2012 Republican Presidential candidates

[Occurrence]

I like when people try to attack Ron Paul by stating what he did or did not vote for, but don't explain his reasons for doing so.

When you hear him speak, he's very consistent logically. In fact, he's the only consistent candidate out of the bunch and he actually knows and understands what he is talking about. That's not saying you have to agree with him, I disagree with him on many issues, but I like the fact that he has an actual philosophy on ideas.

[rb336]

I like when people try to attack Ron Paul by stating what he did or did not vote for, but don't explain his reasons for doing so.

explaining his reasons is his job, not that of those "attacking" [[or is it bringing up facts?) him

When you hear him speak, he's very consistent logically. In fact, he's the only consistent candidate out of the bunch and he actually knows and understands what he is talking about. That's not saying you have to agree with him, I disagree with him on many issues, but I like the fact that he has an actual philosophy on ideas.

He knows what his dogma is, and it is evident, on almost any topic, that he only understands things within the limited framework of that dogma. As with most dogmatic thinkers, he fails to see what the possible long term consequences of his dogma will be [[all of which has been pointed out by people here and elsewhere).

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do"
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Yes, Emerson would feel more comfortable with Paul's philosophy than others. The difference is that he would see that it would ultimately pave the road to giant corporations, accountable to no entity, taking over everything. Remember, in his day there were few giant corporations. I believe Emerson would have recognized the tyranny of those entities as much as he did that of states.

[vetalalumni]

You must be referring to my reference to England purchasing slaves from slave owners as a better alternative than fighting an even more costly civil war which left over 600,000 Americans dead and a lot of property damage. I didn't suggest purchasing slaves at less than their value in order to give them their freedom. Sherman's march to the sea, which must have been approved by the Commander in Chief, deprived a lot of property owners of their assets too and without compensation. Lincoln even instituted the first draft which ironically deprived poor whites of their freedom and put them in harm's way to liberate slaves.

Do you agree with the illegal confiscation of private property?

[oladub]

Do you agree with the illegal confiscation of private property?

Good question. In retrospect, it would have been cheaper and saved lives.
The Fifth Amendment says " private property [[shall not) be taken for public use, without just compensation." Whether the concept of eminent domain could be extended to take slaves with just compensation might hinge on the term 'public use'. Would it have been publicly useful to diffuse a civil war? That might be stretching terms a bit. However, the alternative included the first US military draft [[involuntary servitude for some; see 13th Amendment) and Sherman's march to the sea which demolished private property without compensation.

[vetalalumni]

I have to admit that each state having its own environmental laws doesn't seem fair. Obviously if you don't impose guidelines it would be cheaper to operate. If one state can attract more manufacturing for that reason and allow companies to dump chemicals and sludge or whatever into the rivers and streams it will have an effect on states to the south of them. A state that's attempting to keep its waterways clean wouldn't have any control over what another state is dumping on them.

Dumping into a river has always been popular for factories and cities that wanted to get rid of their waste. Dump it in the river and in a few days, it's somebody else's problem. Just look at New Orleans.

Said southerly state might seek damages, but what if the state lacked [[economic) resources to stand toe-to-toe?

Thankfully, the Safe Drinking Water Act [[SDWA) protects the quality of our public drinking water.

[vetalalumni]

...
We already have 50 different standards in issuing professional and drivers licenses, speed limits, liqueur, drug, gambling, burial, voting, insurance, restaurant hygiene, and prostitution laws etc.. I am not aware of any civil wars about to erupt because of any of this. If you want a legal prostitute, go to Nevada, If you want to take you own life, go to Oregon. If you don't want to pay state income tax, Alaska offers that option.
...

Consider voting and the historical state-level "civility" prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

If you want literacy tests for voting, go to Alabama. If you want poll taxation, go to Mississippi.

[vetalalumni]

Geez, you're all arguing about the civil war as if it was ending slavery that started it. It wasn't.
...

My discussion has more to do with the Constitution, and also the independent capabilities of states.

[vetalalumni]

Good question. In retrospect, it would have been cheaper and saved lives.
The Fifth Amendment says " private property [[shall not) be taken for public use, without just compensation." Whether the concept of eminent domain could be extended to take slaves with just compensation might hinge on the term 'public use'. Would it have been publicly useful to diffuse a civil war? That might be stretching terms a bit. However, the alternative included the first US military draft [[involuntary servitude for some; see 13th Amendment) and Sherman's march to the sea which demolished private property without compensation.

Contemplate if it would have been publicly useful to diffuse a civil war and bailout slaveowners. Keeping focus on economics, please allow moral to remain set aside. To that end, saved lives [[militarily) will be considered solely an economic factor.

