign trade. And NAFTA is crazy, you gotta admit that.

Personally I think Ron Paul's ideas are alot less radical then socialize medicine.

[Keller]

Uhhh, in what way is money not backed by tangible/intangible assets?

[Keller]

Welcome to the PC, Jess. Where you get persecuted by morons for being intellectual. :)

I don't remember you persecuting anyone recently . . .

[Keller]

Personally I think Ron Paul's ideas are alot less radical then socialize medicine.


Redacting the Internal Revenue Code is less radical than removing the profit motive from medical insurance?

You're nuts.

[Jessaril]

Uhhh, in what way is money not backed by tangible/intangible assets?

The US dollar is a fiat currency -- It has no intrinsic value what so ever.

[Jessaril]

Redacting the Internal Revenue Code is less radical than removing the profit motive from medical insurance?

You're nuts.

I might be nuts, but if that means I'm not in favor of a trend towards socialism in the US government, I can live you you calling me nuts."

Read the quote in Gans signature...

[Keller]

I might be nuts, but if that means I'm not in favor of a trend towards socialism in the US government, I can live you you calling me nuts."

Read the quote in Gans signature...


You pulled a bait and switch. I'm not arguing the merits of socialism. I'm arguing that socialized medicine is not nearly as radical as redacting the internal revenue code.

[Keller]

The US dollar is a fiat currency -- It has no intrinsic value what so ever.

Except the value created by the receiver to warrant it's issue, of course.

It's value is not intrinsic, it is extrinsic. The value is what it represents.

[Jessaril]

Except the value created by the receiver to warrant it's issue, of course.

It's value is not intrinsic, it is extrinsic. The value is what it represents.

The fiat system is by default inflationary, freely printing money does nothing but continually reduce that "value". You can look throughout History at the number of fiat currencies that have imploded and in stark contrast, the number of "gold standard" (read: money with intrinsic value) currencies that are successful. The only thing that prevents the gold standard currencies from persisting is peoples desire to live outside their means.

[Keller]

The fiat system is by default inflationary, freely printing money does nothing but continually reduce that "value". You can look throughout History at the number of fiat currencies that have imploded and in stark contrast, the number of "gold standard" (read: money with intrinsic value) currencies that are successful. The only thing that prevents the gold standard currencies from persisting is peoples desire to live outside their means.


Or the fact that there is more tangible/intangible value produced than could ever be backed by tangible assets, like gold.

Unless you want to argue that:
- Gold is discrete.
- Because of this fact, as value contributed increases, gold will become more valuable as the limited ounces of gold does not increase.

But then, all you're doing is artificially increasing the value of a material object which is meant to REPRESENT value. Does that sound like anything else? Paper bills, maybe?

Printing money is not the same as giving that money away. The paper bills produced represent value contributed. Now, if we just printed dollars and handed them out like Greenpeace flyers on the street corner, then you'd have an argument.

[Latrinsorm]

I would be interested to know what the reasoning behind the Anti-Ron Paul sentiment is based on.Even assuming we should care about Americans more than any other humans (which is utter bullshit), isolationism is the worst thing we could ever do for American safety (even if we pretend it's not isolationism). Ask Henry Cabot Lodge how Pearl Harbor turned out.

I was just fooling around with the 3/5ths thing, but Jesus. Is Paul actually a racist?

[Jessaril]

Even assuming we should care about Americans more than any other humans (which is utter bullshit), isolationism is the worst thing we could ever do for American safety (even if we pretend it's not isolationism). Ask Henry Cabot Lodge how Pearl Harbor turned out.

I was just fooling around with the 3/5ths thing, but Jesus. Is Paul actually a racist?

I don't get how people keep comming back to Paul being an Isolationist. Because he disagrees with agencies managing trade and believes we should be free to trade with who we want?


As for the racism bit:

http://crasch.livejournal.com/587782.html

It's got a slight Paul bias towards the end, but he does a good job of being objective until that point.

Edit: also note he didn't write much in that newsletter, most of it was written by other authors. Not that that excuses him from associating with it, but...

[CrystalTears]

LiveJournal? And here I thought some other sources were bad.

[Jessaril]

One other interesting thing I found. It doesn't necessarily mean anything important but I thought it was interesting:

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

[Jessaril]

LiveJournal? And here I thought some other sources were bad.


So if i had linked a NBC, ABC, FOX, MSNBC or other major news organization, it would have been more credible right?

[Drew]

The US dollar is a fiat currency -- It has no intrinsic value what so ever.



Except we've proved that in the short and medium term a fiat economy works. The gold standard wasn't broken per se, but it wasn't stable, neither was Bretton Woods. 100% reserve can work when you are talking about serfs and Lords but for our current world economy it's completely unworkable.


I also believe that as long as your fiat currency is convertible to gold you are still a gold backed currency. Your currency just floats freely relative to gold, this is a stable system as long as your monetary policy is sound. I actually own quite a bit more gold (and silver) than I would if I cared about maximum returns, but I think it's prudent. If you are concerned about the unbacked dollar I recommend you look into digital gold currency. That's part of the beauty of the free market, if you think our currency is weak or about to collapse you can invest in gold and come out aces if you are correct.

