2012 US Election thread - slowly going nowhere

[Phey Onat]

It's my personal opinion that Ron Paul is hated by the GOP because he represents what a true small government is all about, not caring about gays, not caring about drugs, not policing the world, etc. When the man says he wants a small government, he litterally means it and will go into the forest of bureaucracy with an axe, swinging wildly, unlike every repbulican president since at least Nixon. Paul would work to cripple much of this war-on-terror that allows spying on citizens, indefinite detentions, etc. Most of all though, and probably the biggest point of distaste, Paul would fight crony capitalism and oppose free-trade deals and schemes to enrich government contractors. Paul is conservative, not neoconservative or a 'capitalist' who would use the state to maintain monopolies at home and via corrupt international trade deals and that's why he is hated.

I do worry that he places to much power to the states. I'm pretty sure we had a civil war over just how much power the states have. States are bound to the bill of rights just as the federal government is and if Right to Privacy binds the Feds, so too does it bind the States.

[Agathor]

Again, half of what he wants to do wouldn't need congress's approval at all. Most of his actions can be done simply because he's the president, or by the old faithful that Bush abused to death, the presidential act (eliminating the IRS, eliminating Income Tax, Department of Housing, and other departments, that shit he can just axe straight from the white house, ordering the troops home, ect.).

On a side note, the past 4 years, the only thing that the current president has done, is pass a shitty healthcare law thats wrapped up in court, and give all of our money to corporations who were robbing the American people blind from jump anyway, so it literally can't possibly be any worse.

You want to eliminate the IRS? And Income Tax?

So in your dream world, the US gov would have to make do with 500 billion dollars. Even then, that figure would depend on corps to pay tax based on the honour rule as there is no IRS. It could drop to 100 billion even.

What are your thoughts on that Grath?

[Grath]

You want to eliminate the IRS? And Income Tax?

So in your dream world, the US gov would have to make do with 500 billion dollars. Even then, that figure would depend on corps to pay tax based on the honour rule as there is no IRS. It could drop to 100 billion even.

What are your thoughts on that Grath?

The Income Tax makes up slightly less than 1/3 of the US income, if you were to remove all the money we made from income tax in the US last year our national income still would be at the same level we took in during the year 2000, and the country rand just fine in 2000.

Couple that with the drastic reduction in spending by the Fed, from his removal of so many departments, closure of over seas bases, ending the war in afghanistan, and a litany of other things, I think we'd find ourselves not only able to run off what we had, but having a bit left over to do things like pay China back some of the money.


Seriously, if all you've seen of Ron Paul is what the established media shows, you should actually do some checking into him (I did, I literally despise politicians, I think they're all guilty of treason) and I find his message has been unchanged in years.

He ran 4 years ago, the funny thing is, if you go back and watch his interviews from back then, he says the same things hes saying now, only almost ALL of his predictions about the American economy have also come true.

[Agathor]

I know Ron Paul

He is my favourite with Bernie Sanders. I like most of what he says but the IRS thing is just ludicrous. No one would pay taxes if there was no one to see if you paid.

[Aurora148]

Its admirable that he has stayed firm on his beliefs for so long, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of those beliefs are totally incompatible with the modern world.

There is also the small problem of his age.

[Raketefrau]

The Income Tax makes up slightly less than 1/3 of the US income, if you were to remove all the money we made from income tax in the US last year our national income still would be at the same level we took in during the year 2000, and the country rand just fine in 2000.

Couple that with the drastic reduction in spending by the Fed, from his removal of so many departments, closure of over seas bases, ending the war in afghanistan, and a litany of other things, I think we'd find ourselves not only able to run off what we had, but having a bit left over to do things like pay China back some of the money.

What happens when all those people get laid off en masse? You think unemployment's bad now? Damn.

Also, a good chunk of why the US is in the red right now is a *reduction* of income taxes from the recession. Take away all of them and we're fucked.

I want to like him, I really do, but some of it just ain't gonna work. And even if he does get elected, unless he's going to survive on Executive Orders, he's not going to be able to get any of it done.

[Grath]

No one would pay taxes if there was no one to see if you paid.

Tax code wasn't introduced until 1913 and its technically bullshit anyway, but the whole idea is that people DON'T pay income taxes.

Like I said, it makes up less than 1/3 of our annual income, he wants it gone completely, the idea that you need to replace the money the government makes off of income tax with something means pretty much that all of your money is the government to do with as they please from the start.

Thats bullshit, the founding fathers never intended half of what you earn to go to the Fed.

Also, a good chunk of why the US is in the red right now is a *reduction* of income taxes from the recession. Take away all of them and we're fucked.

Actually a good chunk of why we're in the Red right now has to do with the Federal Reserve printing money, funding 2 wars over 10 years in length, keeping 700 bases over seas open, a Defense Budget that is literally off the chain, and a retard number of Federal Programs that are basically socialist in nature, none of which were ever intended with our form of government.

If you cut Income tax, you would remove 1/3 of our income, but then if you were to remove a ridiculous number of government agencies and their departments, freeze SS and allow anybody under the age of 30 to opt out, freeze the SS assets of those over 30 so that it just pays them out (and stop allowing the US government to invest the SS Fund), and then start chipping away at huge chunks of the defense budget while at the same time ending the Afghanistan fucking nightmare, do you have any idea of how much money you'd free up in this country? The 700 overseas bases alone would be fucking staggering. The god damn US embassy in Iraq cost over a billion dollars. A FUCKING BILLION.

And yea, he'd probably live off of Executive Orders for a good bit I'd hope, while he worked things out, Bush did it to lead us through 2 illegal wars (Congress declares a war, not the president, and our Congress never declared either of our last 2 wars), so I'd be ok with this guy doing it to dig us out of that whole.