Just compensation equals market value [[MV), unless that amount is either too difficult to determine or is an injustice to either the property owner or public. For conservative cost estimating, disregard the possibility of difficulties or injustices and consider the simple MV equation. Measurement of total cost however, realizes that MV is but one of several cost elements. Other elements of cost could include variables affecting nominal value, logistics, kinetics, legal, document, financing, management, and transfer.

Not included are costs related to recidivism [[owners) and labor [[freed slaves). President Lincoln could not have reasonably known or anticipated the ultimate costs of the Civil War. So yes, in retrospect we can presuppose ad nauseam. Freedom is not free.

Your turn Oladub.

[oladub]

Contemplate if it would have been publicly useful to diffuse a civil war and bailout slaveowners. Keeping focus on economics, please allow moral to remain set aside. To that end, saved lives [[militarily) will be considered solely an economic factor.

Just compensation equals market value [[MV), unless that amount is either too difficult to determine or is an injustice to either the property owner or public. For conservative cost estimating, disregard the possibility of difficulties or injustices and consider the simple MV equation. Measurement of total cost however, realizes that MV is but one of several cost elements. Other elements of cost could include variables affecting nominal value, logistics, kinetics, legal, document, financing, management, and transfer.

Not included are costs related to recidivism [[owners) and labor [[freed slaves). President Lincoln could not have reasonably known or anticipated the ultimate costs of the Civil War. So yes, in retrospect we can presuppose ad nauseam. Freedom is not free.

Your turn Oladub.

While freedom isn't free, some approaches are less expensive than others; not that the equality of blacks was Lincoln's priority. I disagree that Lincoln could not have anticipated the ultimate costs of the Civil war. We can guess, for instance, that militarily subduing Iran will be more costly than Iraq. We don't 'know' that but based on population and Iran's resources, it's an educated guess. Likewise, Lincoln should have been well enough educated to understand the costs of most civil wars. He did, according to maxx, have thoughts on what it would cost to repatriate slaves, a cost which was much less than the cost of the war. When Lincoln allowed Sherman to burn Atlanta to the ground, he probably wasn't considering "nominal value, logistics, kinetics, legal, document, financing, management, and transfer." Nor, as far as I know, did Lincoln ever offer fair value eminent domain compensation to the Americans who owned all the property Sherman burned to the ground.

[old guy]

The frontrunners in this race are a bit scary for me. I saw a few out takes from the debate last night. They were asking about foreign policy. Romney answered, "Kill em." [[Huge applause) Then Gingrich replied, "Kill em." [[Huge applause) Then they asked Ron Paul the same question and he said maybe we should utilize the golden rule of do unto others, and the crowd started to boo.

Yeah, let's just go out and kill everybody that isn't exactly like us, whatever that is.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

vote for ron paul!!!!

Vote for liberty!!!

This upcoming republican primary in michigan, vote for sane choice.

Vote ron paul!!!

[vetalalumni]

Ron Paul's friend Patrick Buchanan authored an article for Ron in the January issue of The America Conservative.

Ron Paul: The True Believer
By Patrick J. Buchanan, January 12th, 2012

Last May, Ron Paul filed his financial disclosure form, and The Wall Street Journal enlisted financial analyst William Bernstein to scrutinize his investments.

“Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different,” said an astonished Journal, “it’s shockingly different.”

Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these “short,” betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.

Bernstein “had never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe,” said the Journal.

“This portfolio,” said Bernstein, “is a half step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and 9-millimeter rounds.” “You can say this for Ron Paul,” conceded the Journal. “In investing as in politics, [[Paul) has the courage of his convictions.”

Indeed, he does. Paul’s investments mirror his belief that the empire of debt is coming down and Western governments will never repay — in dollars of the same value — what they have borrowed.
...
There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.

Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.

Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.

Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?
...
Assuming the nominee is Mitt Romney, should he win in the fall and Paul has campaigned for him, Paul will not only have a friend in the White House, but be a respected figure in the party with a constituency all his own.

Most important to Paul are the issues he has campaigned on: a new transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve, a downsizing of the American empire, and an end to U.S. interventions in foreign quarrels and wars that are none of our business.

Whether Paul goes home to Texas when his last term in Congress is over in January 2013, or whether he remains in Washington in a policy institute to advance the causes he believes in, his views will be sought out by the major media on all the issues he cares about.

Moreover, his fears of a coming collapse, manifest in his portfolio, could come to pass, making of Ron Paul a prophet in his own time.

Copyright 2012 Creators.com

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2012/01/12/the-true-believer/

[firstandten]

Think if Newt becomes the GOP candidate one of the policy measures he'll push for is open marriage. After all if it good for him it should be good for the rest of us.

[bailey]

Think if Newt becomes the GOP candidate one of the policy measures he'll push for is open marriage. After all if it good for him it should be good for the rest of us.

