Best GOP Candidate

[Ajidica]

It looks like you will be voting for Paul/other dude because we aren't getting our of Afghanistan any time soon, same with Iraq to a lesser extent.
I'm not sure of our current involvement status in Libya though.

 

[illram]

Ron Paul's one or two good policy positions are outweighed by the 500 or so completely insane ones.

 

[GamezRule]

The news media is anti-Israel? The certainly aren't pro-Palestinian.

 

[Ajidica]

In American politics, being 'pro-Palestine' is stating that both sides need to learn how to get along.

 

[Mercenary82]

It's worse then that, to even suggest we take a slightly less biased approach to Israel/Palestine gets you branded as anti-semetic.

 

[orrery]

I don't agree with Ron Paul on economic issues and stuff he would cut, but I will vote for him in the Republican primary and general election if Obama does not have us completley out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya by the time the primary starts. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination I will just vote third party or independent as a protest vote. I think the country is going to experience total economic collapse worse then the great depression if we don't withdraw soon so I will hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul even though he is against things like social security.

As for other candidates:

Gary Johnson- Ron Paul wannabe

Tom Miller- Who?

Donald Trump- not serious, just a publicity stunt and he is corrupt, he uses immenent domain by bribing politicians.


Palin- Not smart enough or qualified, and is completley controlled by McCain's neocon staff

Rand Paul-not going to run against his dad

Newt Gingrich- like Bush and Cheney combined but worse

Herman Cain- Former Federal Reserve board member and President of Kansas City FED, he is part of the problem

General Petraeus- Corrupt Bilderberger scum

Romney- Bought and paid for by the Koch brothers

^^ Best post.

 

[zjl56]

The single most powerful lobby in Washington is the Israeli lobby. Pro Israel sentiment vastly, completely, overwhelmingly overpowers pro-Palestine sentiment among US voters...everywhere except maybe the internet. If you're a Republican, there isn't very much risk at all and jumping out as far as you want on the pro-Israel side...if will secure you Christian Right support (which even if it is waning a little bit in the general, is VERY important to win a primary), and lots and lots of money.

McCain, Romney and Huckabee had strong Israel and Religious Right support (what Romeny lost in Evangelical Christians, he makes up for in fanatic support from wealthy Mormons). People like Paul didn't...Paul didn't get many votes.

I have to agree with what most of your saying, especially when it comes to a few of the first primary states. Despite the fanatical support you can drum up on the internet or at rallies most of those people never bother to show up in force or are few in number in the beginning primary states.

But, I do have a point of contention. While the candidates that go out and do a large campaign for the religious right have a consistent record of winning the Iowa primary and the later ones that happen in the South and Midwest, a candidate that can distance himself away from the religious right and become the greatest candidate for libertarians could easily do a repeat of what Mccain did, and especially if the Tea Party gives them a solid backing.

While Ron Paul stands absolutely no chance, IMO I could see Romney or Mitch Daniels entering the race late and trying his hardest to get this segment of the Republican party, and try and repeat McCains campaign.

 

[Cutlass]

This. He's the only one who (to my knowledge) has not suggested Obama was born in Kenya. Also, given his positions in Massachusetts, he might be the most centrist, though it's tough to say.

Whether or not he's centrist depends on which way the wind is blowing and who he's trying to sell something to. He doesn't have convictions.

 

[bhsup]

I really don't see what you mean here. So you do like gun-control and abortion?

I was referring to healthcare.

 

[knez]

I had no attention in posting on this thread but...

you are aware that rising of prices or inflation is caused by the increases in money supply, and that the only significant thing FED does is increasing money supply?

you can argue banking system would became unstable, economy would not grow or whatever nonsense, but this is beyond ********

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OT

I hope Americans elect Ron Paul, but
a) it will not happen
b) I doubt it would change anything

just look at Reagan, he was elected as a man who will destroy socialism and his 8 years in the end just helped the growth of big government

 

[Cutlass]

I had no attention in posting on this thread but...

you are aware that rising of prices or inflation is caused by the increases in money supply, and that the only significant thing FED does is increasing money supply?

you can argue banking system would became unstable, economy would not grow or whatever nonsense, but this is beyond ********

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The Fed doesn't cause inflation. It accommodates the changes in the price level so that it isn't disruptive. Core inflation is low, despite what the Fed has been trying to do. And those prices that are going up are doing so because of market shortages.

