Romney won the debate - but

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.


  1. Wait. What!? You rabid Paul guys had been screaming about impending doom while wrapping yourselves in the flag.

    Now you're lecturing me about a freer, less government centric country while you take self-righteous pride in supporting and voting for a Communist endorsed president!? OMG!!!

    You can justify your vote all you want, but, you have no credibility.



    Nader's people didn't chicken out! They sued the DNC!

    Third Parties don't win.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    0
    Im afraid there was some misunderstanding if that's what you thought my post said. I thought I was pretty clear that all the gov't interventions in fiscal and monetary policy (ie New Deal, et al) made the problem of free spending in the early to mid 20s worse by not allowing bad decisions (aka malinvestment) to shake out of the system. WW2 did not end the Depression. The end of gov't intervention in the economy is what ended it.

    Again, you can see clear parallels between that period and today's economy. The early to mid 20s would be parallel to the early to mid 2000's with loose monetary policy that led to speculative bubbles. 2008 would be akin to 1929. Now we have the same gov't and central bank intervention going on and it's making the problem worse by propping up the malinvestment instead of liquidating it and allowing the market to correct itself. The gov't and the Fed needs to get out of the way, not repeat the same bad policies that extended the GD.
     

  3. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    0
    They siphon votes from both sides so the point is moot.

    Hard to be "all that" when you get 89 seconds to talk in an hour long debate broadcast. See the ABC debate in Spartanburg SC for reference. Good job on the vote though.
     
  4. Problem is, cutting all the small stuff DOESN'T give us any extra money. just a smaller deficit. There is no extra money to attack the other debt. We would have to find something like $1.2T or so before we started actually freeing up cash to start reducing the debt.
     
  5. What does a pragmatic libertarian intend to accomplish by voting third party? He knows that party won't win, right? The only things he can hope for are that:
    1. The Republicans lose the election, because if they win it'll just cement the fact that they don't need to implement any libertarian principles in their platform
    2. It is clear that if even a fraction of the votes that went to the third party went to the Republican party, they would have won the election.
    (I'm using Republicans and libertarians here as the more relevant example, but it has played out on the Democrat side too.)

    Primarily though, the Republicans have to lose. I'm in a swing state. I have to take care of problem #1. There was a time when voting for somebody like Obama would be troublesome to me. I don't care about that anymore. Pragmatism rules now when it comes to politics. Romney needs to lose, so Obama needs to win. If a vote for third party is a vote for Obama, then a vote for Obama is two votes for Obama. (Yeah that sounds weird, but take it up with the folks who keep telling us that a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama)

    If I wasn't in a swing state, I'd vote Gary Johnson. Who knows, I might even do it here, depending on the outlook on election day, because if problem #1 is in the bag, #2 can be addressed.
     
  6. OK ... I understand your timeline better now. I did misinterpret it a bit.

    I think we are a bit on same page, but not quite. You attribute and draw a parallel between the 20s and early 2000s as loose monetary policy leading to speculation and a bubble. I would see the same parallel, but attribute it to not enough oversight and regulation (are we saying same thing/agreeing?). This let the engine spin out of control so to speak during the 20s/1980-2000s... an engine without a governor if you will. Hence my characterization of the 20s as laissez-faire ... and to a certain degree the late 80s through mid 2000s the same. Not enough APPROPRIATE oversight and regulation in the right areas.

    I would agree that WW2 didn't end the depression too. I disagree with your characterization of what did. You say it was in spite of FDRs policies and government intervention ... and that only after they ended we recovered. I say it was because of it. It took awhile .. yes .. but just as the excessive laissez-faire conditions that create busts don't happen overnight, the implementation of corrective policies don't happen overnight either. It was the very policies of the FDR administration that REBUILT the middle class and lit a fire under the heart of what can be the really ONLY true driver of sustained and healthy growith ... A HEALTHY MIDDLE CLASS.
     
    #106 douggmc, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  7. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    0
    I said nothing of the sort and I don't know where you got that from.

    Im not taking blame for your bad choice of nominee. I put in a hell of a lot more work in this election season than you did so blame yourself. See my sig.

    This is the single smartest thing Ive ever seen you post and it's exactly what is underway. If you like libertarian and conservative ideals, I can happily point you toward several good candidates for Congress that you can actively support.

    Here's a couple that could use your help in tight House races against Democrats.

    http://www.thomasmassie.com

    http://www.artforcongress.com
     
  8. I'm trying to figure out why all you Paulites have become Obama cheerleaders. . . As far as all of you are concerned, a Romney loss is a forgone conclusion.