While also pushing to AMEND THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION to ban gay marriage...because, marriage equality would threaten the "sanctity of marriage".

Do you republicans have no shame? or even a shred of integrity on this issue?

[lit joe]

While also pushing to AMEND THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION to ban gay marriage...because, marriage equality would threaten the "sanctity of marriage".

Do you republicans have no shame? or even a shred of integrity on this issue?

His sister wantabe a man he's on your side,

[oladub]

For a little change of pace, find our how Ellis the Elephant 'saved' Newt.

If you can take even more, learn more about our really blond potential first lady. Meet Callista. When you get to the bottom of the page, click 'more" until you can't take it anymore or give up and decide to vote for Newt. Her grandparents are from Poland, she belonged to a sorority, and more.

[mjs]

Yes, Emerson would feel more comfortable with Paul's philosophy than others. The difference is that he would see that it would ultimately pave the road to giant corporations, accountable to no entity, taking over everything. Remember, in his day there were few giant corporations. I believe Emerson would have recognized the tyranny of those entities as much as he did that of states.

Pure unsupported hogwash. Have you watched any of the debates? Name a specific bill Ron Paul sponsored or specific statement he has made as an example of this claim that he would support actions that would decrease market share concentration. Nobody shows more opposition to mega-corporate tools such as the Federal Reserve and Tarp and complicated tax laws written so the likes of GE won't have to pay taxes while their smaller competitiors will. He opposes these ideas because unlike the rest of DC, he believes that capitalism thrives on competition that comes from many competitors competiing. It's his opponents that think that a government that can't balance a checkbook should make the market more "efficient" by choosing government annointed winners, be it Bank of America or Solyndra. Since corporations became more powerful under the last several Republican Presidents and Congresses and last several Democrat Presidents and Congresses, maybe the person they oppose is the person you should support.

[vetalalumni]

...
Name a specific bill Ron Paul sponsored or specific statement he has made as an example of this claim that he would support actions that would decrease market share concentration. Nobody shows more opposition to mega-corporate tools such as the Federal Reserve and Tarp and complicated tax laws written so the likes of GE won't have to pay taxes while their smaller competitiors will. He opposes these ideas because unlike the rest of DC, he believes that capitalism thrives on competition that comes from many competitors competiing. It's his opponents that think that a government that can't balance a checkbook should make the market more "efficient" by choosing government annointed winners, be it Bank of America or Solyndra. Since corporations became more powerful under the last several Republican Presidents and Congresses and last several Democrat Presidents and Congresses, maybe the person they oppose is the person you should support.

Speaking of bills sponsored by Ron Paul, H.R. 2121 is a highlight.

H.R. 2121: The Only Bill Ever Presented and Passed Through Congress By Ron Paul
By Harvey Carroll, Jr.
Published:January 21st, 2012 10:56 EST

Ron Paul has had more than his 15 minutes of fame. He should return to Texas, perhaps to Galveston and buy the home related to "THE ONLY BILL HE EVER PRESENTED AND PASSED THROUGH CONGRESS. H.R. 2121," in fall 2009, unfolded without drama. It allowed for the sale of a custom house in Galveston, Tex. Of the 620 measures that Paul has sponsored, just four have made it to a vote on the House floor, with H.R. 2121, being the only signed into law. In previous interviews Congressman Paul said the following silly comments that were far from being American Presidential material, much less the leader of the free world;

Ron Paul believes that Iraq would have been allowed to take over Kuwait. Ron Paul believes that would have done nothing if Saddam Hussein threatened to capture three-quarters of the world`s reserves by taking over the Saudi oil fields as he did in Kuwait threatening the Global economy. Ron Paul believes that the attack on Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia violated the UN charter and had terrible repercussions for our energy security but Paul would not have responded because "it did not involve an attack on America." He goes even further and believes that America should not have participated in WWII to contain Hitler`s death and destruction march throughout Europe.

Ron Paul believes that all assistance to Israel should end and just allow the Jews in Israel to be slaughtered again as they were by Germany in WWII. Ron Paul thinks like the little Texas creature the Armadillo, and would just curl America up into a little shell, halt America`s Global trade and commerce economy, and believes that America should pull out of NATO , the WTO, and our UN Security Council and abandon our ability to have a say and/or veto in Global Affairs. No U.S. soldiers were killed in the former Yugoslavia but he believes it was wrong for President Clinton to join the NATO mission. The mission was commanded by Supreme Allied Commander "American" General Joulwan.

The NATO mission stopped genocide, ethnic cleansing and rape camps and the spread of War within Europe. The Milosevic dictatorship would have continued and Bosnia would have been taken over if it was up to Ron Paul. Ron Paul believes that many dangerous drugs should be legal. Ron Paul promises to "take out the CIA." If this stuff is not silly enough, Ron Paul makes comments that the building of a fence along the Mexican border to stop illegal`s as a way to trap US citizens so they can`t get out.

