Best Presidential Candidate [Moved]

[bobalot]

I noticed Starglider dropped his bullshit point about Ron Paul's supposed "Civil Rights" credentials.

If we require a politician to be right on every Civil Rights issue then there are like

five

politicians in Washington who fit that definition as the others support indefinite detention/torture/massive FISA violations/endless war (right to life is a thing)/etc.

You probably agree with this but I just wanted to be sure!.

No, I think supporting Federally enforced Civil Rights for minorities is actually important.

[Simon_Jester]

If we are arguing about the best person to put in the White House, the shortage of politicians who actually give a damn about civil rights is irrelevant. If we are arguing about the best available person to put in the White House, it matters. I think you and Gigaliel are thinking in incompatible terms here.


Myself, I have come to the conclusion that the president America wants, the president America needs, and the president America deserves are all three very different people.

[Starglider]

Averaged over time your savings have been consistently stolen away by inflation; the USD has lost 96.4% of its value since 1900

Interest rates that balanced inflation were at least possible for much of the 20th century;

That was before the US built up a massive persistent trade deficit, a massive persistent budget deficit, huge forward entitlements and a demographic overhang. Now that the US is officially past 100% (gross Federal) debt-to-GDP, ZIRP is preventing a federal budget implosion as well as a massive waves of business insolvency and property foreclosure.

That's half of what the banks were supposed* to be for in the first place

That business model is no longer profitable even if you did manage to reinstate Glass Steagall. Fundamentally, the US cannot maintain its very high house prices and financial leverage (relative to historical norms) at reasonable interest rates. With treasuries, business loans and prime mortgages generating insufficient revenue, the only way to get enough yield to pay you a good savings rate is to take on risky sub-prime and credit-card debt, but banks already have far too much of that and the pool is shrinking in any case. Either you lose wealth in a massive crash or lose it by sustained negative real interest rates; either way continued debasement of the currency is necessary to maintain the government entitlements you demand. As I've said, wealthy people can easily avoid this dilemma by moving their wealth offshore, or into commodities, utility stocks, or inverse funds that actually profit when the economy goes down. These options are much harder to access for the less well off, and the US has almost no contingency against a massive financial system lock-up - versus developing countries that are far more willing to deal in multiple (foreign) currencies as the situation demands.

When you explain currency competition as a way to counter this, and create currencies not managed for the benefit of the financial class, I can see the sense of it to some extent. Though I remain concerned, and suspect there are better ways to achieve the same goals.

I think you are setting the bar too high. I don't have to convince you to use alternate currencies - I probably wouldn't myself. I only have to convince you not to support laws that involve government agents arresting people at gunpoint and imprisoning them indefinitely for the crime of engaging in perfectly legal commerce with using tokens the government doesn't approve of. In the US private currencies are technically legal at the Federal level as long as you don't claim legal tender status - numerous small scale local currencies and scripts do exist - but in practice the UST has made a habit of harassing and spurriously prosecuting anyone they deem to be 'attempting to compete with the US Dollar'.

I noticed Starglider dropped his bullshit point about Ron Paul's supposed "Civil Rights" credentials.

Although I don't agree with RP's position on the Civil Rights Act, I do respect it. He is saying that it is wrong to use government force to compel people to associate and do business with other people that they don't like. On an individual level this is generally supported; we don't try and force people not to be assholes, just like we normally allow racist speech, because the cure of constant opressive government intervention would be far worse than the disease. In the case of the Civil Rights Act there was a case of long-standing mistreatment of a large minority by the majority, that was severely constraining quality of life for that minority. The US legislature judged that in this case the loss of certain liberties of the white majority and the expansion of government power (with the associated risk of continuing to expand it and use it for less and less justified causes in the future) was worth it in order to help the minority, and I agree. RP's stated position is that the loss of liberty was unwaranted both because preventing creeping government tyranny is more imporant than the (short-term) quality of life of citizens, and that it was unnecessary because the racism would have evaporated under economic and cultural pressure anyway. The later statement is IMHO typical libertarian over-optimism about the power of markets, but still I do think it's more likely that he has a misplaced overemphesis on specfic civil rights (freedom of trade and association), rather than being racist. I don't think it's a problem for his candidicy since the chances of repealing any of the US federal anti-racism measures are negligible.

