Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jan 21, 2012 - 8:28pm
LordBaltimore wrote:
Well, Jon Huntsman is much more pro-life than Ron Paul is. Huntsman is in favor of a federal "right-to-life" amendment that would be enforced at the federal level. Paul is not. So Rose, I'm sorry you voted for the most pro-life GOP candidate outside of perhaps Santorum.
I do disagree with Paul on this issue and am strongly pro-choice. But you have to look at the probabilities — what is Paul more able to accomplish, stopping war or stopping abortion? As commander in chief, the former, by far!
Look, among republicans the only candidate more pro-CHOICE than Paul is possibly Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney will do and say anything to get elected so I don't really believe any of his past actions or statements. All the others are explicitly more pro-life. If you can vote in a GOP primary, I'd strongly advise voting for Paul...why not do that now, and then you can vote for Obama against him if you really are a single issue pro-choice voter.
The media need to stop portraying Huntsman as a moderate and Paul an extremist. Huntsman is "moderate" on far fewer issues than Paul is. He's more extreme on abortion, on the NDAA, on the federal government's power, bombing Iran, and on the drug war (the real moderate position on the drug war is to stop jailing nonviolent "offenders"). I don't mind Huntsman, and yes he is a distant second to Paul among the rest of the GOP candidates, but let's be real about the guy.
Here's the difference: those other candidates are Republicans - I full well expect them to have those policy positions. Although Ron Paul is running under the *banner* of the Republicans, he professes to be a Libertarian. He can't have it both ways, although he has attempted to do so for years. He is NO Republican. He is NO Libertarian.
Yes, the more and more I study the positions of all the candidates, the more and more I have decided to stop all this calculating of who is the most electable and if I vote for this guy who will it hurt and what not. I am just going to vote for the person that reflects my viewpoints on the issues and the hell with it!
That's fine, just remember Johnson is a bit of a wash compared to Paul in my view. He's more hawkish and not quite as good on ending the drug war or protecting civil liberties. He wants to legalize marijuana and that's great. But he only wants to "decriminalize" other drugs, and I'm not sure what that means.
I do agree he is more liberal/libertarian than Paul on abortion, immigration, and gay marriage.
It is all about personal priorities, I am extremely socially liberal especially in matters of individual freedoms and what happens in our bedrooms so Paul is a turnoff to me in that respect. I am only concerned about Marijuana in relation to the drug war and am perfectly content on the war against illicit drugs (cocaine, meth, heroin and so forth) which have absolutely no benefit to society and do tremendous harm (alcohol is on the fence with me because so many cannot use it responsibly). I do not think illicit drugs can be completely eradicated, but freeing up the tremendous resources presently consumed stopping Canibus use and distribution should allow for us to keep them under control not to mention freeing us all to use evolution's greatest gift to humanity with complete freedom.
Edit: read this back to myself and noticed the frequent use of variations of the word "Freedom". Quite revealing in a Freudian kind of way of what is important to me.
Fair enough. I like Gary a lot, maybe even more than Paul though I disagree with his "FairTax," and he supports Gitmo. He got royally screwed in the GOP debates, no doubt. But realistically Johnson is going to have a very hard time running as a 3rd party. He'd actually have better odds staying in the GOP and hoping the other candidates become physically incapacitated or melt down.
Unfortunately, 3rd parties are pariahs in the US. I'd love to see a viable 3rd party here, but the establishment and the media just hate them and are out to destroy 3rd parties. The US is not a true democracy or even a very good representative democracy. There's too much of a mentality here that 3rd parties are nothing but "spoilers" — they are viewed in a negative light instead of a positive angle.
Yes but the beauty of all that is that only we, the sheeple can affect that change and make it happen. The guns are not pointed at our heads disallowing a break from the parties.......yet. We still have a choice and I, for one am going to make it.
Abortion has been the "white whale" of Republicans ever since Roe v. Wade. Nobody can catch it or stop it. If Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Newt Gingrich, and both George Bushes (the younger GWB having both branches of Congress to the GOP by the way) weren't able to eliminate abortion, Ron Paul certainly isn't going to accomplish it.
That's because even the overwhelming majority of Catholic women in this country use some form of contraception.
Oh, Huntsman also believes in a border fence, and Paul doesn't. Again, Huntsman is more EXTREME on immigration than Dr. Paul is but the media still thinks of him as the moderate.