Our military should be used to secure our borders, not dictate policy on the other side of the world, and if you got rid of/stifled the flow of mexican immigrants that are illegally crossing the border, the number of jobs you would free up is fucking retarded. As somebody who works in an industry thats getting hammered by illegals (construction) I generally get to see face to face the ridiculous number of fucking border hoppers that there are.


You should really go through and listen to more of the man speak, from somebody who thinks they're all fucking cocksuckers, this dude has some good shit.

[Grath]

I guess in the end his viability in your mind is directly tied to how many social welfare programs you're willing to see go away.

[StevieTopSiders]

I guess in the end his viability in your mind is directly tied to how many social welfare programs you're willing to see go away.

Speaking as a college student who has yet to enter the workforce, many of our social programs cause me to be angry. I will spend my whole life paying fore social security and other programs, but those things are so over-budget and under-funded that I will never see a dime of that money. It's basically a pyramid scheme benefiting the baby boomers.

I read in The Economist a while back that the retirement must be raised to 70 to make the programs anywhere near sustainable.

[Agathor]

Americans act like taxes and welfare is something new. Why did Romans hand out bread? Crime rate and civil dissidence tend to go down if a part of your nation is not starving and has a place to stay.

[Agathor]

Speaking as a college student who has yet to enter the workforce, many of our social programs cause me to be angry. I will spend my whole life paying fore social security and other programs, but those things are so over-budget and under-funded that I will never see a dime of that money. It's basically a pyramid scheme benefiting the baby boomers.

I read in The Economist a while back that the retirement must be raised to 70 to make the programs anywhere near sustainable.

My advice to you is be good to old peeps. They kinda built the schools and infrastructure that your lazy entitled ass has been sitting on.

Also, you are gonna be one soon enough.

I am p. sure that most of the welfare cash gets ejected straight away in to the economic. Be it milk for a hungry kid or a Cadillac for the gangstas. There must be some kind of cash cycle, filthy rich billionaires sitting mountains of cash that could be spent by welfare peeps on all kinds of shit is poison for economic growth.

[StevieTopSiders]

My advice to you is be good to old peeps. They kinda built the schools and infrastructure that your lazy entitled ass has been sitting on.

That they did, but they have failed to maintain it.

Also, you are gonna be one soon enough.

Also true, but in 45 years when I reach the retirement age, Social Security will have gone bankrupt, as there are not enough young workers (with jobs that provide living wages) to support the giant wave of old people we have retiring now, much less those that will come later.

As an aside, I would like to recognize your comment on bread and circuses and commend it. Being a Latin student of 4 years, I love when people reference the Romans. lol. Looking more closely, however, the bread and circuses were necessary because the poor had no work. Slaves tended to the fields, and only so many skilled artisans were needed. Another issue is that the Roman calendar had 150+ holidays, meaning worker productivity was shit, and each holiday demanded that an emperor/important person throw festivals to placate the restless mobs.

[Grim]

Ron Paul would cut my job, so I won't vote for him. It isnt the most noble thing to say, but at least I'm honest. Plus a lot of his crazy BS would be bad for America (and by extent, the world) long term.

[Grath]

Ron Paul would cut my job, so I won't vote for him. It isnt the most noble thing to say, but at least I'm honest. Plus a lot of his crazy BS would be bad for America (and by extent, the world) long term.

Your company is carrying about a 100,000 employee's more than it realistically should, and is currently being run like one of the big Detroit car manufacturers. I'd like to say in the real world your bosses would be shit canned, but the more likely outcome is that they'd be getting government bail out money to keep the shit show running.


What about what he wants would be bad for the country? I'm curious to see your actual list of what you think he's going to do that you think is bad?


The news is really shitting on him pretty heavy, but if you listen to him whenever they interview him directly he tends to make them look dumb as shit, so I'm honestly curious if you've actually personally looked at what he's saying and have a list of things he wants to do that you don't like, or if you're just taking the media's word on the fact that you wouldn't like him.


Gingrich: two faced fucking piece of shit that went after clinton for cheating while cheating, part of the established do nothing US government who were sold to corporation long ago (constantly voting and introducing/supporting the legislation that helps big business fuck the little guy), gives no fucks about the common American or his rights (hello Patriot Act), basically he's there for the money

Huntsman: Not really a bad guy per se, but I'd like to see him as the VP in this situation. I worry about his being religious, my country doesn't need God right now, it needs to pull its head out of its ass. Theres also a certain amount of old money thats bothersome about him, his father basically gave him a CEOship of a company, he didn't earn it, he wasn't the qualified guy, so I'm skeptical of him in that department, I don't want anymore good ol' boys in the clubhouse. But, like I said, I think he'd make a great VP on Pauls ticket, he's just conservative enough, while being able to accept science as a fact (no dickhead the dinosaurs weren't here when people were).

Romney: Not sure I need a reason past this but, he's pro Iran war, but he flat out lies, his speech to the cadets at the Citadel was a fucking mockery, literally standing there lying directly to their face making things up (saying he'd undo Obamas defense budget cuts -there haven't been any- saying he'd deploy ships and weapons to places they already are) and he wants to increase the defense budget. Are you fucking serious, ITS LITERALLY KILLING THIS FUCKING COUNTRY YOU DUMB NIGGER back off the fucking throttle some and spread the massive defense budget to the places its needed more, our country, is NOT at fucking risk right now, we are not under the threat of invasion, and the money they spend fighting wars with the defense departments money overseas would be just as well spent keeping people like our military employed securing our own borders for a fraction of the cost. His company is greasy as shit, its being sued for being such ass holes

He also falls under the scum bag category for just being a liar at every fucking possible juncture

This is his quote 4th of July in New Hampshire:

The people of New Hampshire have waited long enough. They want to see good jobs. They want to see rising incomes. They want to see an economy that’s growing again, and the president’s failed. He did not cause this recession, but he made it worse

When confronted by a reporter a few days later with the fact that the economy is now growing instead of shrinking as it was when he took office in 2009; when the Dow is climbing, and is no longer in a free-fall it was in when George Bush left office, and when the unemployment rate is beginning to turn around, now down nearly a full percentage point from where it was in the fall of 2009 (which may not all be attributed to Obama, but) he responded

I didn’t say that things are worse…. What I said was that economy hasn’t turned around

I mean fuck me man do you really think we're all retarded and you're the only smart one you fucking punk?


