What if Ron Paul were the President of the US

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's not working, apparently.

Well, in addition to being to lazy to think for themselves, most people are to stupid to even be able to.

I mean, how many times will you do the same thing, over and over, and expect different results?

[Big Jim P]

Well, in addition to being to lazy to think for themselves, most people are to stupid to even be able to.

I mean, how many times will you do the same thing, over and over, and expect different results?

How long have humans been around?

[Atlanticatia]

Side note: Would Ron Paul even make it through two terms? He'll be 81 in 2016.

[Mombombu]

America would be completely isolated.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I mean, how many times will you do the same thing, over and over, and expect different results?

How long have humans been around?

Jim, the point is that even us saying there are many people who do not like thinking for themselves and this has been happening since forever, I imagine, makes no difference. Really. At least not when it comes to the US and how inept both parties seem to be.

[Big Jim P]

How long have humans been around?

Jim, the point is that even us saying there are many people who do not like thinking for themselves and this has been happening since forever, I imagine, makes no difference. Really. At least not when it comes to the US and how inept both parties seem to be.

It doesn't make much of a difference. The vast majority will toe party lines (due to laziness and/or stupidity), while the independents free thinkers will represent the swing vote.

Edit: On further thought, that means the swing voters are the ones most guilty of causing the cyclical nature of American politics.

[Slavajgrad]

When ever I look at this site I can realy see that Americans are brainwashed by their biased media.

If Ron Paul were President, the pointless intervention in the middle east will end the western intervention makes things worse because we don't know enough about the countries we "liberate".

He would balance the budget and get rid of income taxes which is possible if you cut spending on the military which you will do if you end the pointless wars.

Ron Paul would work on free market treaties with for example the EU.

Ron Paul would get rid of the Patriot act which was unconstitutional it was basically repealing the 4th ammmendment.

For a comparisson a country like Switzerland which remains neutral has a higher standard of living and an average higher income.

America can still influence the world but in a peacefull way instead of bombing the middle east which creates more hatred and which will lead in more radical muslims becoming Terrorists.

Where can I sign up?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Jim, the point is that even us saying there are many people who do not like thinking for themselves and this has been happening since forever, I imagine, makes no difference. Really. At least not when it comes to the US and how inept both parties seem to be.

It doesn't make much of a difference. The vast majority will toe party lines (due to laziness and/or stupidity), while the independents free thinkers will represent the swing vote.

But doesn't this swing vote ends up deciding which candidate gets elected, still within the two party alternative? Isn't the swing vote perpetuating the cycle of ''8 years of one turd sandwich'' vs ''8 years of one giant douche''? I do realize that at this point there's nothing much you can do since third party options don't seem to be popular in the US but still...

[Big Jim P]

It doesn't make much of a difference. The vast majority will toe party lines (due to laziness and/or stupidity), while the independents free thinkers will represent the swing vote.

But doesn't this swing vote ends up deciding which candidate gets elected, still within the two party alternative? Isn't the swing vote perpetuating the cycle of ''8 years of one turd sandwich'' vs ''8 years of one giant douche''? I do realize that at this point there's nothing much you can do since third party options don't seem to be popular in the US but still...

Ja I though about that and edited the point in. The only real alternative is to choose the lesser of two evils and keep it swinging between the two so that no one party becomes too dominant.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

But doesn't this swing vote ends up deciding which candidate gets elected, still within the two party alternative? Isn't the swing vote perpetuating the cycle of ''8 years of one turd sandwich'' vs ''8 years of one giant douche''? I do realize that at this point there's nothing much you can do since third party options don't seem to be popular in the US but still...

Ja I though about that and edited the point in. The only real alternative is to choose the lesser of two evils and keep it swinging between the two so that no one party becomes too dominant.

Yes, I saw the edit after I posted this.

My question to that is, is there really a way to prevent this from happening, one party becoming more dominant than the other?

[Cabana]

Ron Paul is completely awful.

that didn't stop Obama or Bush.

Edit: An likely won't stop Hillary.

Seriously what's with you and your hateboner for Hillary

[Big Jim P]

that didn't stop Obama or Bush.

Edit: An likely won't stop Hillary.

Seriously what's with you and your hateboner for Hillary

Well, up until she moved to NY at the last possible minute to become a representative, I could have taken or left her. That was when she proved herself to be nothing more than a power-hungry bitch with abysmal politics, and she has shown NO improvement since.

[The Republic of Merrimont]

Hitler would rise from the dead to congratulate Paul.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Seriously what's with you and your hateboner for Hillary

Well, up until she moved to NY at the last possible minute to become a representative, I could have taken or left her. That was when she proved herself to be nothing more than a power-hungry bitch with abysmal politics, and she has shown NO improvement since.

Wow. A savvy political operator took advantage of an opportunity. I can see why you're offended.

[The Liberated Territories]

So, uh, do you know what tolerance even is?

tol·er·ance
ˈtäl(ə)rəns
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"

You are the one being intolerant, my friend.

Eh, I don't tolerate racism or homophobia. Sorry 'bout it.