Huntsman also wants to get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction, and he supports means testing for social security.
Ron Paul has explicitly stated on many occasions that while he would allow young people to opt out of Soc Sec, the benefits for current retirees are one of the LAST things he would ever cut as president, even though he believes it is technically unconstitutional he would still fund the program. Again, another issue where Paul is MORE MODERATE than Huntsman.
Rose, sorry I couldn't dig some more of this up about Huntsman before you voted, but hopefully it will help others see the truth about the guy. I still find him the least offensive GOP candidate not named Ron Paul, but I'm starting to realize that the guy is very flawed and a lot more conservative than the media portrays him.
I do agree with him on the China thing, and that's all well and good, but I'm not a fan of a guy who supports a border fence and is the most extremist GOP candidate on pro-life issues outside of Santorum.
Also on another note, Gary Johnson is now running as a Libertarian. I doubt he'll have much opposition for their nomination so again Ron Paul is probably the best choice for most progressives in the primary season, unless you want to make some sort of hopeless "statement" in the Democratic primary by voting for one of the other random candidates who are running against BO there.
Yes, the more and more I study the positions of all the candidates, the more and more I have decided to stop all this calculating of who is the most electable and if I vote for this guy who will it hurt and what not. I am just going to vote for the person that reflects my viewpoints on the issues and the hell with it!
Well, Jon Huntsman is much more pro-life than Ron Paul is. Huntsman is in favor of a federal "right-to-life" amendment that would be enforced at the federal level. Paul is not. So Rose, I'm sorry you voted for the most pro-life GOP candidate outside of perhaps Santorum.
I do disagree with Paul on this issue and am strongly pro-choice. But you have to look at the probabilities — what is Paul more able to accomplish, stopping war or stopping abortion? As commander in chief, the former, by far!
Look, among republicans the only candidate more pro-CHOICE than Paul is possibly Mitt Romney, but Mitt Romney will do and say anything to get elected so I don't really believe any of his past actions or statements. All the others are explicitly more pro-life. If you can vote in a GOP primary, I'd strongly advise voting for Paul...why not do that now, and then you can vote for Obama against him if you really are a single issue pro-choice voter.
The media need to stop portraying Huntsman as a moderate and Paul an extremist. Huntsman is "moderate" on far fewer issues than Paul is. He's more extreme on abortion, on the NDAA, on the federal government's power, bombing Iran, and on the drug war (the real moderate position on the drug war is to stop jailing nonviolent "offenders"). I don't mind Huntsman, and yes he is a distant second to Paul among the rest of the GOP candidates, but let's be real about the guy.
No I'm not, I'm not against regulating the banking industry and the Federal Reserve. Do we agree there? That the Fed should be transparent and regulated?
And Phil was no proponent of Austrian economics. He was simply a crook who pushed that repeal to replace it with some other fallacious bill that contained an Enron loophole to exploit. Guys like him have no principles or philosophies.. they're corruptible.
True that! Should also mention the his wife was and may still be, a lobbist for the banking industry. Funny how that work, huh.
I probably will caucus, here in texas for Ron Paul. not that I am a particualr proponent of his overall philosophy, but I give him credit for actually being consistent and true to his ideals. it will be Obama come the general though.
Thanks to the politicians I mentioned (such as Phil Gramm) who started buying into the Austrian economists' notion that we don't need regulation of financial institutions/markets. You're making my case for me by citing the repeal of Glass/Steagal.
No I'm not, I'm not against regulating the banking industry and the Federal Reserve. Do we agree there? That the Fed should be transparent and regulated?
And Phil was no proponent of Austrian economics. He was simply a crook who pushed that repeal to replace it with some other fallacious bill that contained an Enron loophole to exploit. Guys like him have no principles or philosophies.. they're corruptible.
Thanks to the politicians I mentioned (such as Phil Gramm) who started buying into the Austrian economists' notion that we don't need regulation of financial institutions/markets. You're making my case for me by citing the repeal of Glass/Steagal.
We have that problem up here, with all of the parties! None are totally devoid of loons.
Absolutely true. No party, political or otherwise, is free of some crazies. But it seems like the GOP has been hijacked by its loonies. It seems like the nuttiest ones of the bunch are running the show. It's one thing to have a few outlying crackpots, that's to be expected. But to put them into leadership positions seems counter-productive.