Obama I believed. I didn't vote for him, but I believed he would do what he said, and get big businesses out of government. I didn't flinch when they lost the votes in congress, I had faith, we had a nigger behind the trigger and he was going to Executive Order the shit out of some shit. Bush drove those fucking things into the ground, he did a record number, and I don't think fucking Obama has even done a single god damn one, or if he has, none that seemed to matter.

He gave money to the people that allowed us to get into this situation, the people that we entrusted to keep this very fucking thing from happening, he took our money, and gave it to them. He bailed out the car companies, who've been just fucking off, my kid could keep a better set of books than they do, its the worst fucking job of running a vital industry in history, short of the banking bullshit across the lake from them.

He crammed a bullshit healthcare bill down my throat, did it help me? Fuck no but the insurance companies sure did come out of it looking pretty sweet.


And the rest of the year? Not a fucking thing that amounts to much for me and mine.






So what is it about Ron Pauls policies you don't like?

[Agathor]

That they did, but they have failed to maintain it.


Also true, but in 45 years when I reach the retirement age, Social Security will have gone bankrupt, as there are not enough young workers (with jobs that provide living wages) to support the giant wave of old people we have retiring now, much less those that will come later.

As an aside, I would like to recognize your comment on bread and circuses and commend it. Being a Latin student of 4 years, I love when people reference the Romans. lol. Looking more closely, however, the bread and circuses were necessary because the poor had no work. Slaves tended to the fields, and only so many skilled artisans were needed. Another issue is that the Roman calendar had 150+ holidays, meaning worker productivity was shit, and each holiday demanded that an emperor/important person throw festivals to placate the restless mobs.

One of your biggest problems is lack savings and really bad private sector retirement funds. Iceland has a 15 billion dollar fund, only rivalled by Holland and Swiss per capita. Regulations here tell corps to pay 5 to 10% of your pay to private retirement funds. The funds have similar rights to the IRS and its been the law since the 50s. The idea is that the gov should not pay a dime for your retirement.

[StevieTopSiders]

One of your biggest problems is lack savings and really bad private sector retirement funds. Iceland has a 15 billion dollar fund, only rivalled by Holland and Swiss per capita. Regulations here tell corps to pay 5 to 10% of your pay to private retirement funds. The funds have similar rights to the IRS and its been the law since the 50s. The idea is that the gov should not pay a dime for your retirement.

The problem is that in America, companies say that they'll pay for retirement and then don't. (cf. Auto companies)

Another retirement-related thing that is super-ridiculous and really pisses me off is the postal service. USPS itself is profitable, but it is so burdened by it's pension obligations that they have to cut back. Two postal locations around me are being closed so that people can work for 20 years and then retire with an almost-full paycheck.

[Agathor]

Yes, the simple fact that a private corp with IRS rights collects that cash rather then buffing your employers corp profits for 30 years before it goes bankrupt.

[Phey Onat]

Ron Paul would cut my job, so I won't vote for him. It isnt the most noble thing to say, but at least I'm honest. Plus a lot of his crazy BS would be bad for America (and by extent, the world) long term.

I'm lucky that my job is one of the few gov agencies explicitly stated in the constitution (Patent and Trademark)

[Zakhodit]

Well, after the last page of posts, I have this image of Grath standing Ber-Serkr on a smoldering field, with a greatsword soaked in the blood of bad posters.

I will rap my axe against my shield and meet his challenge, we who are about to die, slaute you.

Ron Paul - Like every other knuckle head out there who wants to be president, some of their ideas are good and some and just bat guano crazy.

For me, Paul's positions on foreign policy are what scare me. On the surface they sound great. After all, the Department of Defense should only be concerned with Defense. Right? All these bases overseas and all this effort over seas doesn't benefit us at all... or does it?

Really to understand all this we have to go back in history. I will try to be as brief as possible while making what I think are the relevant points. If the following is "too long" and you "didn't read it" then I suggest you get your lazy, uneducated ass, out of this thread go back to reddit where you belong.


1775-1861 - Really, most of our wars in this era were still waged for the same reasons that most European wars were and under the same policies. My gross generalization of this makes me weep on the inside because I do injustice to the intricacies of this period that still have a relivant effects on our nation today. I just don't have time, rather, I cannot keep your attention long enough to explain them.


1861-1899 - Again I must gloss over many things. For one: the American Civil War. I don't think I can keep anyone here interested as I speak of how we, as a nation, only focus on the effect this had on Blacks in America and how we out right ignore the issue of States Rights, Small Government, and how Democracy wasn't about what a "majority" wanted but what the "establishment" wanted.

For God's Sake, don't misuderstand me, as people often do. No man should be a slave to another man. Also, women should vote, blah blah blah. But to say that the Civil war was only about slavery is as ignorant as saying NASCAR is the only kind of racing.

Also, I must leave out how the United States delt with the Native Americans. It parallels events in Afganistan in many ways, but I can already tell a few of you are demanding I get to the fucking point so I cannot list those parallels here.