...

http://thesop.org/story/20120121/hr-...-ron-paul.html

A few days ago, Paul sponsored H.R.3785 to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012.

[oladub]

vetalalumni, There is a video on the net of "Harvey Carroll, Jr. Claims to have a hand in Every American Conflict Since Panama". I don't recommend going to that link because it was trying to load something in my computer but the title suggests where the author is coming from. He is a neocon and those are distorted neocon talking points.

Mr. Carroll omits that a year ago Paul was the sponsor of a bill to audit the Fed. Bernie sanders was the sponsor on the Senate side. It passed the House and although it was watered down in the Senate it had enough support that Obama couldn't veto it. The partial audit revealed that the Fed had secretly handed out $16T to US and European banks. It made the bankers' bailout look like a small issue.

As you correctly noted "A few days ago, Paul sponsored H.R.3785 to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012." Those that past NDAA won't revisit it and take that part out but at least raising the issue by sponsoring that bill brings attention to what is going on. Besides being the proper thing to do, maybe educating the public a little is worth the effort.

[rb336]

Pure unsupported hogwash. Have you watched any of the debates? Name a specific bill Ron Paul sponsored or specific statement he has made as an example of this claim that he would support actions that would decrease market share concentration.

I think you wrote that question the wrong way. It's not a single bill or statement, it is his simpleton "philosophy"

Nobody shows more opposition to mega-corporate tools such as the Federal Reserve and Tarp and complicated tax laws written so the likes of GE won't have to pay taxes while their smaller competitiors will.

The US is the most capitalistic country in history, and that was all done [[surprise!!!!!) with the fed. TARP was a necessary evil -- but should have and could have been done in a fashion that helped the people taken in by the mortgage industry. Of course, Paul would be against any tighter regulations on the banking/insurance/derivatives markets that caused the problem because they are...regulations.

He opposes these ideas because unlike the rest of DC, he believes that capitalism thrives on competition that comes from many competitors competiing. It's his opponents that think that a government that can't balance a checkbook should make the market more "efficient" by choosing government annointed winners, be it Bank of America or Solyndra. Since corporations became more powerful under the last several Republican Presidents and Congresses and last several Democrat Presidents and Congresses, maybe the person they oppose is the person you should support.

The death of BoA, GM, etc would have sent this country into an economic death spiral from which we might never recover. The TARP companies should have been forced to deconstruct themselves, as GM was. Do you think Paul would endorse enforcing the anti-trust legislation that exists? or a Teddy R-like trust buster? I doubt it. Regardless of the tax codes in place, the big would continue to eat the small until we are left with a very few very powerful companies against whom individuals and small businesses would be powerless.

Why support Ron Paul? his policies would render any checks on corporate power meaningless

[firstandten]

Newt wins in SC. So what does that do for Romney ? I think its a wake up call for the flip-flopper who will need to do a better job of flip-flopping from here on out. Florida will be interesting. Romney is spending a ton of money on tv ads in the sunshine state. If after all that he loses in Florida then I think he's officially in trouble.

[Big Dog]

Romney and his capitalism cronies, have destroyed our system, with unbridled greed. We don't need him in the oval office.

[rb336]

Newt wins in SC. So what does that do for Romney ? I think its a wake up call for the flip-flopper who will need to do a better job of flip-flopping from here on out. Florida will be interesting. Romney is spending a ton of money on tv ads in the sunshine state. If after all that he loses in Florida then I think he's officially in trouble.

could be. and newt is virtually unelectable. independents can't stand him

[oladub]

could be. and newt is virtually unelectable. independents can't stand him

Gingrich received more independent votes in South Carolina than any other candidate. However, Ron Paul had the ratio of Independent to Republican votes of any candidate.

Vote by Party ID		Gingrich	Paul	Perry	Romney	Santorum	Other/No Answer
Democrat	[[4%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Republican	[[71%)	45%	10%	0%	28%	18%	N/A
Independent	[[25%)	31%	23%	0%	25%	17%	4%

-more exit poll results are found at http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/epolls/sc

[Zacha341]

He won't get in [[even after he gets the nomination).

Romney is considered poster boy for the 1% scene [[we'll set aside Warren Buffet and others for their riches for the time being) which has been rallied against at this appropriate time.

Romney will prove to be the perfect candidate for Obama to defeat.

The 'Neut' would be a problem even at the presidential debate level; like him or hate him Gingrich and Obama in a televised debate!? That would be a vision.

Romney and his capitalism cronies, have destroyed our system, with unbridled greed. We don't need him in the oval office.