sleeper;1315901 wrote:I still think Ron Paul takes this election against Obama. He'd get the obligatory "I will vote for Ron because he has an R next to his name" which is probably like 80% of Republican voters. And he'd nab basically all the independents since they are tired of the supposed two party system and like Paul's consistency and outsider advantage. He would also grab a big chunk of Democrats who want someone with socially liberal agendas and are tired of the worst POTUS in history.

But no, we went with Mitt and he lost.

you are a funny guy when you let you political illusions run wild. paul was pathetic in republican primaries, in a general election he would be ridiculously bad.

gut;1315909 wrote:The "funny looking man that wants to go back to the gold standard" would have done horrible with independents. And look at his brilliant economic plan that a talk show host and a dentist came up with! LMAO you can't make this shit up.

He never wanted to return to the gold standard; he simply wanted gold and silver to be used as currency like it states in the constitution. Paul would have cleaned house with independents, Republicans, and Democrats. Hell, Obama wouldn't even break 100 EV.

isadore;1315927 wrote:you are a funny guy when you let you political illusions run wild. paul was pathetic in republican primaries, in a general election he would be ridiculously bad.

Pretty racist on your part isadore. Paul is half black.

Ron Paul once belonged to the John Birch Society in his younger days. He'd be eaten alive over that one fact alone.

Paul lost the primary because of his foreign policy. When you get booed for mentioning the Golden Rule, you probably aren't going to win.

The racist stuff is also funny considering he is for eliminating a law/policy that disproportionately affects Minorities and the only candidate that was talking about how wrong it is how minorities make up a vast amount of the inmates in prison. I know if I were racist, I would definitely be for wanting minorities to have a fair shot and not be locked up in prison.

I don't necessarily think Paul would have won. I think his message would have had a good shot but I don't think he may have been the right messenger to get the message out in a clear and easily understandable way.

isadore;1315927 wrote:you are a funny guy when you let you political illusions run wild. paul was pathetic in republican primaries, in a general election he would be ridiculously bad.

I agree with isadore.

Paul's foreign policy is awful and he's too liberal regarding social issues. He did not fare well in the Republican Primary. There's no way people would gravitate to him, in fact they haven't when they have had multiple opportunities.

sleeper;1315931 wrote:He never wanted to return to the gold standard; he simply wanted gold and silver to be used as currency like it states in the constitution.

I guess I missed that version, but it's still idiotic. You have to think about how it would work in practice. Sheer idiocy. When he finally got around to promoting competing currencies he at least had some sound academic backing. But that's a non-starter in practice because currency exposure is already complex and costly enough for companies and adding 6 competing national currencies would just be disastrous.

It's just silly. If you can pass and have confidence in a law to adhere to the gold standard or something similar, you can do the same thing with restrictions on the deficit and money supply or what have you.

Con_Alma;1315952 wrote:I agree with isadore.

Paul's foreign policy is awful and he's too liberal regarding social issues. He did not fare well in the Republican Primary. There's no way people would gravitate to him, in fact they haven't when they have had multiple opportunities.

Yea keeping government out of your personal life and allowing people to have personal accountability for their own personal decisions. Also allowing states to decide personal social issues. Such a liberal idea.

pmoney25;1315950 wrote:Paul lost the primary because of his foreign policy. When you get booed for mentioning the Golden Rule, you probably aren't going to win.

The racist stuff is also funny considering he is for eliminating a law/policy that disproportionately affects Minorities and the only candidate that was talking about how wrong it is how minorities make up a vast amount of the inmates in prison. I know if I were racist, I would definitely be for wanting minorities to have a fair shot and not be locked up in prison.

I don't necessarily think Paul would have won. I think his message would have had a good shot but I don't think he may have been the right messenger to get the message out in a clear and easily understandable way.

the local major candidate to publish a racist newsletter and to oppose the 1964 civil rights act, that ended dejure "jim crow' segregation.

Con_Alma;1315952 wrote:I agree with isadore.

Paul's foreign policy is awful and he's too liberal regarding social issues. He did not fare well in the Republican Primary. There's no way people would gravitate to him, in fact they haven't when they have had multiple opportunities.

But Ron Paul is clearly the guy with a proven track record of building coalitions and reaching across the aisle!

Con_Alma;1315952 wrote:I agree with isadore.

Paul's foreign policy is awful and he's too liberal regarding social issues. He did not fare well in the Republican Primary. There's no way people would gravitate to him, in fact they haven't when they have had multiple opportunities.

and given his obvious racist record it would be near impossible to attract liberals and moderates.

pmoney25;1315957 wrote:Yea keeping government out of your personal life and allowing people to have personal accountability for their own personal decisions. Also allowing states to decide personal social issues. Such a liberal idea.

