Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans
A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.
No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?
Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.
McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!
Fucking moron.
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
Corporatism != Free Market
Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents
Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)
Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President
Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image
Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")
Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right
Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?
The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*
Freedom of speech applies to the government, not Slashdot. You are free to open your own discussion forum with its own rules.
That said, I don't see Slashdot censoring any of the asinine Ron Paul comments, so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.
(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)
Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose.
Not for me to deny it, it's your assertion so it's up to you to prove it. Give it your best shot.
what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom.
Resuming the rule of law, and actually following the constitution is "restructuring the entire nation"? I'll admit we've got a lot of things to fix, but I don't see that our situation is quite as hopeless as you seem to.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.
RFC2119
I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
:wq
Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.
And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.
The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.
*Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?
>However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason.
He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".
As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.
Give some arguments please!
What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?
It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us.
The man has a very long track record, and I checked out his voting record. If he has some hidden agenda, could it be worse than undeclared wars, debasement of the currency, violating the rights of habeas corpus and the right to keep and bear arms, imprisoning thousands of POWs of the War on (some) Drugs, or arresting cancer patients?
Things are so bad that even when a politician says what I want to hear (and in a sincere way), I still can't trust him.
I know how you feel. Reagan let me down on draft registration, and several other very important issues. Nevertheless, RP's record is exemplary.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
Yeah, sad to say Ron Paul is 2008's closest Howard Dean equivalent. Mad internet buzz and fundraising, seen as a nut by the mainstream, and little to no actual voting traction.
The man's got some interesting ideas, and he's not afraid to take unpopular positions. You could have fairly said the same thing about Dean in '04. Just as Dean was out of the realistic running a long time before the primaries were over, so Paul is now. Maybe we're all poorer for that, but, that's the reality of it.
To deny that there IS a very obvious media bias against Ron Paul would be ridiculous. Two quick examples: during both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, CNN had up a pie chart for both the Democrats and the Republicans showing each candidate's percentage of the vote. Ron Paul had around 10% both times, yet his "slice" of the pie was solid black with no name attached to it, while Democrats like Biden who had single digit percentages had their names shown. Second example is Ron Paul's second place finishes in Nevada and Louisiana and the complete non-reporting of it. The articles I saw were along the lines of "Mitt finishes first, McCain third." with never a mention of second. And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,
As a resident of Arkansas, I can tell you the following.
1. Huckabee does not hold prayer meetings on the lawn. He administers. He is perfectly able to distinguish between his beliefs and the need for
administration. The schools are in much better shape now than they have been in the history of Arkansas. The roads are in better shape than ever.
2. When he came to office, there was a 200 million deficit. When he left office, in spite of doing all the above, there was an 800 million surplus.
This was true even though he cut taxes every single year he was in office. He balanced the budget every single year, as a good administrator should.
This has nothing to do with being a preacher. it is simply the mark of a good administrator.
3. His proposals for the rebuilding of American infrastructure, taxation, immigration, health care, etc, on the national level simply make sense.
Using nothing but his history as a benchmark, I can tell you that unlike 99% of other politicians, he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
He says what he believes and then stands behind it. It is my belief (obviously) that he is the best choice for American President.
Huckabee vs. Obama would be a fight worth watching.
I feel about this subject and Ron Paul the same way I feel about my room mate. He was adopted as a kid because his parents couldn't afford to raise him, so instead of an abortion they put him up. As a result, he is vehemently against abortion. However, he still thinks that it should be up to an individual state whether they want to honor Roe v. Wade...just like Ron Paul. He thinks it's an abomination that should be stopped, but thinking about what would be "best" for the country as opposed to what they personally would prefer to see happen. This is one of the things about Ron Paul that I really like.acknowledges that it should be the states decision, not the federal governments. Regardless, he still thinks it isn't the morally correct thing to do, but doesn't think it should be made outright illegal.
