Ron Paul’s phony populism
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
I never called anyone a sheep, so miss me with "the crap".
I just don't see a point in bashing Ron Paul without a positive argument for any other candidate. A strong argument for any other candidate would be questionable, in my personal view...as they are all hell bent on petro-based agriculture, monetary manipulation, foreign interventionism, externalized slave labor via "free trade" (in it's current manifestation), subsidies for giant multi-national corporations who send American industries off-shore, and "socialized" medicine written by Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry.
Also, I honestly can't see Ron Paul writing a bunch of executive orders...other than recalling troops. As a strict constitutionalist, this pretty much forces him to operate within the system we currently have. Even if he applies extreme amounts of pressure, he still believes in the institutional checks and balances within the system...everything he wanted to do would be up for debate and subject to Congressional approval...so it's not like he could ever push us back to the 19th century as the rhetoric always so eloquently implies.
I just don't see a point in bashing Ron Paul without a positive argument for any other candidate. A strong argument for any other candidate would be questionable, in my personal view...as they are all hell bent on petro-based agriculture, monetary manipulation, foreign interventionism, externalized slave labor via "free trade" (in it's current manifestation), subsidies for giant multi-national corporations who send American industries off-shore, and "socialized" medicine written by Big Pharma and the Insurance Industry.
Also, I honestly can't see Ron Paul writing a bunch of executive orders...other than recalling troops. As a strict constitutionalist, this pretty much forces him to operate within the system we currently have. Even if he applies extreme amounts of pressure, he still believes in the institutional checks and balances within the system...everything he wanted to do would be up for debate and subject to Congressional approval...so it's not like he could ever push us back to the 19th century as the rhetoric always so eloquently implies.
That wasn't necessarily aimed at you personally, but your reaction tells me that you have at least THOUGHT about the situation as such.
Thats becuase they are not mutually exclusive, which you are making them. Why? Thats for you to decide. Just becuase you have 3 piles of shit, doesnt mean one is BETTER because it stinks LESS than the other two.
And this has been the issue with this whole thread...YOUR SUBJECTIVE view vs. ThaG's OBJECTIVE view. Nothing more needs to be said here because you basically have shown your entire hand. And you're mistaking ThaG's argument AGAINST Ron Paul some kind of mindless bashing becuase he "likes" another candidate, when it can be concluded that he is critical about ALL the candidates.
Thats becuase they are not mutually exclusive, which you are making them. Why? Thats for you to decide. Just becuase you have 3 piles of shit, doesnt mean one is BETTER because it stinks LESS than the other two.
And this has been the issue with this whole thread...YOUR SUBJECTIVE view vs. ThaG's OBJECTIVE view. Nothing more needs to be said here because you basically have shown your entire hand. And you're mistaking ThaG's argument AGAINST Ron Paul some kind of mindless bashing becuase he "likes" another candidate, when it can be concluded that he is critical about ALL the candidates.
If they aren't mutually exclusive, which they aren't...then what he's really saying is either don't vote at all or the status quo is better, without any empirical evidence.
How is he objective? He has stated his opinion...the only difference being that he hasn't qualified it as such. He has certainly implied that his view is ABSOLUTE and been quite condescending in the process. If you haven't noticed, these are all opinions...none of which are objective.
Again, if he's dead set against Ron Paul...then he has placed himself in status quo, even if that be as a "lesser of two evils" argument. OR, he's saying don't vote at all...which is actually just encouraging others not to participate in THEIR democracy, which I would expect from someone who basically thinks we're doomed for failure and can't even place a vote in this election.
How is he objective? He has stated his opinion...the only difference being that he hasn't qualified it as such. He has certainly implied that his view is ABSOLUTE and been quite condescending in the process. If you haven't noticed, these are all opinions...none of which are objective.
