Personally, there is not a single candidate that I have found running this year (yes, that includes independents and such) that I agree with enough to want them running my country.
I concur, and that's why I support Ron Paul, who doesn't want to run the country. He's the only candidate who understands that the role of the president isn't to run the country (or the world), but to run the executive branch of the federal government.
No, I lucked out and went to school outside the USA for the most part. One of the things I learned, which you apparently didn't, is that you don't win an argument just by affecting a snotty attitude of superiority.
The gold standard was in place through 1971, which is what the grandparent post referred to.
Nope. The "gold exchange standard" was what Nixon put an end to, but US citizens hadn't been able to redeem federal reserve notes for gold since the Roosevelt administration. In fact, it was illegal to even own gold from 1933 until the 1970s.
Ron Paul's economic policy has no grounding in reality,
You are as mistaken as the people who've assumed that we can get away with inflating the currency ad infinitum and buy imported goods with them. Why do you think the dollar is crashing?
a sensible and well-grounded economic policy.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who has proposed net cuts in spending. Look it up.
Well, that's about the level of rebuttal I'm used to seeing from those who haven't actually familiarized themselves with the history of sound money and fiat money.
We've transitioned from fiat currency to legal money twice, BTW. Once when the continental dollar collapsed (which is the painful experience that got the gold and silver clause into the constitution in the first place), and once when we retired the civil war greenbacks.
Now, you may hold the opinion that it's a good thing to let the government and the banks increase and decrease the currency supply at will, and if so you should propose an amendment to the constitution to permit that. What we're doing now is illegal.
Does the "Great Depression" ring a bell? You know, the depression that happened after the Federal Reserve had been inflating the money like crazy throughout the 1920s?
First off, his support for a return to the gold standard implies a complete lack of understanding of modern macroeconomics.
Perhaps, your hand-waving dismissal aside, he has actually studied the matter in some depth when he served on the Gold Commission during the Reagan administration.
He's been studying economics since the 1970's. Would you care to try to actually refute his position with reasoned arguments, or do you just want to continue to take it on faith that the federal reserve works for your interests?
It's what made our massive economic growth in the later half of the 20th century possible.
Then what made economic growth before fiat currency possible? We had a rather brisk run of economic growth in the nineteenth century, too.
The problem with our current fiat credit system, is that when a bank can borrow from an endless pool of currency, and lend it out at a higher rate for a profit, while shifting the risk of loss to the taxpayers, they tend to make poor decisions, like lending money to foreign dictators to deposit in their swiss accounts, or lending money to drive a real estate bubble.
He supports isolationist policies
Wrong again.
Do you know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Apparently you don't.
A few hints: Switzerland is not an isolationist country, and the only foreign country they send troops to is the Vatican. Would you call Japan an isolationist country? How many countries do they maintain military bases in? Is Singapore isolationist? Is Canada?
The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
I remember hearing that about Reagan. The thing is, if RP won the presidency, he would likely be accompanied by a sizable contingent of freshman congressmen who describe themselves as "Ron Paul Republicans". This happened when Reagan took office, too.
Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution".
Gee, I seem to have missed which other candidates raised any objection to going to war without a declaration of war, which is a power that the constitution assigns to the congress. The congress is not permitted by the constitution to transfer that power to the executive, or to the courts, or to anyone else.
So, when did Huckabee or Obama speak up about that rather important constitutional matter?
Ron Paul is not going to be the candidate to beat Obama/Clinton.
I disagree. In fact, I would say that any other Republican is going to lose in a landslide. RP's the only one who can trump Obama and Clinton on the war issue, and the fact that he voted against the "patriot" act.
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.
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.
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, there is not a single candidate that I have found running this year (yes, that includes independents and such) that I agree with enough to want them running my country.
I concur, and that's why I support Ron Paul, who doesn't want to run the country. He's the only candidate who understands that the role of the president isn't to run the country (or the world), but to run the executive branch of the federal government.
-jcr
Did I say I was advocating anything?
-jcr
Why isn't she calling for impeachment of the worst U.S. president in history?
What's the point of impeaching FDR? He's dead.
-jcr
Did you buy your education with school vouchers?
No, I lucked out and went to school outside the USA for the most part. One of the things I learned, which you apparently didn't, is that you don't win an argument just by affecting a snotty attitude of superiority.
The gold standard was in place through 1971, which is what the grandparent post referred to.
Nope. The "gold exchange standard" was what Nixon put an end to, but US citizens hadn't been able to redeem federal reserve notes for gold since the Roosevelt administration. In fact, it was illegal to even own gold from 1933 until the 1970s.