"Don't tolerate intolerance" is an idiom.

I don't tolerate intolerant people like YOU.

[The Liberated Territories]

The good thing is that when Ron Paul dies, all the hard line libertarians that supported Paul will migrate back to the Libertarian Party. Maybe enough to give it another few percentage...

[Ethel mermania]

even if he won, congress would hamstring everything he tried to do. Whether a good thing or bad thing i will leave for the masses to decide

See, I ask because a GOP POTUS gives me the hibbie-jibbies. But I'm trying to keep an open mind.

and to me obama has been an unmitigated disaster, he has been the worst president since nixon and nixon was a criminal, but to be honest i think paul would not be much better than obama, just in a different direction.

the country goes back and forth, johnson begat nixon who begat carter, who begat reagen, who had a bastard child that died named bush, who begat clinton who begat son of bush, who begat obama.

the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised about it. its been this way since the 1960's

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

See, I ask because a GOP POTUS gives me the hibbie-jibbies. But I'm trying to keep an open mind.

and to me obama has been an unmitigated disaster, he has been the worst president since nixon and nixon was a criminal, but to be honest i think paul would not be much better than obama, just in a different direction.

the country goes back and forth, johnson begat nixon who begat carter, who begat reagen, who had a bastard child that died named bush, who begat clinton who begat son of bush, who begat obama.

the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised about it. its been this way since the 1960's

I think Obama tried but, well, he didn't have what it takes to whip anything into shape. I doubt the next POTUS will be able to either, regardless of party affiliation.

[Ethel mermania]

Civil Rights Act of 64- He opposes only one title of the law, and that is on the basis of his views on economics, as he doesn't believe in regulation. By your logic, all free marketers, including non-white free marketers are racist as they don't believe in the state coercing businesses to not discriminate.

Paul has also clarified that the invisible hand of the market will do the job in stopping racism, and that such a title would not only be unenforceable, but unnecessary. He opposes forced segregation, but he opposes forced integration too, as he believes in freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

He thinks marriage is a states issue, so he would be fine with states legalizing gay marriage. If he is homophobic, he would support a national ban on gay marriage.

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

thats not true, its a libertarian argument that people can do what they want, governments can not. The KKK can ban black people from joining, they are a private organization, that does not received any public funding. The state of missori can not as they are public. A school can be discriminatory as long as they do not get any public money.

[Partybus]

I would sooner vote for Vermin Supreme, at least I would get a pony...

[Pragia]

So, uh, do you know what tolerance even is?

tol·er·ance
ˈtäl(ə)rəns
noun
1.
the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
"the tolerance of corruption"

You are the one being intolerant, my friend.

Eh, I don't tolerate racism or homophobia. Sorry 'bout it.

"Don't tolerate intolerance" is an idiom.

That idiom is absolutely stupid then, as if you do not tolerate intolerance, then you are being intolerant, which means you should not be tolerated.

[Laerod]

Pretty much, yes. People who support allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of race are racists.

He'd also be fine with states banning gay marriage, therefore he is against LGBT people because he does not give them equal protection under the law, regardless of where they live. If he is complicit in allowing states to ban gay marriage, when the federal government has the ultimate ability to legalize it in all 50 states, he is against the LGBT community.

thats not true, its a libertarian argument that people can do what they want, governments can not. The KKK can ban black people from joining, they are a private organization, that does not received any public funding. The state of missori can not as they are public. A school can be discriminatory as long as they do not get any public money.

So you're arguing that Ron Paul is not a libertarian? Because he most certainly has gone on record stating that State governments should be free from Federal interference to do what they want.

[The Liberated Territories]

thats not true, its a libertarian argument that people can do what they want, governments can not. The KKK can ban black people from joining, they are a private organization, that does not received any public funding. The state of missori can not as they are public. A school can be discriminatory as long as they do not get any public money.

So you're arguing that Ron Paul is not a libertarian? Because he most certainly has gone on record stating that State governments should be free from Federal interference to do what they want.

Support for many small governments isn't exactly superior to one controlling one, unless there are states willing to increase liberty more than the government. Ergo, it's a utilitarian compromise.

[Ethel mermania]

thats not true, its a libertarian argument that people can do what they want, governments can not. The KKK can ban black people from joining, they are a private organization, that does not received any public funding. The state of missori can not as they are public. A school can be discriminatory as long as they do not get any public money.

So you're arguing that Ron Paul is not a libertarian? Because he most certainly has gone on record stating that State governments should be free from Federal interference to do what they want.

Power devolves to the states, is libertarian. I was trying to make a point. change it to federal government if you like

[Laerod]

So you're arguing that Ron Paul is not a libertarian? Because he most certainly has gone on record stating that State governments should be free from Federal interference to do what they want.

Support for many small governments isn't exactly superior to one controlling one, unless there are states willing to increase liberty more than the government. Ergo, it's a utilitarian compromise.

Yeah, the thing is, smaller governments tend to be the most oppressive as far as the US goes. The Federal governent has traditionally served as the entity that enforces civil rights when the mobs in various states refuse to.