1900-1936 - And now I get to the topic at hand. No other period in our history mirrors what Ron Paul thinks our nation should be better than this. The maze of treaties that caused all of europe to explode over a fat duke and a small rebellion were ignored by the United States until the Zimmermann Telegram made it clear that we needed to act in Defense of the Nation. Odd that it took place over seas... or brilliant?

If one of you FUCKS brings up the Lusitania I will find one of those shitty US History books that litter our public schools and beat you to death with it.

But once the Great War was over we returned to our Isolationism. This is what Ron Paul wants, in case you forgot what the topic was. Lets look at the U.S. in the mid to late 30's and see how things were. Mostly, how our military looked at this time.

The Great Depression WAS NOT DUE TO ISOLATIONISM! I wanted to make that clear before anyone called foul and beheaded me with a yellow flag. That's a whole other issue that I will not discuss here.

The U.S. Army was based on FRANCE at this time. We thought that the French were the best Army in the world and thier tactics mirrored what we felt were the best tatics. All of the forces dug in, on the border. France knew another war with Germany was unavoidable and they would win it with a strong home defense. The United States was only concerned with it's own borders and holdings and the U.S. would defend in a like manner. This was such an astoundly good idea, the Belguims also gave it a try.

When Germany invaded Poland, France bolstered defense and started a blockade on Germany with Britian. When Norway and Belgium fell to the Blitzkrieg the French stated that their defenses were inadequate. When German tanks rolled right through the Ardennes and flanked the French dug in positons (A move Norman Schwarzkopf duplicated in 1991) The French were fucked and the U.S. Army had to rethink 20 years of doctorine and retool their forces to emulate the Germans.

The U.S. Ignored Japan as it invated China, after all it was none of our business. Who cares what they did to each other as long as they leave us alone. It's not like they're going to sneak attack our fleet... oh... wow. What the fuck?

WHAT IF...

The moment Germany invaded Poland, France invaded Germany, demanding German surrender and a full withdrawl from Poland?

The moment Japan invaded China the U.S. threatend war unless Japan remove itself from Chinese soil?

This was how the first Gulf War was waged, and pretty much everyone agrees, that as wars go, this was a good one. Kuwait was freed from an agressor, and once the goals were met, the war was ended. (it's nice to have a war with goals... I miss those.)

HOWEVER,

If we ignored Iraq and allowed them to take Kuwait, as Ron Paul would have if he was president at the time, would that have been a good idea? Iraq had the 5th largest Army in the world. That's not an Army build on home defense. Saddam wanted to restart his war with Iran. He wanted all of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, he wanted all of the Middle East. Kuwait was the Poland in a plot similar to Hitler's plans of conquest.

But there is another reason why it's good to project war overseas, rather than wait for it to come to us and then defend it. If there is a war, we want it fought away from US soil. Not on it. Think of all the horrors of war, and remember that from the American viewpoint they happen "overseas" not in our back yard.

Or did we already forget that we are missing a few buildings because we let the war come to us?

TL;DR: I can't support Ron Paul because of his Isolaionist views. Isolationism does not work, will not work, and in the end will cause more problems than it solves. Imperial Japan, literally, got blown the fuck up because of Isolationism. (Later they got blown the fuck up due to the opposite: Imperialism.)

In fact, I can't support any of them so I'll do the same thing I do every election year. Stay Home.

[Grim]

I agree, the big dealbreaker for me is foreign policy. Isolationism has been proven to be a flawed ideal for us. People continue to say that in the age of globalization with everything being interconnected no sane person would start a major war because it would hurt them. Well sorry folks, but as we can clearly see with Iran, North Korea, and other countries the world isn't led by sane people. To stand back and say that crazy man isnt taking over my part of the world is not something I think we should do. We shouldn't have to be the worlds policeman, but we need a credible deterrent to keep things together imo. And I would rather it was us than the Chinese.

[Grath]

And I would rather it was us than the Chinese.

Fair enough, I take his policy to be different than straight isolationism, but thats just what I take from what he says.

Personally I think you'll find a lot of the country you live in though, is sick of being the cops of the world, and wouldn't mind if China took a turn at the post.



We've effectively been in a war time state for 10 years, enough is enough man, fuck it if it takes this much to keep them all from killing each other, let em fucking go.

[Grim]

I see where you care coming from, and agree with it to an extent Grath. Technically we have been a nation at war since 1941 or somewhere around then. We have always had forces deployed around the world engaged in some level of conflict. For example, after Gulf War 1 we left a lot of forces behind for Operations Northern/Southern watch.


I think we do need to redraw the line on what level of American interests requires the use of force, and another look at exactly what we want our military capable of doing.

[Aurora148]

Basically the entire US economy relies on you being the world's policeman. All of the contractors and subcontractors which rely on trade with your armed forces, and the everyday businesses which rely on the salaries of your personnel.

If you think unemployment is bad now just think what it would be if you took on an isolationist stance and therefore had to cut back your military by 3/4ths. You couldn't just keep paying 1.5million active personnel to sit around and do nothing, and keep signing massive defence contracts to keep those industries afloat.

[StevieTopSiders]

Basically the entire US economy relies on you being the world's policeman. All of the contractors and subcontractors which rely on trade with your armed forces, and the everyday businesses which rely on the salaries of your personnel.

If you think unemployment is bad now just think what it would be if you took on an isolationist stance and therefore had to cut back your military by 3/4ths. You couldn't just keep paying 1.5million active personnel to sit around and do nothing, and keep signing massive defence contracts to keep those industries afloat.

Fun fact about defense contracts: While looking for places to curb military excess, Gates said to put a halt to ordering F-22's. Congressmen "concerned about their districts" (and subsequent donations from contractors), ordered that more F-22's be built, despite the Secretary of Defense saying that the military didn't want any more. Bought and paid for doesn't quite cover it.