I like that. They both have a very strong opinion about a touchy subject, but are
For what it's worth, I am pro-choice but against late-term abortions (unless the mother's life is threatened)...by that time, you should have been able to figure out if you wanted the kid or not.
Living With a Nerd
Let us not forget that McCain isnt exactly scandal-free.
He was one of the infamous Keating Five who played no small part in bring about the savings & loan crisis.
That small debacle has ended up costing this nation $30 BILLION. It was very similar in nature to the current mortgage crisis.
Here this nation sits on the verge of yet another financial crisis of larger proportions and people are supporting putting one of the biggest screw-ups from the last time in the Oval Office
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
This candidate looks presidential - somewhat like John Adams.
This candidate has Senate experience.
This candidate hews to many of the accepted neoconservative principles.
This candidate early on supported the Iraq war.
This candidate's nomination would galvanize the conservative voters.
Republicans, I present to you:
Hillary Clinton (R)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Oooh, I wanna play!
Big Boss: Your performance is shitty - what gives?
Mid manager: Waah! My car is broken and I don't have the money to fix it so I can't get to work on time!
Big Boss: OK, I'll make you a deal - I'll start paying you more now, but in 3 months your car had better be fixed. I'll take proof in the form of a passed DMV inspection.
Mid manager: AWESOME [takes money and runs off]
3 months pass
Big Boss: You're late - what's up.
Mid manager: My car's still broke! I spent all that money but it still doesn't work right!
Big Boss: Well, you passed the inspection...
Mid manager: Well, yeah, but I only did what I needed to do to pass the letter of the inspection - patched the holes, covered over the busted window, that kinda thing. I had to take the engine out, though. Oh, and I paid the tech's extra, but they did exactly what I told them to do, so I think it's their fault.
Big Boss: Sooo...what do we do now?
Mid manager: Give me more money, and make it so I don't need to pass any inspections. Without the pressure of inspections, I GUARANTEE we'll get this running right.
Big Boss: Ummm...I don't think so.
Mid manager: Waaah! Unfair! [scampers off to complain to the union]
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.
The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.
Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.
Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.
... has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money
Looks like people contributed a lot of money. The finances are worth mentioning for all the major Republican candidates. One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money. I was not expecting that.
Romney, Mitt
Q4 raised: $26,928,433
Q4 spent: $33,713,503
Total raised: $88,499,686
Total spent: $86,068,239
Cash: $2,431,447
Debt: $35,350,000
McCain, John
Q4 raised: $9,714,246
Q4 spent: $10,254,446
Total raised: $41,102,178
Total spent: $38,153,750
Cash: $2,948,428
Debt: $4,516,030
Paul, Ron
Q4 raised: $19,873,329
Q4 spent: $17,478,711
Total raised: $28,101,264
Total spent: $20,262,084
Cash: $7,839,421
Debt: $0
Huckabee, Mike
Q4 raised: $6,637,063
Q4 spent: $5,391,918
Total raised: $8,986,532
Total spent: $7,090,087
Cash: $1,896,446
Debt: $97,676
By way of comparison, Giuliani, who recently dropped out of the race...
Total Receipts: $60,929,240
Total Spent: $48,152,428
Cash on Hand: $12,776,812
Debts: $1,166,509
Wow... just wow... That sort of spending puts drunken sailors to shame.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
And on the subject if it being crazy not to allow Ron Paul discussion in this, "me too!". He has just as much chance of winning the nomination as Huckabee (next to none, and yes I'm a RP supporter). I don't think Huckabee should be excluded either, they should both be allowed, if for no other reason that mathematically they all have a chance still, at least until after Super Tuesday. But also leaving him out will probably generate more discussion of him than including him. You know how we 'Paulbots' are,
I don't pay attention to any of the election stuff. Some one mentioned that it was an election year so I had a brief look at who was under each party. I can't tell you how shocked that Huckabee was on the list. I didn't know. I'm from Texarkana and actually went to the Baptist Church that Huckabee preached at for years before running for governor. At times like this, I'd like to say that I was paying attention to give the guy from the state a pat on the back and say vote for him. The only state programs that my family made use of was some state college scholarships, WIC (Women in Childern I think. Basically coupons to get pregnant and new mothers healthy food. Best state program ever.) and ArKids which is a low cost state health insurance.