It's the willingness to consider prostitution and marijuana being legal activities that's much more liberal than conservative.

isadore;1315960 wrote:and given his obvious racist record it would be near impossible to attract liberals and moderates.

He hasn't attracted nearly enough people over an extended period of time to be even considered able to win the White House...liberal, moderate, conservative, whatever. There's just not enough of them.

Con_Alma;1315961 wrote:It's the willingness to consider prostitution and marijuana being legal activities that's much more liberal than conservative.

you could be wrong, there is a quite extensive record of conservative politicans and religious leaders using prostitutes, it would be so much easier for them if it was legal.

Con_Alma;1315961 wrote:It's the willingness to consider prostitution and marijuana being legal activities that's much more liberal than conservative.

Hmmm....Is prostitution a liberal position? Seems like that might be construed as a war on women. It dovetails nicely, however, with free birth control.

And I see CA now requires condoms for porn. That state is really on top of the issues that matter. But I'm sure an enterprising chap like Ron Jeremy would consider selling the ad space, thus boosting GDP and tax revenues!

isadore;1315960 wrote:and given his obvious racist record it would be near impossible to attract liberals and moderates.

I feel sorry for you that you like to label people and put them into groups and act like they are not able to do anything on their own without your help. You must have a huge ego. Quite a shame.

gut;1315966 wrote:Hmmm....Is prostitution a liberal position? Seems like that might be construed as a war on women. It dovetails nicely, however, with free birth control.

And I see CA now requires condoms for ****. That state is really on top of the issues that matter.

Keeping prostitution illegal would be a more conservative view. Considering it to be permitted as a legal activity would be more liberal than conservative.

I don't know if it's a liberal "position" or not.

gut;1315956 wrote:I guess I missed that version, but it's still idiotic. You have to think about how it would work in practice. Sheer idiocy. When he finally got around to promoting competing currencies he at least had some sound academic backing. But that's a non-starter in practice because currency exposure is already complex and costly enough for companies and adding 6 competing national currencies would just be disastrous.

It's just silly. If you can pass and have confidence in a law to adhere to the gold standard or something similar, you can do the same thing with restrictions on the deficit and money supply or what have you.

So Paul vs. Obama, who would you have voted for?

isadore;1315965 wrote:you could be wrong, there is a quite extensive record of conservative politicans and religious leaders using prostitutes, it would be so much easier for them if it was legal.

It is not a conservative view to legalize such activity no matter who has been caught participating in it.

sleeper;1315970 wrote:So Paul vs. Obama, who would you have voted for?

I would have written in someone else.

sleeper;1315970 wrote:So Paul vs. Obama, who would you have voted for?

That's a really tough one. I'll make the same criticism of Paul as I do liberals - some appealing ideals, no practical plan for how to get there. I suppose I would have chosen gridlock over a blank check. Maybe not that tough.

But the turnout for Paul would have been abysmal. He had 0 chance.

Con_Alma;1315961 wrote:It's the willingness to consider prostitution and marijuana being legal activities that's much more liberal than conservative.

I wonder how many of these "social conservatives" who deem marijuana to be bad actually consume alcohol. Alcohol has caused more deaths both disease oriented and accidental than Marijuana ever would. Hell marijuana has been shown to actually help slow or even cure some cancer.

I think a debate over other drugs can be had but over Marijuana, there is no justification for it being illegal while Alcohol is legal.

pmoney25;1315978 wrote:I wonder how many of these "social conservatives" who deem marijuana to be bad actually consume alcohol. Alcohol has caused more deaths both disease oriented and accidental than Marijuana ever would. Hell marijuana has been shown to actually help slow or even cure some cancer.

I think a debate over other drugs can be had but over Marijuana, there is no justification for it being illegal while Alcohol is legal.

The justification is that the society wanted it restricted at the time the law was put into place. That seems to be changing but it tends to take much more than a simple majority of the culture to have such a thin changed. It teds to take a massive majority. It appears as if we are getting closer to that and the pressure is being put on legislators and courts.

pmoney25;1315978 wrote: I think a debate over other drugs can be had but over Marijuana, there is no justification for it being illegal while Alcohol is legal.

Probably not. The flipside is alcohol would probably not be legal if they could make it work. They did, however, figure out how to enact a form of prohibition with tobacco.

Give it a few 3 or 5 years of data from the states that just legalized to see how things go. I would guess it gets adopted across the country from liberal states to the right. Conservative states will be the slowest and longest holdouts.

How does CA reconcile this? You can't smoke a cigarette around a kid because it will kill them, but it will be ok for them to get contact highs?

gut;1315982 wrote:...

How does CA reconcile this? You can't smoke a cigarette around a kid because it will kill them, but it will be ok for them to get contact highs?

Are they allowed to eat McDonald's food while they are experiencing that contact high?