?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Writer's Block: State of the Union

Who do you think would make a great U.S. president?


RON PAUL 2012. That is all

Comments

( 31 comments — Leave a comment )
oudeteron
Jan. 20th, 2012 04:12 pm (UTC)
Seriously?

No offence towards YOU, but...if this guy becomes president I am jumping off the fucking planet. The fact that he might have a chance already freaks me out, considering what he's been known to say.
athenemiranda
Jan. 20th, 2012 07:24 pm (UTC)
Eh, I'd take him over Romney any day. Paul's crazy is more consistent than that of most Republicans and some of his policies are literally too leftwing for the Democrats to tolerate, like ending the War on Drugs and halting all US military involvement overseas, including closing permanent bases in Europe and Asia. So we'd get some good things along with the barrel of crazy, whereas with Romney we'd get same old same old crazy only with even more corporate kickbacks.
oudeteron
Jan. 21st, 2012 07:29 am (UTC)
Okay, point.
lifechronicled
Jan. 21st, 2012 02:15 am (UTC)
And why is that? What freaks you out so badly about the things he says?
oudeteron
Jan. 21st, 2012 07:34 am (UTC)
Um, the things about how all state healthcare should be abolished, for example? How people with a pre-existing illness shouldn't be insured? How there shouldn't be any separation between church and state? I could go on.

Now, I'll give him that he might not be QUITE as bad as the other Republicans, but come on that's not even hard considering the downright inhuman rhetoric of most of them, is it?

And I take a hell of an issue with Paul being presented as some ~hip and reasonable~ candidate for the next election by people who either don't bother or don't want to look under the surface of his campaign.

Enough of an answer yet?
lifechronicled
Jan. 21st, 2012 11:29 am (UTC)
Lmao. Ron Paul doesn't think people with pre-existing illness shouldn't be insured. He doesn't believe the government should have much of a say in healthcare at all. He also doesn't support a complete lack of separation in church and state... though I will admit how intertwined he would like them doesn't make me very happy at all.

Also, every politician has some sort of an "image" which idiots who don't bother to do their research will vote for or against. Ron Paul is, of course, no different. Though if we're talking about "hip"... Lol. I think Obama took that trophy in 08. He was his own brand for christ sake. Anyway, those people... well, they anger me. Almost with everyone else who has an "opinion" based on nothing.

As far as the inhuman rhetoric... I'm guessing that's you hinting at your support for government social programs? Esh, no thank you. Charity is for the private sector.
oudeteron
Jan. 21st, 2012 03:13 pm (UTC)
As far as the inhuman rhetoric... I'm guessing that's you hinting at your support for government social programs?

No, I'm hinting at them being homophobic, anti-choice, transphobic, racist, religious proselytizers, and so on.

Esh, no thank you. Charity is for the private sector.

Well, I come from the socialist heathenland of some European country where, if you pay taxes, the government doesn't have an absolute right to let you die because you can't shell out for the health care you need. Anyway, basic health care isn't a "charity"; it's a human right.

Ron Paul doesn't think people with pre-existing illness shouldn't be insured. He doesn't believe the government should have much of a say in healthcare at all. He also doesn't support a complete lack of separation in church and state... though I will admit how intertwined he would like them doesn't make me very happy at all.

Well, look it up if you don't believe me?

I think Obama took that trophy in 08. He was his own brand for christ sake.

After the absolute failure that was the Bush administration, I don't see much wrong with Obama sweeping the polls decisively. He is still the least objectionable major candidate you guys have, sorry to say, and I say that as someone who doesn't uncritically kiss the ground he walks on.

You don't have to "justify" liking Ron Paul to me, you know. Based on the values you're showing, I do not think our beliefs will meet halfway.
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 21st, 2012 04:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - athenemiranda - Jan. 21st, 2012 08:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 21st, 2012 08:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - athenemiranda - Jan. 21st, 2012 09:03 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oudeteron - Jan. 21st, 2012 09:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 21st, 2012 11:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - athenemiranda - Jan. 22nd, 2012 12:12 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 22nd, 2012 02:13 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oudeteron - Jan. 21st, 2012 08:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 21st, 2012 10:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oudeteron - Jan. 22nd, 2012 12:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lifechronicled - Jan. 22nd, 2012 04:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oudeteron - Jan. 24th, 2012 12:27 pm (UTC) - Expand
inkyraven
Jan. 21st, 2012 01:49 pm (UTC)
WHOA whoawhoa
Holy crap, it seems I sparked a debate! Sorry for not responding earlier, I suppose I should probably lay out why I think that Ron Paul would be better than the other candidates + Obama.