[Zakhodit]

Fair enough, I take his policy to be different than straight isolationism, but thats just what I take from what he says.

I must admit that it's not fair to Paul to say his policy is pure isolationism. It is a generalization, but in many aspects, it boils down to the same thing. Isolationism in the 21st century.

We've effectively been in a war time state for 10 years, enough is enough man, fuck it if it takes this much to keep them all from killing each other, let em fucking go.

True enough, no matter how you Monday Quaterback the whole mess, everyone is fed up with it. The solution can't be summed up in a post, a speech, or even more war. Truly the only winning move here is, in epic War Games fashion, not to play. But we already fucked that up when we tossed perfectly good tea into the Boston harbor. We're playing now and the game, as always, sucks.

I think we do need to redraw the line on what level of American interests requires the use of force, and another look at exactly what we want our military capable of doing.

Agreed, however, depending on what "expert" you ask you get a different answer. The Navy and Army can't agree on what that is.

Yes I left out the Chair Force and the Marine Corps. The Marines are under the Department of the Navy and the Air Force does what the Army tells it to do. They are nothing more than Pets to the real military corporations. And I do not use those terms Ironicly...

None of the current canidates has a fucking clue what to do with the current military nor do they have a realistic "Vision" (I hate that fucking term. What are they, Prophets?) of a future military.

If the military needs to be anything, it needs to be flexable. Turning it into "urban" warfare small scale force is not flexable. The only thing history has said about any Military is that it was not ready for what ever conflict it found it self in. The strategies and tactics used by a military are always changed by the end of any conflict and they stay that way under the foolish claim that this is how all future wars will be.

Certainly we can trim the fat. But make sure we trim fat, Not a leg or an arm.

We shouldn't have to be the worlds policeman, but we need a credible deterrent to keep things together imo. And I would rather it was us than the Chinese.

I keep hoping for that moment when Iran does something stupid and angers China. And by anger I mean China pulls out a night stick and wacks that bitch across the face.

America is the nice policeman, with rules of engagement and ideas like "necessary force"

China will drive a tank over you because you waved a flag at them.

[Grath]

I can't really argue with what you say, I mean us pulling out of all of those places is going to allow the proliferation of some unsavory elements.


To that I say: So?


I live in a country who just shit right on the space program, yet gives enough to the Defense Department to run 2 small countries. Theres just so many things we need the money for now days, and I don't see starting a new war with Iran as even remotely on the list.

I think the most appealing thing about the guy too, is his lack of slimball feeling. The dude has been in politics for a VERY long time, and his message, and voting pattern have remained fairly constant throughout it all. He's rarely if ever strayed far from what he speaks on, and I'm pretty sure that there is no other candidate that can hold a candle to that kind of integrity.

Its been a long time since we've had somebody as the President that could say that.

[Zakhodit]

I think the most appealing thing about the guy too, is his lack of slimball feeling.

What he lacks in slimeball, he makes up for in "Crazy Uncle." Granted, this is an improvment from my stand point.

The dude has been in politics for a VERY long time, and his message, and voting pattern have remained fairly constant throughout it all. He's rarely if ever strayed far from what he speaks on, and I'm pretty sure that there is no other candidate that can hold a candle to that kind of integrity.

Again, this is true. Huntsman may be the only other canidate who has always had the same message, just not for as long. And most of what Paul says makes sense. But, it's the few things he says that I don't agree with that turn me off just as quickly as Madbro Newt and his smarmy shit headness.

Example: Ron Paul (If I understand correctly) wants to reduce the military budget, while at the same time ensuring that those in the military retain their pay and benefits. Also, Ron Paul does not want to ever again have a draft.

Sounds fantastic but is absolutley impossible.

Less Military spending means less military men and women. (and civilian employees who agument the military.) The people who are retained may have the same or even better benefits/quality of life but there will be fewer of them. Effectively cutting jobs. Not making them. We have the largest all volunteer force in the world. Everyone who is in the military wants to be. Most of this is due to the fact that vast improvments have been made to Military quality of life. Cut funding and you cut that too.

And you can't point out one program and say that cutting that will not effect the people. Programs are people. The Navy cut one carrier out of it's budget and then promptly got rid of 15,000 sailors it wouldn't need anymore due to the cut.

I'm not saying you shouldn't cut spending or programs, but if you do, don't be blinded to the fact that you can do so and still "improve" things for the people involved in those cuts.

As for a draft, the smaller our military is, the more likely a draft will be required if something truely goes up a shit creek with no paddle. Our reserve forces were heavily utilzed during the last 10 years. Without their efforts, a draft would have been needed. In fact, we used them so much that when Katrina hit, we sent active duty units to assist at home because most reserve units were deployed. The active units sent were supposed to be on a "downtime" from deployments.

There was a lot of criticism about this but what no one realized is that we avoided a draft this way. Members of my unit were sent and while they were gone, I worked 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. Until they got back. The folks we sent did the same. By the way, there is no "overtime" pay.

You're welcome

Anyway, I'm not trying to shit all over Paul. I'm just better able to clarify what I dislike about his ideas. To be honest, I'd take him over Obama in a heartbeat. As you said eariler, Paul would at least do something.

[teds]

oh man, i'm not really a fan of dropping youtube links without context, but seriously romney is a total cunt

[Night]

As for a draft, the smaller our military is, the more likely a draft will be required if something truely goes up a shit creek with no paddle. Our reserve forces were heavily utilzed during the last 10 years. Without their efforts, a draft would have been needed. In fact, we used them so much that when Katrina hit, we sent active duty units to assist at home because most reserve units were deployed. The active units sent were supposed to be on a "downtime" from deployments.