I can't really tell you that I've noticed anything else that he has done. On a side note, most people around here actually liked Huckabee. I can't tell you a single person around here that thought Clinton would be good for the country or anything. I think that most folks from Arkansas supported Clinton for two reasons: He was from Arkansas, and it got his family out of the state. I thought the whole Huckabee running for president was a joke. After thinking about it though, I think that he actually has a fair shot at it. I think that he would make a better showing if he was some one's VP. Huckabee is moderate middle of the road kinda of preacher. Guys like him would be useful for the moderate Republicans and the middle of the road Christian crowd. His most useful things is that he can bend to get some things done, and that he can play that religion card against folks that are far more religious extremist than him.
O.k. those that hate anything doing with religion and would instantly vote against any church member, much less a preacher, will never like Huckabee. Those that understand how a preacher can bend and get most of his followers to at least give it a try for a while will see that Huckabee could be good for the general Republican party. I think Huckabee and Ron Paul both have that snowball's chance in hell of actually winning, but I thought Clinton had the same chances of winning and that Huckabee had that same chances of winning his bid for governor so what the heck do I know?
I'm a Christian, myself, but I'm also a non-voter (actually, an anti-voter).
Nonetheless, what you wrote was pure drivel. Let's look:
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
1. Ron's belief in creationism has nothing to do with how Paul would run education in the United States. Education is best left to the towns, and the school boards, not the States and for sure not the Federal government. Paul's idea to abolish the inefficient and pandering Department of Education is the first step to returning the education power, and responsibility, to the parents. Paul's not against "public" education, he's against inefficient Federal regulation of it.
2. Paul hasn't taken a Presidential position on abortion, other than it shouldn't be a Federal issue. I am also against Roe v. Wade, even though I am not anti-abortion (I am not pro-abortion, either). I am against Roe v. Wade because it usurps State powers. In terms of abortion, I have one opinion: if you are against the idea of abortion, the best way to change the tide is to adopt unwanted children, and support the ability to adopt by financially supporting adopting couples. I would never condemn abortion as murder or as a crime, because the crime for a Christian is to not offer an opportunity to a pregnant woman in need.
3. Prayer in schools has nothing to do with the Federal government. If an individual wishes to pray, the 1st Amendment is clear on their right to. Organized prayer in schools is another issue, but the Federal government is part of the problem: it nearly mandates that public education MUST be available. In Bible Belt districts, private education is a better option, but the Federal and State laws preclude the idea of dissolving forced financial support for local schools.
I pay a LOT in property taxes ($5000+ per annum). I am very vocal at my school board meetings, and I happily call the teachers thieves when they ask for more money, and the administrators fraudsters when they lie about the budget. Over the past 2 years, I've brought around 30% of the parents at the meetings to my side, and I have a good feeling that we will elect a downsizer to the school board. Note, I still don't vote, but I am vocal in my detraction against theft for "education." I have no kids, yet, and when I do, I will have enough saved to make a wise education decision.
4. Paul has no opinion on gay marriage, in fact he has said repeatedly in this campaign that if two people want to unite under contract, it is their right to. He also said it is YOUR right to ignore any contract you are not a part of. If you marry within a faith, most faiths have support structures in place for others in that faith to acknowledge your marriage. Marriage is NOT a government responsibility. If ten people want to intermarry in an orgy of love, so be it. I don't have to acknowledge it, except the law forces me to. Ridiculous. Paul wants to disconnect marriage and government completely. He would support gays marrying, as long as no one had to give them special treatment. He would be against straights marrying, if it forced others to give them special treatment.
