Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
all you need to know about why Ron Paul or an libertarian will never win. The article is actually about Rand Paul, but here was the passage about trying to sell libertarianism to the country:
If you want to become president, you have one thing in mind, you need to get to 50.1% If you hold libertarian views and run on those views you are not going to be president. I dare anyone to run on completely libertarian principles and believe they are going to win. Go ahead. Tell voters you are in favor of legalizing heroin and LSD. Tell them that the U.S. government should default on its debt and relieve taxpayers of the burden. Tell them you want to end welfare and food stamps. Tell them you want to end the DEA, TSA, FDA, DOE, FAA, SEC, CFTC and the rest of the government alphabet soup agencies.
Tell them you want to end medicare. Tell them you don't want to fight Muslims, or anyone else, anymore. Go ahead, see how far you are going to get. As I have stated before, there is nothing wrong with running, as long as you stick to principles and lose. It can be a method of spreading libertarian views. Winning, given the current voter climate, is when you become suspect.
You think can convince 50.1 percent of the people to buy into your draconian platform?
all you need to know about why Ron Paul or an libertarian will never win. The article is actually about Rand Paul, but here was the passage about trying to sell libertarianism to the country:
If you want to become president, you have one thing in mind, you need to get to 50.1% If you hold libertarian views and run on those views you are not going to be president. I dare anyone to run on completely libertarian principles and believe they are going to win. Go ahead. Tell voters you are in favor of legalizing heroin and LSD. Tell them that the U.S. government should default on its debt and relieve taxpayers of the burden. Tell them you want to end welfare and food stamps. Tell them you want to end the DEA, TSA, FDA, DOE, FAA, SEC, CFTC and the rest of the government alphabet soup agencies.
Tell them you want to end medicare. Tell them you don't want to fight Muslims, or anyone else, anymore. Go ahead, see how far you are going to get. As I have stated before, there is nothing wrong with running, as long as you stick to principles and lose. It can be a method of spreading libertarian views. Winning, given the current voter climate, is when you become suspect.
You think can convince 50.1 percent of the people to buy into your draconian platform?
Personal responsibilty, ending wars, which includes ending the drug war that is a massive failure, as well as fiscal responsibility, such as cutting spending, is draconian? Wow, who knew?
Personal responsibilty, ending wars, which includes ending the drug war that is a massive failure, as well as fiscal responsibility, such as cutting spending, is draconian? Wow, who knew?
As a Paul fan, those things you mention aren't draconian, but ENDING those various government agencies is. Ending the Department of Education, for example, (as opposed to revamping it to maximize its return) means America choosing NOT to invest in education, which that investment is the single biggest thing which will help us be globally competitive in the future. I live in the South, and as much as the South talks about small government and being against redistribution, if we did not get more money than we put into the federal pot, and had only to depend on failing state budgets, our already awful schools would be completely in the toilet.
Paul's general concept of cutting is correct, it's just how far he goes WITH the concept that is draconian. And that's not even getting into his idea of just letting the banks and auto businesses fail and the system work itself out. We would be going through the second great depression right now if Paul's policies had been implemented. Paul has good themes, but he goes too far on the proposed implementation. And I voted for the man twice.
Let's not forget the big corporations who love them some bailouts at the taxpayer's expense, and the Military Industrial Complex.
^^^THIS
Mitt talked about 47% of American citizens, but defense contractors are some of the biggest government moochers around. The 47% don't have anything on them.
As a Paul fan, those things you mention aren't draconian, but ENDING those various government agencies is. Ending the Department of Education, for example, (as opposed to revamping it to maximize its return) means America choosing NOT to invest in education, which that investment is the single biggest thing which will help us be globally competitive in the future. I live in the South, and as much as the South talks about small government and being against redistribution, if we did not get more money than we put into the federal pot, and had only to depend on failing state budgets, our already awful schools would be completely in the toilet.
Paul's general concept of cutting is correct, it's just how far he goes WITH the concept that is draconian. And that's not even getting into his idea of just letting the banks and auto businesses fail and the system work itself out. We would be going through the second great depression right now if Paul's policies had been implemented. Paul has good themes, but he goes too far on the proposed implementation. And I voted for the man twice.
Well, considering IF Paul were to become president, he'd still have to deal with Congress. So, there obviously has to be some sort of compromise. Paul knows he can't eliminate social security and welfare overnight. There is no way in HELL that would fly! But it certainly needs reformed, and if I'm paying into something like SS that I was forced to pay into since I started working at 16 and it isn't going to be there when I retire, then I want my money back. As for being a non-interventionalist, ending the drug war, and stopping the corporate welfare, I'm all for that! But again, having to deal with Congress, and knowing that those who pander to lobbyists and special interest groups it would be hard. Still, people like Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson are a breath of fresh air compared to the same ole same ole that we have right now in DC.
Mitt talked about 47% of American citizens, but defense contractors are some of the biggest government moochers around. The 47% don't have anything on them.
Exactly. Welfare and bailouts and sweet tax deals for me (and all my big corporate buddies), but not for thee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Paul was the only one who could have defeated Obama
