2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[knapplc]

No, what's stupid is being an uninformed voter. It's not Rubio's fault you don't know him. Get informed.

[gobiggergoredder]

No, what's stupid is being an uninformed voter. It's not Rubio's fault you don't know him. Get informed.

 

Unfortunately, you're both right. This is rare, but it happens. The masses are uninformed.

[HuskerShark]

I'm still banking on Ron Paul entering the presidential race as an independent if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. Otherwise, I will have to vote for Obama because Romney just comes across as a sleeze-ball to me.

[knapplc]

Ron Paul is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

[HuskerShark]

Ron Paul is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

HA! I hope that's sarcasm.

[knapplc]

Ron Paul is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

HA! I hope that's sarcasm.

 

Not even close. It's a realistic assessment from a regular voter of more than 20 years.

[carlfense]

Ron Paul is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

HA! I hope that's sarcasm.

. . . I don't think that that's sarcasm.

[HuskerShark]

Ron Paul is unelectable as a presidential candidate.

HA! I hope that's sarcasm.

 

Not even close. It's a realistic assessment from a regular voter of more than 20 years.

 

I don't really get into politics, which is why I am guessing you say he isn't electable. I've heard that said before about him, and I don't get it. He himself addressed this point on a TV talk show. The idea of an election is to choose the candidate that best fits what this country needs. To me, that's Ron Paul. I couldn't possibly care less about the rest of the political shenanigans.

[knapplc]

Why does Ron Paul most fit America's needs?

[HuskerShark]

Why does Ron Paul most fit America's needs?

 

Getting rid of "Big Government", cutting budgets where they need to be cut (estimated 1 trillion dollars in cuts in year 1), bringing the troops home from the middle East. Sounds pretty good to me.

[knapplc]

Why does Ron Paul most fit America's needs?

 

Getting rid of "Big Government", cutting budgets where they need to be cut (estimated 1 trillion dollars in cuts in year 1), bringing the troops home from the middle East. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

Those are all very nice soundbites. Have you ever looked into the nuts and bolts of how Paul proposes to do these things?

 

When you do, you'll understand why he's unelectable. He's a soundbite machine. He has no real, realistic plans on how to accomplish the things he says. Or, he contradicts himself by saying things like he's against Abortion. He's also stated that he's opposed to outlawing Abortions. Great, Ron! How do you have one stance with the other? Answer - he said them at different times, different speeches.

 

Take his "smaller government and lower taxes" stance. Everyone wants smaller government and lower taxes. Brilliant idea. How? He never explains it. He wants us to go back to the Gold Standard, which would solidify our currency and sounds like a nice idea until you realize we have enough gold on hand to back maybe 30% of our currency. Where are we going to get the other 70%? He never addresses that, he buries it in his "smaller government" rhetoric.

 

Look at his policies. Look at his plans. Then look at the practicality of funding them, of rearranging our entire economy around a Ron Paulian model, and think how easy that would be to accomplish in an eight-year presidency (we'll give him the benefit of the doubt on reelection). It's not possible. And there isn't another Ron Paul waiting in the wings to take over for him and continue his policies. In fact, nobody else likes Ron Paul's policies. Except the uninformed.

[carlfense]

Why does Ron Paul most fit America's needs?

 

Getting rid of "Big Government", cutting budgets where they need to be cut (estimated 1 trillion dollars in cuts in year 1), bringing the troops home from the middle East. Sounds pretty good to me.

The problem is that despite the rhetoric, many Americans very much like "Big Government."

 

I do agree with some of Paul's foreign policy ideas. Heck, I agree with some of his domestic policy ideas. That said, his views are almost certainly too extreme for him to be elected.

[knapplc]

Let's talk about "bringing the troops home." I'm for that. I think more than 95% of Americans are for that. Get our kids back here, out of harm's way, and let's be at peace. Absolutely something I support.

 

How do we do that, though?

 

We can't simply uproot our troops and bring them home. It would create a power vacuum in several hotspots around the world, creating conflagrations where there are squabbles now. We cannot simply remove our troops from Afghanistan and expect that nation to govern itself. And we already know the ramifications of allowing the Taliban free rein to do as they please over there. Not only did they provide safe haven for al Qaeda, but aside from that they committed innumerable atrocities against the Afghan people and they even damaged or destroyed several World Heritage sites. It is a worthy thing to be there to keep the peace, and while there are many, many negative ramifications of us being over there, simply pulling up stakes is not prudent. At all.

 

There are some ugly truths that we have to abide in the world today. Ron Paul doesn't want to abide those truths - he wants to declare Utopia and damn the process. It doesn't work that way. Obama found that out with his Guantanamo closure promise. Some things, no matter how unpalatable, have to be borne.

[HuskerShark]

Why does Ron Paul most fit America's needs?

 

Getting rid of "Big Government", cutting budgets where they need to be cut (estimated 1 trillion dollars in cuts in year 1), bringing the troops home from the middle East. Sounds pretty good to me.

 

Those are all very nice soundbites. Have you ever looked into the nuts and bolts of how Paul proposes to do these things?

 

When you do, you'll understand why he's unelectable. He's a soundbite machine. He has no real, realistic plans on how to accomplish the things he says. Or, he contradicts himself by saying things like he's against Abortion. He's also stated that he's opposed to outlawing Abortions. Great, Ron! How do you have one stance with the other? Answer - he said them at different times, different speeches.

 

Take his "smaller government and lower taxes" stance. Everyone wants smaller government and lower taxes. Brilliant idea. How? He never explains it. He wants us to go back to the Gold Standard, which would solidify our currency and sounds like a nice idea until you realize we have enough gold on hand to back maybe 30% of our currency. Where are we going to get the other 70%? He never addresses that, he buries it in his "smaller government" rhetoric.

 

Look at his policies. Look at his plans. Then look at the practicality of funding them, of rearranging our entire economy around a Ron Paulian model, and think how easy that would be to accomplish in an eight-year presidency (we'll give him the benefit of the doubt on reelection). It's not possible. And there isn't another Ron Paul waiting in the wings to take over for him and continue his policies. In fact, nobody else likes Ron Paul's policies. Except the uninformed.

 

As far as his stance on abortion goes, his belief is that it is murder and should not be allowed, but he would not outlaw it because it would be a form of "Big Government." I think he was on Jay Leno when he addressed it. He said that most people view it as a woman's right to choose, but people don't think about protecting the baby's right to choose. I agree with him 100% on the issue. Honestly, I think the entire policy on abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis by the voters; not the federal government saying what people can and can't do.

[knapplc]

Except that Life is a federal issue, not a state-by-state issue.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

It's not the first thing mentioned there by accident. Ron Paul is on record as saying life begins at conception. He's riding the fencepost with his stance, doing his damnedest to position himself to appeal to as many people as possible.