This is actually due to certain decisions made after Gulf One. Certain groups (artillery was one, the MPs and many of the logistics guys were others) were moved into the Guard to save money. This sounds great until you realize that it destroyed the continuity of a lot of units and required calling up the reservists to deploy a unit that you could actually fight a war (or win a peace) with.

On balance it's proved to be a terrible decision for the Army and one that will hopefully be reversed.

[Grath]

oh man, i'm not really a fan of dropping youtube links without context, but seriously huntsman is a total cunt

Thats Romney, not huntsman, and the attitude he carriers, like he's above answering the little people, thats part of that scumbag thing. If you have a point, stick to it, but don't be a coward fucktard when somebody brings up one of your less popular policies (not even sure I'd throw that one in the less popular pile).

[teds]

sorry yep, fixed post

[poaw]

You can reduce the military's budget while leaving the pay and benefits alone. It just means you're making compromises elsewhere.

A lot of the gear that the US develops in house ends up being a huge monetary sink when other options are available elsewhere that can reasonably fill the requirement. But with so many jobs and so much money involved politics happens (you know the reason we're still building and operating Ohio-class nuclear missile subs). So Ron Paul would probably put in a Secretary of Defense that would kill a lot of those big ticket programs. Congress will scream about how we're making America vulnerable to attack and killing the economy, the defense industry will make noise about it's importance (as if going without massive across the board profits will kill them outright), and the armed forces will figure out a way to win without them (just like the M8, the A-12, or the EFV).

More attention could also be paid to force size and operational commitments. As a voter I'm not as comfortable with this because I believe that the people saying "America shouldn't be the world's policeman" are focusing on specific issues (the wars happen) and take for granted the effects that everyone benefits from (the wars that don't happen, largely free and unmolested access to the seas, being able to get away with reducing their own military expenditure to the point that their own forces are incapable of fighting without support). I'd be comfortably on the fence about the issue except China decided to be helpful in regards to our economic situation and suggest we cut back on our military spending. Every bit as subtle as the GM of the Phillies suggesting that the Yankees spend too much on their payroll and should cut back some.

Anyway, I'm not trying to shit all over Paul. I'm just better able to clarify what I dislike about his ideas. To be honest, I'd take him over Obama in a heartbeat. As you said earlier, Paul would at least do something.

In Obama's defense it has seemed to be a party-wide strategy for Republicans to make sure Obama can't do anything. I mean after the initial rush of hope and change, it should have been obvious that he's trying to be a centerist (or at the very least be seen as willing to work with Republicans). Barring any abuses of power, the most he can do is sit around waiting for someone to draft the "Kindergarten Girls are not to be anally raped" Act so he'll finally be able to sign something without someone screaming at him about destroying America.

[Rer]

I don't know why anyone even gives a shit about who becomes President of the United States anymore when our Congress is so far up shit creek it makes the Mississippi look like a stream.

I'm not just trying to make a bad zippy one liner either, I'm serious. Until completely retarded and archaic rules like the fucking goddamn Filibuster are removed from our Legislative system, I don't see any real legitmate improvements being drafted into law for our country anytime soon. We've seen senior members of Congress on both sides of the aisle state it is their mission, fucking, statement to stop anything from being done.

Then we move forward into the wonderful world of lobbyists, and all that really need be said is "SOPA" as it is a prime example of the sheer stupidity that most special interest groups bring into politics.

The short and sweet for this upcoming election is that Ron Paul would probably at least change things up, Mitt Romney is a two faced liar who will win the nomination, and Obama didn't do shit in his first term. Should he win again, he probably won't do shit in his second either, because Congress is so polarized that neither party is willing to work with the other. The budget debates are a prime example of this, when Republicans wouldn't even agree to a $10 cut in spending for every $1 in tax increase on the rich, and Democrats wouldn't even read the Republican's drafts for the budget.

I love politics, I find it always makes for great debate amongst fellow non-bitters and bitters alike, but I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with our system of two parties that refuse to do shit, while one man sits above them pleading for them to reconsider.

[Grim]

The fastest growing part of the military budget is personell, so any major cuts need to be mostly people. No point cutting equipment and not people cuz then the people have nothing to shoot. No point cutting R+D or future equipment because then we give up our ownly real edge. So it comes down to people, either fire a bunch (which the army is doing now) or cut their pay, healthcare, etc. Of course, congress won't do that, so we will get a raise this year while others are sent back to civilian life.

[Zakhodit]

You can reduce the military's budget while leaving the pay and benefits alone. It just means you're making compromises elsewhere.

True, often it means that you have less people to pay and give benefits too. I'm not against cutting a military budget. I just want to clarify that if you cut that budget you are also going to cut people. I.E. less jobs. It may be more contractors than actual troops, but troops are still involved. The people who remain will have good pay and good benefits, maybe better, but there will be less of them (People) after the cut. In the end, the guy who looses his job will not agree that his pay and benefits improved or remained the same.

A lot of the gear that the US develops in house ends up being a huge monetary sink when other options are available elsewhere that can reasonably fill the requirement. But with so many jobs and so much money involved politics happens (you know the reason we're still building and operating Ohio-class nuclear missile subs).

We are not still building Ohio class submarines. The last Ohio class was the USS Louisiana and was commissioned in 1997. We operate them because they are a part of our straegic nuclear defense. We are building Virgina class submarines, which may be the replacement for Ohio subs, if another hull is not developed before 2029. Likely since that would cost a lot of money, and a Virgina boat could be used in the Ohio role with some modifcations that are lest costly then a redesigned ship.

As for the reasons, those subs play a major role in our stregetic nuclear defense. Something that's not going to go away until all nuclear weapons are gone. I.E. never.

