2012 Presidential Campaign - Obama vs. Romney

[redout22]

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.

Not that I dont believe you but where did you get this information? I'm doing a research project over gold standard and I thought I would throw that figure in.

[knapplc]

That was two weeks ago. Let me see if I can dig that back up...

 

 

EDIT - I cannot find the article I read that in. Of course, I'm not an expert in U.S. gold reserves as it relates to our currency, so I had to do some googling to find that. And now I can't replicate that search.

 

What I did find was several articles that showed what we have in gold reserves (8,133.5 tonnes of bullion) and a few articles about that reserve's value. The link contains one, which I thought had a decent discussion.

 

However, as that article shows, our Treasury values the reserves at 1970s prices, or $47 per ounce. Gold is trading significantly higher than that right now, at $1,632.00 as of the time I write this. MONEX

 

At that price, our gold would be valued at $426,764,891,856.00, presuming my math is correct - 8,133.5 tonnes converted to Troy Ounces (261,498,095.5oz) x ($1,632.00).

 

According to the Fed, there are currently $1.1 trillion U.S. in circulation. If that's accurate, that means we have enough gold on hand to back about 38.8% of our currency.

 

So whatever article I was reading to get that stat was likely off by about 5%-10%, give or take some calculation errors on my part, or the fluctuations of the dollar vs. gold since that article was written.

 

Hope that helps. And remember, I'm no economist, so if none of this makes sense or I use the wrong verbiage, don't shoot me.

[knapplc]

Ripped from today's headlines:

 

Should we return to the gold standard?

 

 

According to this article, my math was off by about $20 billion (we have $405b in gold, not $426b). Still, I was reasonably close for piecing that together from several sources. I don't understand this discussion well enough to know what all should be taken into account, though, and the article points out the stuff I missed.

[JJ Husker]

If you're talking about politics in general, it's really hard to separate the person from the belief system, so religion (or lack of religion) will always have a role in politics. I think that's inevitable.

 

Well, I know if you're a Christian...there are plenty of Scriptural examples that prove we shouldn't mix the two. I just follow Jesus' example on it.

Do you? Don't you vote based on your moral convictions, and aren't those convictions a product of your religious beliefs?

 

Further, wouldn't you be more likely to vote for a candidate who openly espouses beliefs compatible with those of your religion, rather than for a candidate who openly espouses beliefs contrary to your religion?

 

 

I don't vote.

 

Voting means that I'm responsible for ANYTHING that person does while they are in office because I helped get him/her there. I cannot, in good conscience, do that. So I don't vote. I use my right to abstain from voting like our founding fathers did many times.

 

If I voted and that person I put in office was responsible for any scandal, wrongdoing, or bad treatment/maiming/killing of others...I share that responsibility. I become blood guilty for them. I take that very seriously.

 

There are plenty of scriptures that support my abstaining from voting or taking part in anything political. I'd be happy to share them if you think they don't exist.

While I appreciate your freedom to choose whether you vote or not, I disagree with your stated reason for choosing not to vote. If you feel you share the responsibility for any wrongdoing committed by someone you voted for, then it is logical that you still share that same responsibility when the wrongdoing is committed by anyone when you could have voted for someone who may not have committed wrong. For example; If a person feels all candidates are likely to do something bad against their wishes but, they can identify a candidate that they feel would do less harm than another, doesn't it stand to reason that the better thing to do is to vote for the one who you feel would do less harm/wrong? If not, you technically are allowing a person who you expect to do more wrong to get elected.

 

I don't agree that whoever votes for someone necessarily shares the responsibility for all that they may do wrong. If that were the case, we would have zero voters and zero people qualified to actually be elected. As Jesus said; render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, and to God what is God's (sorry if I didn't get it quoted exactly right). I think this clearly draws a line between religion and politics for Christians. I can appreciate the sentiment that there really is nobody worth voting for but, with a little knowledge and research, I think we can all identify someone who is our best choice even if it is still a crappy choice.

[Husker_x]

Dick Morris was saying something about how Romney's campaign is going to spend 500 million dollars on TV and radio buys.

 

That's a loooooot of coin.

[knapplc]

500 million dollars

 

That's the going rate to reanimate dead bodies these days.

[knapplc]

Mainly, I take from Jesus telling people IN THE TEMPLE to "give Ceasars things to Ceasar and Gods things to God." It's clear that he knew how to keep those things separate much to the chagrin of the Pharisees and the Jewish people.

 

So you don't think that Jesus would consider voting a civic duty, much like paying taxes? If every Christian stopped voting, would that demonstrate a Christ-like love and concern for your fellow man? I don't see how this stance is biblically supported.