[bobalot]

I noticed Starglider dropped his bullshit point about Ron Paul's supposed "Civil Rights" credentials.

Although I don't agree with RP's position on the Civil Rights Act, I do respect it. He is saying that it is wrong to use government force to compel people to associate and do business with other people that they don't like. On an individual level this is generally supported; we don't try and force people not to be assholes, just like we normally allow racist speech, because the cure of constant opressive government intervention would be far worse than the disease. In the case of the Civil Rights Act there was a case of long-standing mistreatment of a large minority by the majority, that was severely constraining quality of life for that minority. The US legislature judged that in this case the loss of certain liberties of the white majority and the expansion of government power (with the associated risk of continuing to expand it and use it for less and less justified causes in the future) was worth it in order to help the minority, and I agree. RP's stated position is that the loss of liberty was unwaranted both because preventing creeping government tyranny is more imporant than the (short-term) quality of life of citizens, and that it was unnecessary because the racism would have evaporated under economic and cultural pressure anyway. The later statement is IMHO typical libertarian over-optimism about the power of markets, but still I do think it's more likely that he has a misplaced overemphesis on specfic civil rights (freedom of trade and association), rather than being racist. I don't think it's a problem for his candidicy since the chances of repealing any of the US federal anti-racism measures are negligible.

I know his position. Unlike you, I actually researched his actual political beliefs before making claims about him.

This is a man so deluded that he really believed (and still believes) that the magical power of the free market would overcome segregation and racism. That's not "over-optimism", it's unbelievable stupidity. When was the last time the free market brought any fucking significant civil rights? The Montgomery bus system preferred to lose money rather than treating black people fairly.

As for your talking point that all Ron Paul wants to do is halt the power of "government". As I pointed out before, all he wants to do is wind back the power of Federal Government. He's quite with the States passing restrictive laws regarding sexuality. Here is a succinct I summation saved some time ago, which sums up the problem with the sainted Ron Paul's position.

It cannot be stressed enough that one fundamental tenet of Ron Paul's policy is that he believes the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states -- He believes it only restricts the federal government. His followers don't fully-understand the implications of this philosophy. This means that Ron Paul believes civil rights, gay rights, gay marriage, gender equality, institutionalized racism, prejudice and intolerance, even slavery should be acceptable/rejectable on a state-by-state basis.

[bobalot]

Not wanting to spam N&P, I think this is the appropriate thread to post this into.

The We the People Act is a bill introduced by Republican Congressman Ron Paul. Most recently in 2009 as H.R. 539, and back in 2004 as H.R. 3893. The bill intends:

• To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

The bill intends to please both the God-fearing religious right and the big-government-fearing libertarian right by doing the following:

• Prevents the Supreme Court and all federal courts from making decisions regarding:
• State and local laws concerning free exercise an establishment of religion
• the right of privacy including sexual practices, orientation or reproduction
• the role of the Equal Protection clause on the right to marry.
• Prevents the reliance on any federal court decision on any of the above topics.
• Prevents the Supreme Court from "redefining marriage" using the Equal Protection clause

Allows the Congress or the President of the United States to impeach judges who breach the act.

In Congressman Paul's own words:

The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or "privacy," including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.

It is being supported by the Traditional Values Coalition, and opposed by many secularists. In it's 2009 version, it was cosponsored by Rep. Walter B. Jones (North Carolina) and, appropriately enough, Rep. Ted Poe (Texas). The 2004 version was cosponsored by Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (Maryland).

Source

There is a link to the actual text on the site I linked. So let us finally lay to rest Starglider's bullshit about Ron Paul's supposed love of civil liberties. He knew full well that many states would use this to shit all over homosexuals.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Not sure if it'll help but;



A kid asks candidates 'If you could be any superhero, who would you be and why?'

Pretty adorable.