So Ron Paul would probably put in a Secretary of Defense that would kill a lot of those big ticket programs. Congress will scream about how we're making America vulnerable to attack and killing the economy, the defense industry will make noise about it's importance (as if going without massive across the board profits will kill them outright), and the armed forces will figure out a way to win without them (just like the M8, the A-12, or the EFV).

Ron Paul would absolutely kill the large ticket programs. (For the record, no one liked the XM8. What we really wanted was the M4 rechambered in the 6.8mm but it was never backed by the defense industry.) Coil guns for the Navy would go too. We are looking at gear that is old and going to be very old in 10 years. Old isn't always bad (We've used the same .50cal machine gun since 1917 and she still does the job) but in many cases old really means "outdated" and "outmatched". Outmatched was what we faced when Sherman tanks tangled with German Panzers. Easily solved since we outnumbered them 3 to 1. But in 10 years the Chinese will have newer gear and outnumber us.

We can't do business like we did in the 80's (big ticket crap like the XM8) and we can't cut new things wholesale and say we can do without. (See F-18 and airframe wear) As always, a compromise of two extremes is needed and, as Rer brilliantly points out, our Congress doesn't know how (or doesn't want) to do that.

The fact that Ron Paul would cut the military budget doesn't bother me as much that he misleads people that he can do it and not trim Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen.

More attention could also be paid to force size and operational commitments. As a voter I'm not as comfortable with this because I believe that the people saying "America shouldn't be the world's policeman" are focusing on specific issues (the wars happen) and take for granted the effects that everyone benefits from (the wars that don't happen, largely free and unmolested access to the seas, being able to get away with reducing their own military expenditure to the point that their own forces are incapable of fighting without support). I'd be comfortably on the fence about the issue except China decided to be helpful in regards to our economic situation and suggest we cut back on our military spending. Every bit as subtle as the GM of the Phillies suggesting that the Yankees spend too much on their payroll and should cut back some.

Very well stated. China loves to call attention to our spending and it's a major propaganda point for their home news reports. The bottom line is that many other countries benefit from our military, but then complain that we have it.

In Obama's defense it has seemed to be a party-wide strategy for Republicans to make sure Obama can't do anything. I mean after the initial rush of hope and change, it should have been obvious that he's trying to be a centerist (or at the very least be seen as willing to work with Republicans). Barring any abuses of power, the most he can do is sit around waiting for someone to draft the "Kindergarten Girls are not to be anally raped" Act so he'll finally be able to sign something without someone screaming at him about destroying America.

Congress has been a giant dick about it. And I include all those fucks. Elephants, Donkeys, and whatevers. (Gonzo is their mascot) No matter who was president, Congress is not doing their job well and they would hinder the efforts of the Commander in Chief. However, as Grath pointed out, he's not using his presidental power to it's full effect. Almost like he doesn't know how...

Tells the truth about those shit heads in congress

I love you man. And not in that hetrosexual way either. I want to tear your clothes off and make wild monkey sex with your hot hard body.

I love politics, I find it always makes for great debate amongst fellow non-bitters and bitters alike, but I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with our system of two parties that refuse to do shit, while one man sits above them pleading for them to reconsider.

"the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no-one wonders who's really in charge

This used to be funny but every four years I begin to wonder at its truth.

[Raketefrau]

In terms of the current field of Republican candidates, Ron Paul wins in my book. Romney's a smarmy douche, Hunstman hasn't stood out in any way, I mourn the loss of Bachman, and so, yeah, Ron Paul wins.

But I'm still not gonna vote for him. I'm still going with Scott Adams.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/my_presidential_bid/

[Lysander]

I like Ron Paul's idealism but I can't believe he's got a chance in hell of effecting any of the changes he believes in. Even if by some off chance he got into office he'll be as ineffectual as Obama was. The system won't allow him to do the things he wants to.

When I listen to Ron Paul I get the same feeling I have when my anarchist friends paint their pictures of the new world. It sounds great on an idealistic level, but when you look closely it all falls apart. Simple systems just don't work when you're attempting to regulate and govern something as complex as the United States. (I guess his whole point is little to no regulation? Just hope the mega corps are kind in the end?)

I really think he believes what he's saying and even that he might be a good person. The problem is that what Ron Paul believes is a fairy tale.

[Zakhodit]

But I'm still not gonna vote for him. I'm still going with Scott Adams.

http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/my_presidential_bid/

After reading that, I'm in. Scott Adams for Prez!

[Grath]

I like Ron Paul's idealism but I can't believe he's got a chance in hell of effecting any of the changes he believes in. Even if by some off chance he got into office he'll be as ineffectual as Obama was. The system won't allow him to do the things he wants to.

You would think, but George Bush Jr proved that even when the whole country, congress, and even the on the books laws are against you, Executive Orders can see you through.

[Don Peyote]

So, I saw some of the Candidate-endorsed videos on the news today

Your country (Or maybe just Republican Party/Rick Perry, that man is dangerous) is fucking insane

[Lysander]

You would think, but George Bush Jr proved that even when the whole country, congress, and even the on the books laws are against you, Executive Orders can see you through.

But what George W. was doing strengthened the position of the oligarchy. It's why Cheney (Dark Lord of Halliburton) was right at his side. He wasn't a one man maverick pushing through idiotic policy. He was backed by and, in my opinion, controlled by some very powerful political and economic interests.

I don't want to shit on Ron Paul. I really respect the level of commitment and integrity he's shown. But I really think pseudo-libertarian view point is a gross over-simplification and won't do anything to improve the problems we're facing, in fact some of the ideas would probably make things worse. He's a good guy but I don't think he really understands the forces he's dealing with.