Ron Paul's economic policy has no grounding in reality,
You are as mistaken as the people who've assumed that we can get away with inflating the currency ad infinitum and buy imported goods with them. Why do you think the dollar is crashing?
a sensible and well-grounded economic policy.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who has proposed net cuts in spending. Look it up.
-jcr
It is a good idea because it allows quick action to stabilize the economy.
Look up the Great Depression. The Fed caused it, and the fed made it continue far longer than any previous recession.
Explain why.
Because the constitution prohibits the issuance of bills of credit or making anything but gold or silver legal tender.
-jcr
Because they want power, and they're not about to denounce any power that they might someday hold.
-jcr
Well, that's about the level of rebuttal I'm used to seeing from those who haven't actually familiarized themselves with the history of sound money and fiat money.
We've transitioned from fiat currency to legal money twice, BTW. Once when the continental dollar collapsed (which is the painful experience that got the gold and silver clause into the constitution in the first place), and once when we retired the civil war greenbacks.
Now, you may hold the opinion that it's a good thing to let the government and the banks increase and decrease the currency supply at will, and if so you should propose an amendment to the constitution to permit that. What we're doing now is illegal.
-jcr
the boom-and-bust cycle was considerably worse
Guess again.
Does the "Great Depression" ring a bell? You know, the depression that happened after the Federal Reserve had been inflating the money like crazy throughout the 1920s?
-jcr
Ron Paul is a corporations best friend. ...unless the corporation in question is taking subsidies or benefitting from regulation.
-jcr
First off, his support for a return to the gold standard implies a complete lack of understanding of modern macroeconomics.
Perhaps, your hand-waving dismissal aside, he has actually studied the matter in some depth when he served on the Gold Commission during the Reagan administration.
He's been studying economics since the 1970's. Would you care to try to actually refute his position with reasoned arguments, or do you just want to continue to take it on faith that the federal reserve works for your interests?
It's what made our massive economic growth in the later half of the 20th century possible.
Then what made economic growth before fiat currency possible? We had a rather brisk run of economic growth in the nineteenth century, too.
The problem with our current fiat credit system, is that when a bank can borrow from an endless pool of currency, and lend it out at a higher rate for a profit, while shifting the risk of loss to the taxpayers, they tend to make poor decisions, like lending money to foreign dictators to deposit in their swiss accounts, or lending money to drive a real estate bubble.
He supports isolationist policies
Wrong again.
Do you know the difference between isolationism and non-interventionism? Apparently you don't.
A few hints: Switzerland is not an isolationist country, and the only foreign country they send troops to is the Vatican. Would you call Japan an isolationist country? How many countries do they maintain military bases in? Is Singapore isolationist? Is Canada?
He opposes the separation of Church and State.
Ah, and now you trot out a bald-faced lie.
-jcr
Only Congress can declare war!
Correct.
And they did so in public law 107-243.
Incorrect. In that law, they shirked their responsibility and let Bush send troops into harm's way without declaring war.
The last war that the USA declared was WW2.
-jcr
Don't hate the player, hate the game. MS is fulfilling their duty to their shareholders.
-jcr
Why do I get you are one of the first people to start complaining when the government reduces funding for schools, science programs, etc?
Because you have me confused with someone else, obviously.
-jcr
The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
I remember hearing that about Reagan. The thing is, if RP won the presidency, he would likely be accompanied by a sizable contingent of freshman congressmen who describe themselves as "Ron Paul Republicans". This happened when Reagan took office, too.
-jcr
Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution".
Gee, I seem to have missed which other candidates raised any objection to going to war without a declaration of war, which is a power that the constitution assigns to the congress. The congress is not permitted by the constitution to transfer that power to the executive, or to the courts, or to anyone else.
So, when did Huckabee or Obama speak up about that rather important constitutional matter?
-jcr
He also wants to abolish the Department of Education.
Pop quiz: how many students does the Federal Department of Education teach? Did you guess ZERO?
The quality of schooling in this country was far better before we had any federal involvement in the matter. Why do you suppose that is?
-jcr
I think I first heard that joke about Nixon, Carter, and Ford.
-jcr
Ron Paul is not going to be the candidate to beat Obama/Clinton.
I disagree. In fact, I would say that any other Republican is going to lose in a landslide. RP's the only one who can trump Obama and Clinton on the war issue, and the fact that he voted against the "patriot" act.
-jcr
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
There's something else to tout McCain for, his stance on torture.
Man, talk about a low bar to clear...
-jcr
I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness
If you like what McCain says, then you'll love Ron Paul's voting record.
-jcr
Actually, by omitting him from the list, Taco ensured that nearly all of the discussion would be about Ron Paul.
Thanks, Cmdr Taco!
-jcr
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
I thought Ron Paul was still in the race?
;-)
He is. Rudy Giuliani put him on the map.
-jcr
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.
-jcr