Now last election, if I had registered, I woulda definitely voted for Obama. But now? Not really. My main beefs with him are 1. Passing NNDA and 2. Extending the PATRIOT act. He's also failed to balance the budget and he made me want to slam my head into a wall when he gave a bunch of money for the bailouts without specifying what the companies should/could do with it.

Now, as for why I'm choosing Ron Paul over the other Republicans?

-Santorum is only on a ballot because of Christian money - otherwise I'm pretty sure he woulda been kicked out of the race by now due to lack of votes. He's extremely homophobic as all hell so...

-Mitt I don't like very much either. VERY flip-flopping, going with the opinion with either the man of the hour or to whomever is giving him money. Our Congress for all intents and purposes is already bought out by lobbyists and barely represents the people. I don't fancy a bought president too. Pass!

-Newt. I admit I don't know much about him, so I should probably look him up a bit. I have a feeling though that I would probably choose him second to the other republican candidates, but of course this is without knowing his views too well so...

The main reasons I'd like to see Ron Paul are 1. Consistent voting record (voting against anything that goes against the Constitution), and also states rights. I think if Ron Paul left more power to the states, people would be forced to care a lot more about their local politics. They'd also feel like they have more of a say in the political process; I've noticed a lot of political alienation by people I know (not engaging in the political process) simply because they feel that they CAN'T make a difference.

Now, that's not to say I don't see some flaws to Ron Paul. For example, his pulling out of countries EVERYWHERE. However I'm sure if a country actually ASKED us to go in and help rather than us being assholes and sticking our noses into everything, he wouldn't mind helping. I'm also not crazy about his pro-life stance, BUT keep in mind that he wants that to be a matter for the states to decide. He's not going to impose a nationwide no abortion policy.

As for separation of church and state; I haven't seen anything saying that he wants them to be intertwined??? If anything he would/SHOULD be really for it since the Constitution states that they should be separated. For example, gay marriage. He made the point that religious folks could refuse to marry them, but he made the point that the main reason people get married is for legal reasons and not necessarily for the religious ceremony. There's no reason gay couples shouldn't be able to enter the legally binding equivalent of marriage but be restrained by the church because it doesn't approve.

I'm sure I could think of more things but for now that's it. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone here and we can debate/dicuss/agree to disagree
oudeteron
Jan. 21st, 2012 03:35 pm (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
Oh, as I said above, I do agree Paul is the least horrible Republican. I just don't think that's any reason he should be president, because being somewhat better than Santorum or Romney isn't even that hard. My point is that I wouldn't touch the lot of them with a ten-foot pole, because literally all of these candidates would have problem with queer people, even disregarding all the other issues with them. Being queer, no, why the fuck would I support someone who doesn't think I deserve human rights?

I think the Patriot Act should not have been extended, but honestly, you'd say most Republicans would be LESS likely to push such measures than most Democrats? (In other words, if Obama did it, you think Paul wouldn't? Well, maybe he wouldn't in some attempt at populism, who knows.) The trend I've seen is that Republicans are typically MORE gung-ho about these measures than Democrats. I'm still kind of surprised Obama backed it.

I've noticed a lot of political alienation by people I know (not engaging in the political process) simply because they feel that they CAN'T make a difference.

I see that happening worldwide, unfortunately. My problem with the "leaving it up to the states" thing is that, historically, it has often been used to keep racist, homophobic etc legislature in place "as long as it wasn't everywhere". As for people being more involved locally, well, IF it happens on account of Paul and they all turn out to be hardcore Republicans with fundamentalist agendas...good luck.

For example, his pulling out of countries EVERYWHERE.

Personally, that's one of the few things about this guy I wouldn't see as a flaw.

I'm also not crazy about his pro-life stance, BUT keep in mind that he wants that to be a matter for the states to decide. He's not going to impose a nationwide no abortion policy.

Yeah, so it's only that in SOME states someone can be stuck with a fetus they don't want in their body/be left to die because of it? This is a good thing how? One state with an anti-choice policy is too much.

