BGFalcons82;902288 wrote:Ron Paul was born 8-20-1935. That would make him 77 years old at the 2012 election. He looks in pretty good shape, but doing a little more math, that makes him 81 by the end of the term. We all know how the presidency ages people about 5 times their normal rate (see Obama's pix from 2008 vs. today for more evidence). I don't know if he's up to the grind physically. Reagan was 70 when he was elected to his 1st term and the Dems beat the age drum non-stop. Think they'll beat it again if a 77 year old gets the nomination?

More importantly, his choice of VP would be a HUGE concern, based on his age. How could the Pubs nominate someone whom would have the unbridled ability to select his successor? Yeah, I know...they get to vote on his VP choice at the convention. Do you honestly believe he would be denied? Good gawd...I feel like a Democrat bitchin about a Republican.

I Wear Pants;902442 wrote:Ron Paul is electable. The question is whether he can get the nomination. Which is unlikely.

I Wear Pants;902708 wrote:Social programs or military really.

Ty Webb;903182 wrote:So Much for Perry's Texas Miracle?
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/so_much_for_perrys_texas_miracle.html

The continued losses are a result of a shrinking public sector, as the private sector continues to create jobs

Ty Webb;903182 wrote:So Much for Perry's Texas Miracle?
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/so_much_for_perrys_texas_miracle.html

Ty Webb;903271 wrote:What do you think Republicans are going to say Belly....

Belly35;903286 wrote:Not My President mofo


What make you think Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune is a Republican?

Belly35;903286 wrote:Not My President mofo


What make you think Steve Chapman Chicago Tribune is a Republican?

Ty Webb;903218 wrote:Still at 8.5%

Ty Webb;903564 wrote:fish.....all Perry has been saying is that unemployment is SO much lower in Texas than nationally.

This proves one of his main arguements false...

O-Trap;902193 wrote:The problem is, that "pragmatism" is what has caused the Republican party to be little, if any, better than the Democrat party. Both are bankrupting the country.

Maybe. Maybe not. However, given the parties' track records, it's not inconceivable that he wouldn't be just as bad. Might have been bad in a different way, but that doesn't make it necessarily better.

Suppose, however, that he isn't. The two options we'd be faced with (based on the current crop) may be equally as problematic. One wants to spend trillions on social programs. The other seems bent on continuing to spend trillions on an absurdly bloated military being many places it needs not be.

The what the Republican Party line has become, long term, is just as damaging as the Democrat Party line.

jhay78;904690 wrote:I'm all in favor of scaling back the military and pulling out of some places we don't need to be, but I wholeheartedly reject the equivocation of military/defense spending and welfare state spending. The military and our national defense are not just another line-item in the budget- they are mandated by the Constitution.

Currently, defense spending takes up under 20% of the total federal budget. Most of us can agree that military spending dollars can decrease, but I am actually in favor of defense spending being a larger portion of the pie. (Under JFK the military budget was something like 44 percent of the total budget.)

I don't know that military spending can be used in the same way as social welfare spending to increase dependency on the federal government for day-to-day needs, ensure a voting bloc of dependent people waiting for a handout, and subsidize/reward inefficiency and unproductivity.

I realize I'm probably splitting hairs here, but I just think there's a difference. Cut military spending? Yes. Compare military spending to Democrats constant expansion of social programs to create dependency and future Dem voters? No way.

Cleveland Buck;904547 wrote:I'll write in Gibby before I vote for Rick W. Bush or Mitt Obama.

BoatShoes;904711 wrote:Following a Conservative Strict Constructionist method of interpretation the enumerated powers only expressly grant Congress the power to fund an Army and a Navy. I think you'd be hard pressed using that method of construction to justify that vast and ubiquitous nature of the department of defense.

FWIW the largest expansion of socialized medicine in the United States since the 60's occurred in 2003 with a Republican Congress and a Republican President.