GOP debate

[Berkut]

It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.

[Valmy]

It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

I am not entirely sure Fiat currency has been such an unqualified succes that only tards would question it.

That is not to say I think basing it on gold is a great idea.

[Martinus]

Ron Paul got the most applause. That has a psychological effect on certain types of people.

I'd support Ru Paul.

[DGuller]

It ties well to the idea of libertardians that the government that governs best is the government that is bound, gagged, and blindfolded.

As opposed to the anti-liberty crowd that thinks that people are too stupid to be allowed to do what they want, so a giant bureaucracy (set up by them, of course) is much better suited to deciding how people should live, and how their resources should be expended.

Agreed, it doesn't tie that well to the anti-liberty crowd.

[Martinus]

So wait...  He's putting forward a restricting freedom of action as a positive for the gold standard?  And people listen to this guy?

In the sense that is forces the government to be more accountable and responsible.  People who like Ron Paul do think that is a positive.

I think "people who like Ron Paul" is the operative expression here. E.g. "people who like Ron Paul think the moon is made of cheese".

[alfred russel]

It is really bad for the country that these debates can be shown in foreign locations.

[KRonn]

So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.

[alfred russel]

So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

[Valmy]

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

Heh if only you knew.

George W Bush was a great Texas Governor...Perry has been a horrible one.  Let that sink in for a second.

[DGuller]

So, where are the real contenders running for the GOP? Didn't see them in the fifteen or so minutes I watched last night. We need leaders. Don't have one in the White House now, and I don't see too much of interest in the Repubs either. But hey, it's early yet. Last election Barack Obama was also an unknown and came out of nowhere.

Romney (who doesn't stand for anything) and Huntsman (who I don't know much about) are the only reasonable people in the group. The rest are flakes. Probably including Perry.

I agree with that.  I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either.  Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.

[Eddie Teach]

I agree with that.  I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either.  Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.

Do you mean it when you say unfortunately?

[MadImmortalMan]

To be honest none of these Republicans look likely to even trouble Obama very much.

None of them can beat him. The economy can.

Troof. When traders are jumping off buildings, the President doesn't get re-elected.

[Razgovory]

The problem with Ron Paul is that his ideas are much better explained in his books. He is not a good orator, plain and simple. His voice gets wavery, which makes him look like he has Parkinsons or something, he talks too fast, and trips over his words. That's why RP adherents in the audience still applaud, because they know his positions from having read them. If I only knew about Ron Paul from watching him, I would have written him off as a fringe candidate, as most people do. Reading his books are what helped me to understand his real message.

His point about Iran is not something that I believe most Americans have the logic skills to understand anymore - like how most people can't understand the difference between 'can' and 'should'. He's basically saying that you can't blame a country for wanting nuclear weapons, not that he's going to be jumping for joy if they do, or that he thinks they SHOULD, or that it would be a good thing. It gives that country "street cred" in the international community that you don't get if you don't have them. So why wouldn't they want them? Of course they do. And where do you draw the line about who gets to have them and who doesn't? And why should we, alone, carry the burden of making that decision? If Israel feels Iran is a threat, let them deal with Iran. If the global community feels Iran is a threat, let us all deal with Iran together. He's just arguing that embargoes don't really work as a means of conflict avoidance. And the US should not be acting solely in this, riding in like some B-movie cowboy to police the world. Those military engagements begun in the Bush years, in tandem with entitlement programs, are a big reason why we're in the financial position we're in. Ron Paul goes a step further to add that, if we didn't have fiat currency, we probably wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. When a nation has to sacrifice to pay for a war, it's far more likely to be either a) done quickly or b) not entered into at all, because only the most noble causes will inspire that kind of prolonged sacrifice.

I haven't thought out my position on this... so I'm not saying I agree or disagree. But this is his philosophy having read both of his "general platform" books.

Of the candidates, Ron Paul remains my favorite for his proven consistency, his economic foresight, limited government philosophy, and his passion for not involving the US in aggressive wars, but I don't think he's electable, and no one else on that stage interests me at all, so I will probably be going third party again this year if those are my choices. 

Remarkably countries went to war over stupid shit when there was a Gold Standard as well.  People don't oppose the Ron Paul because they don't understand him.  They understand him perfectly well.  To suggest different is patronizing and delusional.  People don't want to return to the Gold Standard anymore then the want to arm our military with muskets and lances.

[Viking]

It is really bad for the country that these debates can be shown in foreign locations.

+1

[DGuller]

I agree with that.  I think Huntsman could be the most dangerous Republican candidate in 2012, because he can appeal to people who are not crazy, but aren't that enamored with Obama either.  Unfortunately, that same quality will make it nigh on impossible for him to make any aground in the primaries.

Do you mean it when you say unfortunately?

Yes.  It's not good for the country when one of the two political parties is completely taken over by the crazies, even if that takeover hurts the party that you mostly disagree with.  Politics is not a zero-sum game, even if many Americans seem to forget that.