All that said, despite my misgivings, I'd be very interested to see him as president. He'd definitely be the first in quite a while to demonstrate any integrity or honesty. And, we'd get to see just how corrupt our democracy has really become every time they shot him down.

[Iratus]

Ah, american politics... and even better, AMERICAN REPUBLICAN POLITICS!

All I see when you talk about them is a bunch of old motherfuckers who either way will fuck me, my country, my continent, and my resources. Ron Paul would mean that Colombia would cease to have US's backup when dealing with Chavez's brand of insane, communist guerrillas, and the like; while the others would mean that US's colonialism would increase, with it's "war on drugs", "war on terror" and other stupid excuses for imperialism.

[Grim]

Haha. If we wanted south america we would take it (panama canal worked out pretty good). Most Americans think South America means Florida, so you don't have a big reason to worry.

[Night]

A lot of the gear that the US develops in house ends up being a huge monetary sink when other options are available elsewhere that can reasonably fill the requirement. But with so many jobs and so much money involved politics happens (you know the reason we're still building and operating Ohio-class nuclear missile subs). So Ron Paul would probably put in a Secretary of Defense that would kill a lot of those big ticket programs. Congress will scream about how we're making America vulnerable to attack and killing the economy, the defense industry will make noise about it's importance (as if going without massive across the board profits will kill them outright), and the armed forces will figure out a way to win without them (just like the M8, the A-12, or the EFV).

I hate to be the one to have to explain this, but good gear costs money, and the bottom line is that US is often the only nation out there who is looking for that particular capability. The A-12 is a good case in point. It was a medium carrier bomber. Nobody else in the world had a flight deck able to operate such a thing so there was no alternative. It was the replacement for the A-6, and when it was cancelled the A-6 squadrons just went away. They're all gone now. No replacement, no conversion to the Hornet, nothing, just a big gaping hole.

And it's a rather uncomfortable one, honestly. When we lost the Tomcats and the Intruders and even the Vikings it drastically cut the effective range and striking power of the carrier group. The Hornet was designed to be a decent light interceptor and attack plane, but that's really all it is, and even after the E/F it's still got pretty short legs.

So no, cutting the big-ticket replacement items isn't viable and it is going to get progressively less so as the equipment ages. The EFV was another case on point, as the Amtracs are getting really damn old by now and are no longer really to be considered capable in their design role. They cancelled it but it has since been considered along with several alternatives because the LVPT-7 (or whatever the frak they're calling them these days, AAV7A1?) is just too old/slow/poorly armored/leakybynow(!).

And don't even get me started on going with the cheaper interceptor-only F-22 over the multirole YF-23.

[Iratus]

Haha. If we wanted south america we would take it (panama canal worked out pretty good). Most Americans think South America means Florida, so you don't have a big reason to worry.

Tell that to the bases all over the place. Also, that worries me, a lot.

I hate Miami.

[Grim]

Tell that to the bases all over the place. Also, that worries me, a lot.

I hate Miami.

There is a Panama City in Florida. I think the builders knew they could trick drunk college kids into thinking they were somewhere exotic, instead of the Redneck Riviera.

Also, I wasn't aware we had a great many bases (any) in South America. We might have a few things stashed at some Columbian base, but I think we pulled out of the Canal Zone and most other places in the region.

[Mr Coloredshirt]

I've seen the size of bugs they get in Florida, I'd say that it's as South America as it gets.

[poaw]

Zak I've never regarded the military as a source of employment, because even if they abolished the armed forces tomorrow it would move unemployment up a whooping 0.8%(approx.?). But you're right anyone seriously trying to reduce the budget would have to either cut people or wars.

The compromise between not buying anything and the current situation of "Dream up the next generation of capabilities then design and build something to beat that" would be to simply incrementally improve on existing technologies, or if money is really truly tight, having them simply build some more of the what they already have, or even simply changing the culture of weapons procurement might be enough.

Ron Paul would mean that Colombia would cease to have US's backup when dealing with Chavez's brand of insane, communist guerrillas, and the like; while the others would mean that US's colonialism would increase, with it's "war on drugs", "war on terror" and other stupid excuses for imperialism.

Oh god, you just said that. Without even a hint of irony. It's customary to pick one or the other to complain about, because both at the same time makes you look at best inconsistent and at worst ungrateful.

I hate to be the one to have to explain this, but good gear costs money, and the bottom line is that US is often the only nation out there who is looking for that particular capability.

I never said it didn't. My point was even when our aircraft carriers have no medium bombers, our AAVs leak, and the F-22 can't bomb; we still beat any conventional force so badly that they keep score by how hard we had to try instead of whether we win or lose. The rest of the world isn't desperately spending in an attempt to catch up, they're mostly stagnating (with one notable exception who still spends 1/6th what we do on it's military). Everyone else is somewhere between standing still and slowly jogging, while we're in flat out sprint as if a pack of man-sized wolverines are chasing us.

[Dunarad]

I don't know why you need so many tanks and aircrafts and so on. It's not like all the last wars were asymetric...
With nuclear power, a war between two developped country will not even be considered. You need a flexible force, able to deploy overseas for a quick strike but thats all. You may want to review what we done in lybia and ivory coast if you seek a cost--efficient army : why would we drop a 100k euros bomb when we can do the same damage with a concrete bomb wich costs 1/10 the price?

[Aurora148]

Zak I've never regarded the military as a source of employment, because even if they abolished the armed forces tomorrow it would move unemployment up a whooping 0.8%(approx.?). But you're right anyone seriously trying to reduce the budget would have to either cut people or wars.

not quite, it might only be 0.8% for the armed forces itself but when you add on all of the businesses which rely on the military to survive then it will be much much higher.