I've actually found quotes by him where he claims the founding documents of the US were based in religion and that it "shouldn't be driven out of the public life" and such. You know, it's kind of true that the US never had a good enough separation of church and state in the first place, but you should get crackin' on SEPARATING THEM AT LAST instead of this. They're already mingling way, way too much these days. Also, I'd like to know what he thinks of those churches that do perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Eh, I regret that I commented now. It's your opinion, it's clear that I'm not going to change it because you don't see the main issues I have with ALL the Republicans (their religious proselytizing, their homophobia and anti-choice propaganda, etc) as important enough to deter voting for Paul... Well, at least you're being civil about it unlike that other commenter. My point is, I could not ethically justify voting someone whose social beliefs were still stuck somewhere in the (European) middle ages. And I don't trust the Republicans, because the vast majority of their representatives are bigoted and Paul doesn't give me much reason to think he's any different. Maybe he's less in-your-face about it because he realizes he needs people other than fundamentalists to vote for him, but that's kind of creepy in its own right.
inkyraven
Jan. 21st, 2012 04:01 pm (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be a Republican. The only reason he's running with them is because of the fact that when he tried to run independent a few years back he wasn't able to get the support he needed to become president. Fundamentally he's a Constitutionalist/Libretarian. Ron Paul voted 'NO' against the PATRIOT Act btw; he was the only person in his party to do so.

In fact, a lot of the CNN republican debates, they keep trying to shorten his talking time or not let him speak at all because he challenges the Republican status quo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8

(not trying to be like VOTE RON PAUL, this is just meant as an example as to the fact that for some reason the media wants to ignore him).

I don't consider myself a Democrat or Republican. In my opinion sticking to one party is a bad idea because the American government was never meant to run on a two-party system in the first place. I solely choose who I vote for based on issues that I think matter the most. For me right now that is cutting the budget and getting everyone back home, both things which Ron Paul has CONCRETE PLANS for.

Agree or disagree with his views, I can say with certainty that Ron Paul is NOT your normal Republican candidate.
athenemiranda
Jan. 21st, 2012 07:56 pm (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
He sits in the House for TX-14 as a Republican and has done for quite some time now. Of course he's a fucking Republican. No, not all Republicans are exactly the same but Paul is a Republican. He could have switched his affiliation in the House to Independent and retained his seat - there have been several independent congressmen & senators in recent years - but he didn't, because he's a Republican. You don't think sticking to one party is a good idea, and neither do I, but Ron Paul does!
oudeteron
Jan. 21st, 2012 08:41 pm (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
I already acknowledged he wasn't a Republican with the exact same presentation or beliefs as the rest of them, so I'm not sure why you're pressing it again. He still is a Republican and probably for a reason - as Thene said, if he didn't agree with them on some fundamental level, he could long since have switched.

I'm absolutely not a fan of bipartisan systems, but I don't get how voting for a party that actively lobbies against certain rights is in any capacity a good idea. I do stick by the assertion that in the current American system, Democrats do that comparatively less.

Again, you're throwing LGBT issues and abortion rights (among other things) overboard for "budget and getting everyone back home". I'm thinking Obama would do something about your big issues AS WELL, only not on the expense of some ~inconvenient citizens.
athenemiranda
Jan. 21st, 2012 09:14 pm (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
Obama already did bring tens of thousands of of active duty military home; trusting a Republican to go further seems kind of against history.
Re: WHOA whoawhoa - oudeteron - Jan. 21st, 2012 09:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: WHOA whoawhoa - lifechronicled - Jan. 21st, 2012 10:21 pm (UTC) - Expand
inkyraven
Jan. 24th, 2012 09:45 am (UTC)
Re: WHOA whoawhoa
In case you didn't notice, everyone's right are fundamentally compromised by NDAA. Which was signed into law by Obama. Having gay rights be a huge issue at the moment is kinda nixed by the fact that they, as well as every American citizen, has had their rights taken away from them. May I also mention that Obama also helped to enact legislation that prevents minors from being able to use Plan B, even though the FDA believes it's a good idea? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084560710472558.html

I apologize for believing that the budget and getting everyone back home is so important to me, I just want less people dying and for our economy to get back on it's feet so less people are suffering for it.

I'm going to ask you to do something. Now, I know you might not be able to vote, but I want you to research each candidate's positions, their voting record. See how they measure up to each other. I think you'd like Ron Paul's foreign policy of the 'golden rule'.

I already did this research and determined Ron Paul is who I'd vote for. I didn't go, "OH LOLZ HES IN MAH PARTAY IMMA VOTE FOR HIM !!!1!!!". This is because, as I've said before, the American government is supposed to NOT supposed to be based on a two party system. Rather, we're supposed to elect whoever's best for the job.
Re: WHOA whoawhoa - oudeteron - Jan. 24th, 2012 12:40 pm (UTC) - Expand
general_denikin
Jan. 24th, 2012 04:04 pm (UTC)
Good answer. But if you don’t mind take a poll ‘What is Russia for you - ally, enemy or just a neighbor’ http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1312134.html
( 31 comments — Leave a comment )