• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Pit Politics Thread

He wants to dismantle virtually every department of the federal government except for Defense and maybe Justice, which isn't feasible at this point. I'm all for scaling back programs at all Departments, but you can't just pull the foundation of this country's government out from underneath and think everything will be great. There would be chaos.

He wants to become an isolationist nation and withdraw from NAFTA, NATO, UN, WTO and others. Not acceptable to me. He thinks this will make the country great and more powerful. I disagree. With greatness comes responsibility to the global community, at least in my opinion. I don't think becoming isolationist helps anything.

He wants to make almost every social issue a local debate and have no national input on these things. I know that there are hard core "republicans" (using this in the proper sense) who agree with having most social issues dealt with on a state by state basis, but I am socially liberal on most things and the thought of states running rampant on hardcore "christian" (in quotes because the people I refer to have a phenominally slanted view on what christianity really is) values platforms and basically create states of hate and intolerance (again, my opinion) is unacceptable to me.

I don't claim to be an expert on Ron Paul, but these are just some thoughts.
 
He believes restaurants should be free to discriminate on whom they serve. Both he and Rand have said this on multiple occasions.

Here are some quotes:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"Interviewer: ...In the last interview we did with a Libertarian candidate for President, he said you that would abolish the CIA, the FBI, and the IRS. Do you hold those same positions? Ron Paul: Yes, I do -- because you know, most of our history, we didn't have those institutions"

"Then there are Paul's oft-cited, but never less than stupefying, pronouncements on secret government plans to create a "NAFTA Superhighway" that will lead to the eventual dissolution of American sovereignty. Paul envisions -- no, really -- an unholy union of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico in a single totalitarian state. As he wrote in 2006:

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside...

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union -- complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether."

There are many others.
 
Knight said:
Can I ask what you do/did/have done for a living? You can be as general as you'd like to be, but I'd like to get a sense of where you're coming from.
Click to expand...

I'm a corporate securities and M&A attorney.
 
wfudkn said:
Ron Paul's "fuck it, let's tear this shit down" approach to governing would set this country back even farther, economically, socially and internationally. There are things I like about Ron Paul, and I think he's very intelligent, but he's also bat-shit crazy and unrealistic in how he views the world.
Click to expand...

He certainly doesn't come off that way to me. The way he talks about economics makes me think that the farthest he's delved into the subject is "The Road to Serfdom". After that, he decided on his worldview and shut everything else out. He gets away with sounding intelligent on economics because very few people take the Austrian school seriously, and most of their claims are non-falsifiable. Any time he is actually challenged on an economic issue by someone intelligent and who isn't trying to avoid embarrassing him, he begins stuttering, repeating talking points, and rambling about banking cabals, malinvestment, and conspiracies.
 
TR1982 said:
He certainly doesn't come off that way to me. The way he talks about economics makes me think that the farthest he's delved into the subject is "The Road to Serfdom". After that, he decided on his worldview and shut everything else out. He gets away with sounding intelligent on economics because very few people take the Austrian school seriously, and most of their claims are non-falsifiable. Any time he is actually challenged on an economic issue by someone intelligent and who isn't trying to avoid embarrassing him, he begins stuttering, repeating talking points, and rambling about banking cabals, malinvestment, and conspiracies.
Click to expand...
one of the few times we'll agree here. i'm sure he is smart as he's a doctor, but his economic policy/ideas/talking points/etc. don't lead credence to that idea.
 
It would be interesting to see where politics would be in this country if there was a mandate that all federal elections had to be publicly funded and a maximum was established for each (say $50m for President, $20m for Senate, $5m for House - or something similar). I wonder if people who were actually worth electing would stand a chance - not to mention third parties - rather than these disconnected, super-rich cyborgs who have no ambitions other than getting elected.
 
PhilliesDeacs said:
It would be interesting to see where politics would be in this country if there was a mandate that all federal elections had to be publicly funded and a maximum was established for each (say $50m for President, $20m for Senate, $5m for House - or something similar). I wonder if people who were actually worth electing would stand a chance - not to mention third parties - rather than these disconnected, super-rich cyborgs who have no ambitions other than getting elected.
Click to expand...

i am a huge proponent of publicly funded elections, but the super-pacs have thrown a huge wrench in to that idea.
 
people in the market place are to whom i'm referring.
 
Knight said:
Would you agree that it would be possible to sort people into two groups based on their relationship to regulation?

One group of people that benefit from regulation (lawyers, engineers, politicians, most government employees, etc.).

Another group of people who are subject to those regulations (builders, mnaufacturers, natural resource harvesters, restaurant owners, servers, retailers, etc.)

Your smart enough to see where I'm going with this, but I appreciate a thoughtful answer.
Click to expand...

What about bankers who fiercely opposed regluation and still oppose regulation after they flushed the world economy down the john?
 
Knight said:
What is a regular citizen?

Are you referring to servers (hosed by minimum wage laws), taxi drivers (hosed by city registration fees), and teachers (just straight hosed by regulation in every way possible)?
Click to expand...

lol teachers in states with low regulations have it great.
 
This probably goes without saying but Knights theory makes no sense. I will respond properly later when I have a chance.
 
Knight said:
Regulations prevent teachers from adequately controlling their classrooms, administering metrics, and a whole host of additional reasons.

I can't imagine a teacher from 50 years ago lasting more than 30 minutes in today's undisciplined and wild classrooms.
Click to expand...

you mean like corporal punishment and degradation, yeah that was a really good idea, can't believe we don't let teacher physically and emotionally abuse students anymore. fucking pussies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top