    Instead of trying to work toward improving the situation, all of you seem to be cheering on the one man who is trying (and succeeding) to "fundamentally change" America, in a VERY bad way.

    Again it's the "If you're not MY KIND of conservative, then you're not a REAL conservative" attitude that all the Paulites seem to have.
     
  9. And in those 4 year Obama can inflict some permanent, if not fatal wound to this country by:

    - appointing liberal judges
    - killing entire industries such as coal
    - making sure O-Care isn't abolished
    - setting polices that make us more dependent on foreign oil
    - bring the national debt to $20T (O's own predicted number)
    - allowing agencies such as the EPA, DoE, DoEd from establishing more business killing, growth killing, education killing policies.
    - killing the value of the dollar
    - continued mis-handling of middle-east policies

    Hell, what's 4 more years. .

    4 more years could be the difference between this country living or dying.

    I'm not willing to take THAT CHANCE!

    Romney will be answerable to the conservative base. . Who will Obama be answerable to?
     
  10. Pragmatism. :rofl:
    March 2012.

     
    #110 427, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  11. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    0
    The core difference is we apparently disagree on what oversight and regulation means and how it should be applied. My version of oversight and regulation is that which is inherent to a truly free market where those that make bad decisions are allowed to fail. That unto itself is the regulation since it requires the malinvestment to be shaken out and the system reset. The banks, GM, AIG, etc would not have been "rescued" by papering over the failure with freshly printed money while waiting for the other shoe to drop, as we're doing right now. The gov't and Fed can never truly regulate or provide oversight because they are part of the system that failed. Market forces is the only true regulator and it's a good one. People run amok when they know the Fed will be there to paper over their failures and pass the inflation tax onto the common man.
     

  12. I work at my State level and leave others to work on their own States, you know, kinda like the Founders had in mind.
     
  13. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon "Cracker"

    11,018
    0
    0
    The conservative base that is trying to elect a liberal rino gun banning big government socialized medicine man? What does he have worry about?
     
  14. That's true to a point. Third parties siphon more from one side than the other. For example, all thing being equal, a libertarian candidate will siphon more votes from a republican candidate than the dems. A Greenparty candidate will siphon more votes from a democrat candidate than a republican. Again, all things being equal.


    He made a bunch of strange faces and misspoke several times on several different topics.
     
  15. I'm not a "Paul guy". I'm a libertarian. I haven't been screaming about impending doom. I've been doing the opposite, saying we'll get through this no matter who gets elected. You need to get your people straight and not be so aggresive with the pigeonholing.

    Yeah, that's how pragmatism works. Cool, huh?

    Telling me that after you've proven that you have no idea who I am doesn't carry much weight.




    His voters chickened out. Look at his numbers in 2000 and 2004. In 2004, they succumbed to fear mongering, and had to vote for Kerry "otherwise that evil George Bush will get a second term and we'll all be doomed". Sound familiar?
     
    #115 Gundude, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  16. How long have we been sparring? About a year or so? I know you about as well as someone who posts on an internet forum.

    Not a Paul guy?
    Really?

    http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7
     
  17. Was something in there supposed to prove my vote for Obama is a revenge vote for RP losing?

    How could that be, when I showed my intention to vote for Obama months before RP lost?
     
    #117 Gundude, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  18. G19G20

    G19G20 Status Quo 2014

    2,004
    0
    0
    This is assuming one thinks Romney's policies will ultimately be any better on such issues. I do not and that opinion is based on his record and extreme flip-flopping.

    Meh. Same was said in 2008 as why to vote for McCain. Im watching a slow death spiral that's mostly unrelated to which puppet-in-chief gets elected on Nov 6.

    That's fine. I think America has more resilience than that though.

    Just like Bush was answerable to the conservate base when he signed Medicare-D, No Child Left Behind, debt ceiling increases, Bill of Rights destroying legislation, etc? That "answerable" argument doesn't ring true to me since I've seen how the president himself can get his base to just follow his bad decisions by wrapping them up in patriotic garb and buzzwords like "compassionate".

    I see the Republican party as being the foil to Obama getting too squirrely in the next 4 years. We will counter him much harder than his own party will. This is basic politics.
     
  19. You are just another vote for Obama throwing your vote away on Paul. Get over it.
     
  20. So a reference to your own post of a couple of quotes of mine (neither of which mention Paul) grouped with a bunch of Paul guys' posts proves I'm a Paul guy?
     
    #120 Gundude, Oct 4, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012

Share This Page