[Simon_Jester]

Romney, Superman for reasons of tradition.

Santorum, Mr. Incredible because family values.

Cain, Superman because rhetoric.

Huntsman, Spider-Man because web-swinging and saving people is awesome.

Ron Paul doesn't know.

Perry, Superman but he doesn't realize that Superman is 'still around' in terms of fiction (hasn't driven past a movie theater recently?), and also because rhetoric. With that classic "I don't know anything, except this handful of stuff I remember from when I was a kid, so I'm gonna go with that" format.

Gingrich, Superman because about the same thing.

Now, if only among all those Supermen, there was one who had the balls to stand up to Lex Luthor, we'd be sitting pretty.

[Alphawolf55]

I wonder how they'd feel if they knew Superman has given up his American citizenship.

[Lusankya]

I wonder if they realise that if they were Superman they would be ineligible for the presidency, since Superman is a Kenyan not a natural born citizen.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes, but Clark Kent has a legal record of birth/adoption in the US and is legally considered natural-born citizen.

[Lusankya]

How did you know? Have you ever seen his long-form birth certificate? Why isn't he showing it? I reckon it's suspicious.

[Count Chocula]

Jesus, "the smartest BB on the Interwebs" indeed. The answer is obvious: the winning candidate should be Captain America! Hell, he's such a complexly patriotic superhero it took 50 years to make a movie.

[Lord Zentei]

Romney, Superman for reasons of tradition.

Santorum, Mr. Incredible because family values.

Cain, Superman because rhetoric.

Huntsman, Spider-Man because web-swinging and saving people is awesome.

Ron Paul doesn't know.

Perry, Superman but he doesn't realize that Superman is 'still around' in terms of fiction (hasn't driven past a movie theater recently?), and also because rhetoric. With that classic "I don't know anything, except this handful of stuff I remember from when I was a kid, so I'm gonna go with that" format.

Gingrich, Superman because about the same thing.

Now, if only among all those Supermen, there was one who had the balls to stand up to Lex Luthor, we'd be sitting pretty.

Funny how Santorum was the only one who gave an answer which was relevant to his actual platform.

[Grumman]

Funny how Santorum was the only one who gave an answer which was relevant to his actual platform.

I liked Huntsman's better. Picking a superpower that sounds like fun is the sort of answer I would have given.

[Flagg]

Jesus, "the smartest BB on the Interwebs" indeed. The answer is obvious: the winning candidate should be Captain America! Hell, he's such a complexly patriotic superhero it took 50 years to make a movie.

I would have said "Captain America because he punched Hitler in the face". Then again, that may be a negative in the Iowa Republican caucuses.

[wautd]

In your guys opinions who is the best candidacy for president of the US and why?

If it is the former: I think Obama is probably going to win, given that the most likely Republican nominees are all crazy and sleazy.

It's quite ironic, but I think that Obama would be the best candidate for the republicans. This is a president who claims he's a democrat, but looking at his actions he's more like Bush the 3rd. Sucks to be a democratic voter though.

[Simon_Jester]

See, now Obama would be a Republican president I could live with... Although his rhetoric would be entirely different were he running on the Republican ticket. And you know how at the moment, he occasionally does things to appease the left-wing base, throws them a bone?

If he ran as a Republican he'd be throwing bones to the Tea Party instead. Ugh.

[muse]

Here's my choice. It's not any worse than the others and in fact it would probably be an improvement. Weiner wanted to expand medicare to all citizens and tried to get singlepayer healthcare into the Healthcare Reform bill. Voted against Bush tax cut extensions as well. So for domestic policy he seems to be better than most, his foreign policy voting record is a bit of a mess, unfortunately. Then again, NY, Jewish, so it's about as good as can be expected.

And the comedy value is priceless.

[Shroom Man 777]

How did you know? Have you ever seen his long-form birth certificate? Why isn't he showing it? I reckon it's suspicious.

Yeah, and you've got a bald guy involved in the military-industrial complex (a contractor who can't divulge the details of his profession) who also has monomaniacal fixations on this guy. It fits like a glove!