[knapplc]

devnet, I can't say that I agree with that explanation, but it is a pretty solid explanation. You get a +1 from me.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

I don't vote.

 

Voting means that I'm responsible for ANYTHING that person does while they are in office because I helped get him/her there. I cannot, in good conscience, do that. So I don't vote. I use my right to abstain from voting like our founding fathers did many times.

 

If I voted and that person I put in office was responsible for any scandal, wrongdoing, or bad treatment/maiming/killing of others...I share that responsibility. I become blood guilty for them. I take that very seriously.

 

There are plenty of scriptures that support my abstaining from voting or taking part in anything political. I'd be happy to share them if you think they don't exist.

While I appreciate your freedom to choose whether you vote or not, I disagree with your stated reason for choosing not to vote. If you feel you share the responsibility for any wrongdoing committed by someone you voted for, then it is logical that you still share that same responsibility when the wrongdoing is committed by anyone when you could have voted for someone who may not have committed wrong. For example; If a person feels all candidates are likely to do something bad against their wishes but, they can identify a candidate that they feel would do less harm than another, doesn't it stand to reason that the better thing to do is to vote for the one who you feel would do less harm/wrong? If not, you technically are allowing a person who you expect to do more wrong to get elected.

 

I don't agree that whoever votes for someone necessarily shares the responsibility for all that they may do wrong. If that were the case, we would have zero voters and zero people qualified to actually be elected. As Jesus said; render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, and to God what is God's (sorry if I didn't get it quoted exactly right). I think this clearly draws a line between religion and politics for Christians. I can appreciate the sentiment that there really is nobody worth voting for but, with a little knowledge and research, I think we can all identify someone who is our best choice even if it is still a crappy choice.

 

 

Um...no.

 

I'm not responsible for someone I didn't vote for any more than I am for someone I did...because I don't take part in the process at all.

 

By casting a vote, I put my faith in men/women (both or either side(s) in your logical example)...not in God. By not casting a vote, my faith in God is preserved. Mainly, I take from Jesus telling people IN THE TEMPLE to "give Ceasars things to Ceasar and Gods things to God." It's clear that he knew how to keep those things separate much to the chagrin of the Pharisees and the Jewish people.

 

I like that you put your faith in God and not in man but I do not necessarily agree with how you choose to implement that plan. My personal take on it, from a Catholic Christian perspective is that I should do all I can within my limited means to do more good than harm as regards our country and God's kingdom on earth. For example; All other things being equal, if candidate A is absolutely against abortion for any reason and candidate B thinks abortion should be used just like birth control and even right up to the time of birth, I'm going to vote for candidate A, even though he has a little stronger opposition to it than I do. I believe God knows what is in every mans heart so those that attempt to do the best they can with the limited information they have at the time, well, I just don't see how they could be held accountable for any wrongdoing committed by someone they voted for with their best intentions.

[The Dude]

Just read the last few pages, this might be the first time I've seen Ron Paul accused of flip-flopping. He usually speaks his mind no matter the audience.

 

Also, good post Husker_x (#318).

[Lil' Red]

Gingrich, who suspended his campaign on Wednesday after winning just two states of South Carolina and his home state of Georgia, has called Romney a liar in the past. In an interview

on January 3 with CBS This Morning, Gingrich told White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell that Romney is "someone who will lie to you."

http://www.cbsnews.c...at-werent-true/

 

This is rather discouraging if this is the form of support he is receiving from his own party.

[walksalone]

I'm not sure that I think either one are really worth voting for...

 

Are you voting for the one that you think will suck the least or actually vote for the one who you think will actually do a good job. Obama's resume isn't really that strong outside of giving the SEAL's the go ahead to get Bin Laden. Granted, congress has been more problematic than problem solving, but still most Americans will have no idea of what he's accomplished in his first 4 years. The other side isnt' really that much brighter. You've got Mitt, whose candidacy immediately will bring his whole religious beliefs into play, and Mormon's aren't quite right.

 

Essentially, this election isn't about who is the best candidate, but who will f*ck things up less...

[carlfense]

Essentially, this election isn't about who is the best candidate, but who will f*ck things up less...

Probably the most succinct summary of American politics that I've seen on this board.

[bhamHusker]

Essentially, this election isn't about who is the best candidate, but who will f*ck things up less...

I'm 43, and I'm trying to recall the election, at any level of politics, in my lifetime where this wasn't the case.

[carlfense]

Essentially, this election isn't about who is the best candidate, but who will f*ck things up less...

I'm 43, and I'm trying to recall the election, at any level of politics, in my lifetime where this wasn't the case.

Also true.