5. I disagree completely on Paul's immigration position, but I also hate paying for anyone's education, health care, and lifestyle unless they've personally come to me for help. My wife and I take the Muslim belief to give alms to the poor who ask for help. We give about 3% of our income to the poor who come asking for help. We also buy food, pay utilities in winter, and help poor people get jobs. I helped two neighbors (poor!) get jobs shoveling walkways this winter, and their families are over $1000 richer each. I help the poor with charity, not aggression or entitlements. The (legal or illegal) immigrants who steal from me are just as bad as the citizens who steal from me.
News flash: Most public education is currently handled by the States. If the U.S. Department of Education went away, public education would still be around. Public education in some States would be worse for it, but other States would be greatly relieved that to have Federal interference out of their system.
There is a meme-disease that has infested our society, spread by power-grubbing politicians and money-hungry corporate interests (including the sound-bite-driven media.) It is the idea that if there is a problem, the Federal government should fix it. Any problem, great or small, anywhere in the country, is in need of a Federal "fix." There needs to be a new cabinet-level department, or a Federal bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court ruling, or a "War On *" to fix it.
You hear it from Obama. His resounding "Yes We Can" is saying "Yes, we, the Federal Government, can fix everything that's wrong!" You hear it from Hillary, or anyone else promoting Federal government-provided healthcare. You hear it also from McCain, Romney and Huckabee. You hear it, with a slightly different tune, from mainstream evangelical Christians -- the problems are different, but the solution, Federal Government enforcement of morality to "fix" immorality, is the same.
The problem with the idea is that it overlooks all the other options for fixing a problem.
When there is a problem:
- You or I can fix it
- You or I can educate people on its existence and what they can do to fix it
- You or I can start a non-profit organization dedicated to fixing it
- You or I can (potentially) start a business that makes money by fixing it
- Existing local businesses can make money by fixing it
- Local religious groups can (possibly) work to fix it
- Local non-religious non-profit organizations can help to fix it
- Local governments can help to fix it
- Larger / regional businesses can make money by fixing it
- Larger / regional non-profit and/or religious groups can fix it
- State governments can fix it
- National / Global non-profits can fix it
- National / Global corporations can fix it
- The Federal government can fix it
If a flood wiped out your city, who would you be most relieved to see: someone from the Red Cross (National / Global organization) or someone from FEMA?
If you just discovered you had heart disease and needed a triple bypass, who would you rather have handle it: your local top-100 heart hospital (could be for-profit, non-profit or religious), or the National Institute of Health?
If your kid is getting a poor education, who would you trust to fix it: a private school (also could be for-profit, non-profit, or religious, or even yourself if you aren't averse to homeschooling), or the Department of Education?
If there's a problem with people with drug addictions, who often turn to crime, who should fix it, a doctor, or the Federal government?
If there's a problem with internet regulation, who should fix it, ICANN or the U.S. Government? (Even the suckiest-run nonprofits seem less scary than the prospect of the US Government meddling in that.)
If there's a problem with one group of people who don't approve of the morality of another group of people, who should provide the solution? The groups who have the problem working it out with each other, or the Federal Government enforcing the will of the more populous group on the other?
The Federal Government was created to make peace between the States, to defend the States from outsiders, and to guarantee "Liberty and Justice for all." As long as it sticks to that basic plan it can do a lot of good, but when we look at the Federal government as "Mr. Fix Everything" we are setting ourselves up for trouble not just in things getting "Fixed" up in the FUBAR sense, but also in conflicts of interest, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, between fixing-problems and "Liberty and Justice for All"
I'm reluctant to water down the message by adding a cliche, but if eve
The requested URL
Romney
I like the executive experience. I believe government should be run more like a business because businesses by and large have less waste. Their success actually depends on it, whereas government's does not. I like that he's a former governor, but the Mormon thing bugs me. I'm worried about voting for someone that believes God was once a man like us and that we will one day be Gods like Him. Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Romney though is his flip flop on abortion. I'm pro-life, but he ran on pro-choice and then did not stick to it once he was elected. I understand he had a crisis of conscience once in office with legislation in front of him, but now I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.
