Ron Paul, 2012

@Kino: I miss those days. Back when I thought the Tea party muight actually solve a lot of the republican's problems with how far into conservative christianity they were falling and bringing them back to being about fiscal responsibility instead of moral hyperconservativism.

>.>

I also like Paul's foreign policy stance. But as has been said, the Republican Primary will be entertaining to watch. I can only hope that the serious contenders can be heard through all the noise and clutter.

Well, unless you're of Democrat leanings - then it woudl be 'let the nutjobs run the Primary into the ground', which makes pragmatic sense from that point of view.

I always figured the Tea Party to be nothing more than a front anyway. It's like the Republican Party branched out when the hyper-religious folks started getting in the way of big business folks.

I wish they would just go out and say it and have a "Christian Values" party or some bullshit, so I can know to never waste a vote on them and just vote Repub.

as someone of democrat leanings, I'm highly enjoying the republican primaries. It almost requires buttered popcorn.

Shoot, I'm fairly conservative, and even I'll be breaking out some popcorn for some of the Primary.

To be fair though, I do actually hope a decent republican candidate comes out of all opf this. I may not agree with conservatives, but I'd rather not watch their party collapse even further into tea party insanity.

Didn't they have a minute man party? Shit...I forgot the name, Constitution party?

Whigs was another term I heard recently.

As much as I dislike a two-party system (I don't like black and white choices), I'd like it even less if we only had one effective party and a handful of ineffective other parties that can't get anything done at all.

It serves no one if the GOP disintegrates, just like it would serve no one if the Democratic party collapsed, either.

My hope is that if the Republicans do disintegrate, a new more sane version will arise. Probably a naive hope though.

Anyway, I don't like popcorn unfortunately. Pass The Pretzels?

edited 6th May '11 11:21:18 AM by storyyeller

I'd imagine if they disintegrated they'd quickly splinter into the Religious Right and the Fiscal conservatives.

IE, their pre-reagan state.

edited 6th May '11 11:25:01 AM by Midgetsnowman

Pretzels work for me. Plain-salted, or something more fancy?

Plain salted will work.

WHIG PARTY ALL THE WAY! WOOOOO!

Oh well, looks like a derail. On topic: if I was American, I'd vote him. I support free market ecconomics and non-intervention about personal freedom. Besides, who else if not Ron Paul? Obama? You've got to be kidding. He has done nothing except of getting the gov involved in even more places and getting Nobel Prize (no, he didn't deserve it). Republicans? Oh well, enjoy your war and religious fanaticism then.

And why do people say he is insane? Because he thinks that the goverment shouldn't influence your life as much as it does? You know, some people like to keep their money to themselves (as opposed to giving it to people who're going to start another war with them or spend them on bullshit like War on Drugs or give it to people who don't want to work) and enjoy their life without having to apologize for being too liberal/left-winged/unpatriotic or too conservative/intolerant/bigoted. Yes, it is possible to live without being controlled. Even if RP isn't perfect (of course he isn't), he at least gives you that kind of freedom.

I say he's insane because his grasp of economics is absolutely hilariously flawed.

Yeah, he isn't terribly realistic in that department. I'd really rather he took the time to crack open an economics book and gather some professors to discuss the topic instead of saying "WELL, THIS SOUNDS NICE!"

I appreciate his ire for the Federal Reserve however, tis an ire that I share.

Well, that's why we had advisors and cabinet members for...

Yeah, but he should do that before he runs so that he can have an intelligent and thorough economic plan and platform so less people call him batshit insane on behalf of his economic policy.

I see nothing flip floppity about going "Well, I didn't feel I knew enough about the topic so I got several points of view in Academia, made as many arguments as I could and accepted as many schools of thought as I could, and this is what I now feel is best for America."

edited 6th May '11 12:45:40 PM by Barkey

Yep. because for a lot of opeople, all it'd take is airing his recent appearance on Comedy central's "news" block to easily write him off as utterly batshit insane based on the hilarious economic ramble he had.

True. He would be wise to assemble some economic brains.

Who would be some good picks for that?

I don't know of specific individuals, but if it were me I would gather tons of economic minds who all have sharply conflicting opinions on what sort of economy is best for the US. Then I'd speak to each one for however long it took for them to tell me what I needed to know and break it down so I actually understood it, and then I'd put us all in a room and let them argue about it, acting as a proctor to prevent the eventual strawmanning and running in circles.. Then I'd take the ideas that I really liked from what I had learned, and put it together into a very specific and case by case economic platform.

Then I'd be all like "Hey doodz, lets stop outsourcing by jacking up tariffs on goods that we don't want outsourced and make it so fucking expensive that it's cheaper to manufacture certain goods here in the states. Then we'll give tax breaks to companies that are completely based in the US in order to keep the prices from ballooning. We will only apply this practice to goods with which it is realistic to do so, and we'll also close every loophole we can find so we have a clear view of how much tax revenue we should be making from companies based out of our country!"

And then they'll be all like "Sweet! I fucking love you, Barkey 2012!" and some people will be like "No, you're fucking retarded, the 5 percent of the US who have 50 percent of our national GDP under them need that money they get from tax evasion and sweatshops!"

Then I'll be all like "Fuck them!"

edited 6th May '11 1:04:15 PM by Barkey

Okay, so you're going to run in 2016, right?

The fact that he supports the unpopular theories doesn't mean he doesn't know ecconomics. Classic liberalism and Austrian school are pushed aside now but there are still scientists who support it. And I mean real ones, not some random crackpots. We've made interventionism and Keynessianism into a dogma, while it's not the only way.

^

Much of this stems from his desire to bring us back to the Gold Standard, last I heard.

I'm not saying he's crazy, just unrealistic. I can think of no feasible way to bring our country off of credit and back to the gold standard, irregardless of if that is even a good idea, which is something I'm not qualified to say.

^^

I know right? I have about 10 years before I'm even eligible in the first place. That and I'm not independently wealthy, and I don't think "Staff Sergeant in the National Guard who had a minor in Business Administration" is much of a qualification for leader of the free world.

edited 6th May '11 1:05:29 PM by Barkey

I'll keep my eyes open in 2024.

Gold standard is a nice thought to entertain, but I don't think it'll work. I heard a thing on NPR that FDR was initially opposed to it, when Great Britian divorced itself from it, but he eventually was persuaded to get off of it as well. His financial advisors flipped out. Article mentioned that the depression would've been worse if we hadn't, but I didn't understand the reasoning behind that.

And if no other nation goes along with it, would we even be able to pull that off, or is that not a concern?

edited 6th May '11 1:10:09 PM by pvtnum11