Again, if he's dead set against Ron Paul...then he has placed himself in status quo, even if that be as a "lesser of two evils" argument. OR, he's saying don't vote at all...which is actually just encouraging others not to participate in THEIR democracy, which I would expect from someone who basically thinks we're doomed for failure and can't even place a vote in this election.
Right, so what you're saying is, "HEY, AMERICANS! DON'T VOTE, YOU'RE FUCKED! WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T VOTE FOR RON PAUL!"...but...you...still...came...here....
Please explain what gives you the impression RP is hell bent on those policies.......
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but as it stands...BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE WRITE THE BILLS AND BRIBE THEM INTO LAW.
Please explain what gives you the impression RP is hell bent on those policies.......
It wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, but as it stands...BIG PHARMA AND INSURANCE WRITE THE BILLS AND BRIBE THEM INTO LAW.
There is years and years of empirical evidence...where the fuck have you been?
How is he not? He has no stake in this, because he CANT vote...thats ONE clue..
He doesnt need to, because he has backed it with facts. Are you just selectively reading what he has typed?
Or, maybe you are percieving it in such a way becuase it opposes YOUR view and OPINION on Ron Paul...
Opinions can be objective.
He is dead set against EVERYONE. Again, are you just skimming through his posts?
Are you implying that the US is a democracy? If so, you need to exit this argument, becuase you just lost...by like, alot...
How is he not? He has no stake in this, because he CANT vote...thats ONE clue..
He doesnt need to, because he has backed it with facts. Are you just selectively reading what he has typed?
Or, maybe you are percieving it in such a way becuase it opposes YOUR view and OPINION on Ron Paul...
Opinions can be objective.
He is dead set against EVERYONE. Again, are you just skimming through his posts?
Are you implying that the US is a democracy? If so, you need to exit this argument, becuase you just lost...by like, alot...
Where are the years of empirical evidence that status quo > Ron Paul? I'll wait...
Where are his facts, Picachu? Where are they? He posted like, 4 op eds. Hardly anything factual there to speak of...at least not that he posted.
I know exactly what type of government this is. I also know that electing Ron Paul doesn't change what type of government we have.
Yes, opinions can be objective; that doesn't make his objective.
Anything else, Professor?
Where are his facts, Picachu? Where are they? He posted like, 4 op eds. Hardly anything factual there to speak of...at least not that he posted.
I know exactly what type of government this is. I also know that electing Ron Paul doesn't change what type of government we have.
Yes, opinions can be objective; that doesn't make his objective.
Anything else, Professor?
Utterly false and completely ridiculous.
[
List out the issues and answer who you identify most closely with on each issue....couple that with a basic character assessment independent from policy, and there you have it.
[
List out the issues and answer who you identify most closely with on each issue....couple that with a basic character assessment independent from policy, and there you have it.
2. You haven't really read anything of what I've written here so far
Yes, there is no point voting for anyone. It makes no difference whatosever. This is why the system in the US is so ingenious - they managed to set up a single-party system and convince billions of people it is the most democractic place in the world...
Because what he proposes will result in exactly those things
Yes, exactly. This is what happens when selfish individual agents are allowed to follow their selfish interests.
Because what he proposes will result in exactly those things
Yes, exactly. This is what happens when selfish individual agents are allowed to follow their selfish interests.
Wow..really? What i said went COMPLETELY over your head. Not trying to be a dick, but you dont come off as very perceptive of comprehensive. This "debate" is just going in circles becuase you arent understanding what is being said to you. Especially when you say shit like this...
If youre just going to resort to being a silly child, then there is nothing left to discuss here. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do...i couldn't care less.
If youre just going to resort to being a silly child, then there is nothing left to discuss here. Do whatever the fuck you wanna do...i couldn't care less.
I just think any comparison of China and the US is ridiculous but I guess thats another thread, if your point of view, is ThaG's , you believe that no candidate is going to do anything to better the world, thats fine, your isolating yourself from the process so go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up, some people still love and are willing to fight for this country, so many Americans take America for granted its crazy