McCain
The guy would make a good enough general, but a horrible republican nominee. He could not beat either Clinton or Obama. The country is sick of the war, and he wants to continue it and start new ones too. He's been accused of being less conservative than Clinton. He is one of the Democrats go to guys when they need a few more votes to push legislation through. Even on his understanding of the Iraq war he has flip flopped. http://www.gadberry.com/aaron/2008/01/08/mccain-vs-mccain/ Romney is much more electable, even with the Mormon thing.
Huckabee
He wants to take back the nation for Christ. I'm not sure that it ever belonged to Christ, unless he's talking about the Monarchy we lived under before the Revolution. He supports a 23% flat (fair) tax. While I understand a consumption tax, I disagree with a 23% federal tax while in my area we already have a 7.75% sales tax. That brings my sales tax up to 30.25%. Huckabee is even less conservative than McCain. Granted, he has no flip flopping on abortion, gay rights, etc, because those are religious viewpoints, he literally wants a theocracy. He wants to legislate morality. That just doesn't work.
Paul
He's the kind of man that founded our country. He wants to get rid of the massive amounts of government that slipped in during the last ~250 years. He wants to take us back to the time when elected officials were "serving". Unlike the other's running he actually is a conservative and doesn't change his positions. I honestly believe if there was no media bias that he would get more attention. I'm not sure if it's cause the FED gives money to media, or if the media enjoys their ability to lobby, or if it's something else If you look at his record on voting the major issues he has been consistent and right 100% of the time. It may not come out until later that he was right, for example on the Iraq war, but he has always made the right decisions.
I guess it's obvious I support Paul, but the facts are the facts, and I think it's about time we had a man like our founding fathers in charge.
Since I'm not a US citizen I feel amazed that even I am more aware of Dr. Paul's politics than you even if you aren't a US citizen.
;)) His positions from the beginning have been that of a fatherly figure stating that he does not want to interfere with your life as much as possible but is willing to offer advice if you ask.
Dr. Paul is actually stating that he himself is not gay and he does not act in the lifestyle but if you wish to all the best. He would like to see prayer in schools but he does not want to enforce it. He does not want to enforce any of the subjects you state (ie abortion) he feels it is ultimately you and your states decision on how you carry out your life but if you ask him he would rather you keep your baby.
So really you are the "circular progressive" in this case (the one with his head up his ass
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.
...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
...great distance...
...great distance...
I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...
Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).
If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".
You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).
Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).
Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).
So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).
Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
John McCain
No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
OK, I'll bite.
Ron Paul's most basic views on economics are flatly incorrect in ways that are trivially easy to verify.
Examples:
Ron Paul has claimed that going back to the gold standard will fix a large variety of economic woes. Two things he has said the gold standard will resolve I can think of now are inflation and he's said that it will "smooth" the boom-and-bust cycle of the economy. Yet obviously this country has already spent a lot of time under a gold standard, and it's very easy to verify that during this time inflation was about the same as it is now or slightly worse, and the boom-and-bust cycle was considerably worse. It's really easy to google for graphs of these things, it's not some obscure data.
He also thinks that when the government runs a budget deficit, the federal reserve creates the extra money, creating inflation and thus constituting a silent "tax" on everyone's savings. This idea is simply counterfactual. When the government spends more than it takes in, the treasury department sells bonds. A bond is basically an agreement that says in exchange for X dollars today I'll give you slightly more than X dollars at some set point in the future. If the government literally printed up money every time it ran a deficit, it wouldn't owe anything when it was all said in done. Think about it: under this scenario, there would be no national debt. Isn't there, in fact, like a 9 trillion dollar national debt? The national debt is actually the sum of all of the outstanding treasury bonds. It's really easy to verify this story and it's not some subtle point.