 

[knez]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The Fed doesn't cause inflation. It accommodates the changes in the price level so that it isn't disruptive. Core inflation is low, despite what the Fed has been trying to do. And those prices that are going up are doing so because of market shortages.

P*Q=M*V

seriously, even mainstream economist won't argue with this...

 

[Rashiminos]

We have had inflation for quite some time and the fed is taking steps to curtail inflation. They are taking money out of the system by buying up bonds at the same time producers are cutting prices in an attempt to get people to buy there products. We don't have a situation of too much money chasing too few goods.

Food prices are still rising: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...hit-record-high-spurring-worries-a-91940.html

Throw some ongoing natural disasters into the mix. Inflation is here and won't be going anywhere soon.

 

[zjl56]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The Fed doesn't cause inflation. It accommodates the changes in the price level so that it isn't disruptive. Core inflation is low, despite what the Fed has been trying to do. And those prices that are going up are doing so because of market shortages.

Core inflation is low due to the fact that doesn't account for most commodities that actually matter to consumers, and the FED's actions should not be solely determined by it, rather it should take into account other figures like the CPI to gauge what its next actions should be.

 

[Rashiminos]

2010 US Population
344,124,450

Daily US Internet Users
266,224,500

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

This data plus your comment indicates the majority of Americans are libertarian and are being misrepresented by "the tv"

North America is not synonymous with the United States.

 

[Ajidica]

just look at Reagan, he was elected as a man who will destroy socialism and his 8 years in the end just helped the growth of big government

PROTIP: Research before posting.

During the Reagan years, federal employment grew by more than 60,000 (in contrast, government payrolls shrunk by 373,000 during Bill Clinton’s presidency). The gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent nearly tripled. The national debt soared from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the U.S. transformed from the world’s largest international creditor to its largest debtor. After 1981, Reagan raised taxes nearly every year: 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1986. The 1983 payroll tax hike even helped fund Medicare and Social Security—or, in terms today’s Tea Partiers might recognize, “government-run health care” and “socialism.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

P*Q=M*V

seriously, even mainstream economist won't argue with this...

We have two proffessional economists here: Integral and JerichoHill. Care to PM them and see if they agree with you?

 

[Cutlass]

P*Q=M*V

seriously, even mainstream economist won't argue with this...

Sure. I've explained that to many people right here on this forum. You don't seem to know what it means, though.

You have 4 variables. They all move.

 

[knez]

PROTIP: Research before posting.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html

one for you: read my posts?

We have two proffessional economists here: Integral and JerichoHill. Care to PM them and see if they agree with you?

No.

But than again, as someone who took and passed microeconomics, macroeconomics, monetary policy, and economic policy classes on college and read way to much of horsehockey economic literature, I have no uncertainties about where mainstream economists stand. Even they will after external/internal shock lamentation admit that only relevant reason for continuous price increases is money printing (or monetary expansion if we want it to sound better...)

Moderator Action: Foul language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

one for you: read my posts?

I did. You asserted Reagan started to end big government. I demonstrated he did nothing of the kind except in his speaches. Unless you are living in an Orwellian world where 'starts to end big government' translates into 'increasing the size of the bureaucracy by 60,000 members and raised taxes to fund government healthcare'.

But than again, as someone who took and passed microeconomics, macroeconomics, monetary policy, and economic policy classes on college and read way to much of horsehockey economic literature, I have no uncertainties about where mainstream economists stand. Even they will after external/internal shock lamentation admit that only relevant reason for continuous price increases is money printing (or monetary expansion if we want it to sound better...)

Okay. As I said. Ask Jericho or Integral how widely held that position is.

 

[knez]

...in the end just helped the growth of big government