TheMightyEthan Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 More common than a politician outright switching sides is that occasionally one will abandon their party to run as an independent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted December 12, 2011 Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 Yeah, you can change parties, though you'll likely have a tough time getting support in your new party. Well it seems to have worked for Jumpin' Jim Jeffords but then, the Republican base never particuarly liked him. Arlen Spector was despised by practically everyone in Washington so when he jumped parties it was more of a good excuse to just get rid of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted December 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2011 One of my good friends on Rick Perry's latest mix-up with Solyndra: "Seriously. It's just gotten sad. Like watching Jordan in a Wizard's uniform. Everyone in the world knows it's over, but he just can't seem to admit it." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 (edited) Rick Perry was a straight-up Dem until the 90's. He worked for Gore's presidential campaign in TX in 88. Edited December 13, 2011 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Request_for_Comment:_SOPA_and_a_strike As part of SOPA Jimmy Wales is looking on input into whether or not to blank Wikipedia in protest. Which I'd imagine would look something like: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nihilism Certainly be powerful, after Google, Youtube n Facebook it's one of the top visited site on the web, having a sudden loss of a major source of daily knowledge is going to be a huge kicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 13, 2011 Report Share Posted December 13, 2011 Oh my god, what would I do without wikipedia? /semiserious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 I can tell ya now, a lot of high school and college students would be up a creek without a paddle. Wikipedia, the patron saint of procrastination! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 It would be a good idea to blank TVTropes... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Speaking of which, he's going to end up getting re-elected solely because the Republicans can't field any competent candidates at all. Seriously, I can't think of any that stand a chance. Ron Paul's the only one who's not an utter farce. His outside the mainstream policies will hurt his chance at the nomination but crazier things have happened in politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Ron Paul scares me. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but then on a lot of others I'm just like "Oh my God..." He's *this* close to being an Anarchist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Well he is a Libertarian, and that's kinda our thing. At the very least he's the only guy who's not blatantly serving corporate interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Oh yeah, definitely. I'd never want to see him be President, but I can at least respect that he's intellectually honest about his positions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Ron Paul. He's one I've heard of...Texas based? What's his platform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 He's philosophically a Libertarian but runs on the Republican platform. Currently tied for front-runner in Iowa (the first caucus, a pretty big deal to gain some momentum). Some of his positions are as follows: End all wars and close all foreign bases immediately. Leave Iran alone. Cut foreign aid, including Israel End the war on drugs, legalize them. Control deficit by cutting spending (eliminate and/or consolidate 5 cabinet positions and departments) Repeal the Patriot Act and oppose NDAA (which allows indefinite detainment of US citizens without trial) Opposes SOPA and other internet and communications regulation End or regulate/audit regularly the Fed, the central US bank Make Social Security an optional investment for young people As Ethan hinted at, Libertarians (some of whom label themselves anarcho-capitalists) believe in a diminished role of government in the everyday person's life. Some are more idealistic and would want privatized roads, police force, fire, etc. Paul is a little more realistic in the sense that you can't just take that kind of stuff away from people in an established nation, plus often natural monopolies mandate government intervention. Some interesting facts about the Paul campaign is that they're pretty consistently ignored by the media, he's given almost no time in national debates, and he has virtually no corporate support--some 98% of his donations come from individuals. Yet he's tied for first in the current polls in the first caucus states and consistently polls nationally in 3rd place or so for GOP frontrunners. I don't agree with him on everything but honestly believe he's the only candidate who would be able to right a lot of the wrongs in our country. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Looking at those bullet points he must be a very dividing figure, but I can see why he'd be popular and ignored. Of course I guess it all comes down to if he's all talk. (and if certain folks that might like his points are able to make it to the ballot box) btw I assume that's not all foreign bases? Just like stuff in the middle east. you guys are housed in quite a lot of allied countries, UK included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 Sorry, my mistake--basically packing up all military bases that we occupy just to have a presence like Korea, Middle-East, etc. I assume we'd retain key ally bases. And you're right that he's polarizing; the left doesn't like his reduction of government and the warmongering right hates his foreign policy and refusal to regulate homosexual marriage and drugs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 14, 2011 Report Share Posted December 14, 2011 please be fake. please be fake. (that Fox logo throws it all out doubt though) (Also I kinda know Nevada/Utah is wrong cos of video games (NCR to the west, Utah to the east)) edit: Shit it was real http://mediamatters....tv/201112140016 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luftwaffles Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I agree with a lot of stiff Ron Paul says, and if I wad to vote Republican he'd get my vote, but there are plenty of things about him I'm not a fan of. For example, I think putting the US back on the Gold Standard is a ludicrous idea, and he's all for that. He has some great ideas, but I also can't help thinking that those great ideas will quickly translate to a lot of broken promoses as Congress and lobbyists cockblock and send back some of his more wild (and in my opinion, beter) ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I think he'd have even more trouble getting legislation passed than most presidents, because neither party would really be on board with his ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I agree with a lot of stiff Ron Paul says, and if I wad to vote Republican he'd get my vote, but there are plenty of things about him I'm not a fan of. For example, I think putting the US back on the Gold Standard is a ludicrous idea, and he's all for that. I don't think it's all that crazy. A little too idealistic, absolutely. We already transitioned back to the gold standard once before in our nation (very different times though), and it's clear the Fed's current system of printing money and monetizing debt is an utter failure. He's pretty level-headed about the Gold Standard thing and realizes it would be a long transition and an uphill battle though. See his statements here for more info. I think he'd have even more trouble getting legislation passed than most presidents, because neither party would really be on board with his ideas. For a lot of things, yes, but he will also get to veto lots of pork and unconstitutional stuff like SOPA and NDAA. Also, things like ending wars and bringing troops home he can do day 1 without congressional approval as the Commander-in-Chief. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 (edited) The Gold standard would just be a different kind of failure. The Fed has made ruinous decisions, I agree. But just because it's made bad decisions doesn't mean that it's impossible for money supply regulation to be effective. It's just that they've been using the only tools they have because the other fiscal solutions to our economic crisis must come from Congress, which is ineffective and deadlocked these days. I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says vis a vis government intervention in personal moral issues (though Paul's view isn't that government shouldn't intervene but more that the *federal* government shouldn't intervene, and that's an important distinction), but I disagree that private markets will solve social or macroeconomic problems any better than the government. And when the government pursues a solution, it's directly accountable for its decision making, while private entities are indirectly and in many cases only tenuously accountable for their effects on society, *especially* effects on third parties (like pollution). I see Ron Paul's stand, and libertarian politics in the US, to be akin to suggesting that an airliner pilot cease controlling the plane during heavy turbulence in the hopes that the problem will take care of itself and maybe even the plane will land itself. What's more likely is that the plane will end up in pieces across flyover country. Edit: Ron Paul may not be captured by corporate interests the same as the other candidates, but his deregulation plans are extremely corporate friendly. Now, he could balance this by recognizing more types of private lawsuits by citizens against big businesses abusing rights, but I seriously doubt he would do so. US jurisprudence has developed in such a way that straight up regulation is the best way to deal with lots of consumer protection issues. Then again, his states' rights philosophy may be represented by the view that states should handle regulation, thus shifting costs to states, making for a crazy regulatory patchwork that would increase costs for nationwide companies. It may also leave certain states' citizenry open to more exploitation than others due to some states not having enough resources to make or enforce regulations. Edited December 15, 2011 by Mr. GOH! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I think he'd have even more trouble getting legislation passed than most presidents, because neither party would really be on board with his ideas. For a lot of things, yes, but he will also get to veto lots of pork and unconstitutional stuff like SOPA and NDAA. True, but then you end up with nothing getting done at all because Congress won't pass the legislation he wants and he vetoes whatever they can pass. Not that that would be all that big a change from the current system... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Personally, I'd rather have a president who vetoes everything over one who signs the kind of bills that Congress has been shitting out recently. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Ron Paul scares me. I agree with him on a lot of issues, but then on a lot of others I'm just like "Oh my God..." He's *this* close to being an Anarchist. Ron Paul doesn't stand up for the Constitution; he stands up for the Articles of Confederation. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 http://www.mattbors.com/archives/826.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.