[Jessaril]

I've been buying gold for awhile, I think I should probably stop and start buying copper though =). The fiat system does work like you said, but if we're serious about persisting as a strong economic country we need to look at more reasonable spending habits. I realize the issue isn't necessaraly fully the fault of the fiat currency, however it doesn't help that you have a currency that is inflationary by default. Couple that with this countries astonishing spending habits and you're sitting on a timebomb.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't get how people keep comming back to Paul being an Isolationist.Backing out of the UN?(???????????????)
Directly quoted from his website: "Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations." "We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home." "Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised."

Just because he says at the end "LOL BUT NO ISOLATIONISM" doesn't make it any less isolationist.

[Drew]

The fiat system does work like you said, but if we're serious about persisting as a strong economic country we need to look at more reasonable spending habits.



This is true, but gold backed currency is not the solution. A much simpler solution, for instance, would be an amendment that only let government spend cash-on-hand, or that would not let it run a debt. Although this has problems of its own.

[Gan]

The fiat system is by default inflationary, freely printing money does nothing but continually reduce that "value". You can look throughout History at the number of fiat currencies that have imploded and in stark contrast, the number of "gold standard" (read: money with intrinsic value) currencies that are successful. The only thing that prevents the gold standard currencies from persisting is peoples desire to live outside their means.

Your ignorance of the Federal Reserve and how the money supply works is frightening.


Except we've proved that in the short and medium term a fiat economy works. The gold standard wasn't broken per se, but it wasn't stable, neither was Bretton Woods. 100% reserve can work when you are talking about serfs and Lords but for our current world economy it's completely unworkable.


I also believe that as long as your fiat currency is convertible to gold you are still a gold backed currency. Your currency just floats freely relative to gold, this is a stable system as long as your monetary policy is sound. I actually own quite a bit more gold (and silver) than I would if I cared about maximum returns, but I think it's prudent. If you are concerned about the unbacked dollar I recommend you look into digital gold currency. That's part of the beauty of the free market, if you think our currency is weak or about to collapse you can invest in gold and come out aces if you are correct.
Drew gets it. :)


I've been buying gold for awhile, I think I should probably stop and start buying copper though =). The fiat system does work like you said, but if we're serious about persisting as a strong economic country we need to look at more reasonable spending habits. I realize the issue isn't necessaraly fully the fault of the fiat currency, however it doesn't help that you have a currency that is inflationary by default. Couple that with this countries astonishing spending habits and you're sitting on a timebomb.
I disagree with the dollar being an inflationary currency when you have consistent regulation of M1 and M2 through the Fed (this includes the Fed controlling M1 and M2 not to mention being the sole responsible entity that determines when and how much money is printed, as well as the maintenance of money and if and how its replaced through attrition). A little research on your part might help open your eyes a little as to how valuable the Federal Reserve has been to the stabilization of our economy since the Volker years.

[Warriorbird]

I agree with some of the things Paul says. Doesn't mean he's even close to actually being who I'd choose as a candidate.

[Bhuryn]

I disagree with the dollar being an inflationary currency when you have consistent regulation of M1 and M2 through the Fed (this includes the Fed controlling M1 and M2 not to mention being the sole responsible entity that determines when and how much money is printed, as well as the maintenance of money and if and how its replaced through attrition). A little research on your part might help open your eyes a little as to how valuable the Federal Reserve has been to the stabilization of our economy since the Volker years.


Other then controlling bank holdings, isn't the feds regulation of interest rates simply just an attempt to persuade people to save or spend money? I never liked econ 101, but that's what I always understood it to be.

I thought m1 and m2 were just stats they used to evaluate the flow of money?

[Gan]

Other then controlling bank holdings, isn't the feds regulation of interest rates simply just an attempt to persuade people to save or spend money? I never liked econ 101, but that's what I always understood it to be.

Disclaimer: I'm not an economist nor a professor with an advanced degree in economics, I only have a BS in Economics. And sometimes I suck at explaining things. (Now that that's out of the way)

The Federal Reserve has many responsibilities, but yes one of the primary and most influential thing they do is control the fed funds rate which has the effect of loosening or tightening the lending/availability of money which effects how business and people borrow and spend. By controlling the rate thats charged to banks to lend money, the Fed can influence bank loan interest rates which influence willingness of businesses and individuals to borrow. The cause and effect relationship between business spending and individual spending are so intertwined it would take a while to explain it. Just suffice to say that without businesses borrowing money to expand/operate their business then the individuals who work for them (and potential new hires) dont benefit. Which in turn affects how individuals spend.


I thought m1 and m2 were just stats they used to evaluate the flow of money?
M1 and M2 are monetary aggregates which have an inverse relationship with interest rates. These are very important aggregate which give indicators to the Fed as to how the economy is doing. This is in combination to other things such as GDP, Inflation, Unemployment, etc. Think of it as the importance of checking the pulse and blood pressure for a medical professional.

[chillmonster]

I got P Diddy. Did I do something wrong?

[Drew]

I got P Diddy. Did I do something wrong?

No, but now you just got to vote... or you'll die.