Jump to content

US Politics


Thorgi Duke of Frisbee
 Share

  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Death Penalty

    • Yay
    • Nay
    • Case-by-case
    • I judge from afar in my death penalty-less country


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mr. GOH!
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...