2012 Election thread

[Cactus 83]

I never said that. Sure, war/violence breeds resentment and more violence. However, to suggest isolationism would foster an environment of peace and that hatred/aggression towards the U.S. would cease to exist is extremely naive and dangerous. The foundation for the hatred is based in a radical view of Islam. The manifesto is out there for all to see. To sit on the sidelines and pretend like nothing has to be done about this is a very scary proposition from Mr. Paul. Regardless of policy, these people believe they are commanded by god to kill the infidels. The U.S. having a base in Saudi Arabia doesn't really matter when that kind of ideology is floating around.

 

And Mr. Bin Laden sure didn't mind our intervention when we were giving him and his boys money and guns in the Soviet/Afghan war.

 

Who's proposing isolationism? Isolationism terminates the idea of free trade and open diplomacy, North Korea is an isolationist country. I agree with you about the Radical sect of Islam, but in my opinion, a heavy interventionist policy adds fuel to the fire, and feeds the propaganda machines over in the middle east.

 

Let's just vote for Nader then get some ice cream.

 

You mean soy cream then

[Berto 338]

Who's proposing isolationism? Isolationism terminates the idea of free trade and open diplomacy, North Korea is an isolationist country. I agree with you about the Radical sect of Islam, but in my opinion, a heavy interventionist policy adds fuel to the fire, and feeds the propaganda machines over in the middle east.

 

 

 

You mean soy cream then

 

Isolationists in terms of military force around the world, but if you prefer non-interventionists, that works as well. Mr. Paul doesn't believe in being the aggressor, and I think that's a naive outlook when confronted with the dangers of extreme religious ideology hell bent on destroying the innocent. And their holy book is all the propaganda they need.

 

Iraq was certainly a misstep. I think in theory, removing horrible dictator led regimes is a good thing, but figuring out how to fill that power vacuum turns into something so complicated, that no one really knows what to do. Nation building is probably something the U.S. should put a halt to, but those mistakes don't negate the actual threat. What we're doing now with drones, and tactical strikes based off intelligence is the right steps in my estimation, and I think it's a must that these measures continue in terrorism hot spots around the world.

 

Also, mmmm...soy cream.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

this is a short beginning to my problems with ron paul:

 

Yesterday, Presidential candidate Ron Paul published his plan to save the economy.

 

And today, calling a spade a spade, we observed that the plan would destroy the economy, at least initially.

 

And this, not surprisingly, brought out the torches and pitchforks and howls of ridicule from Ron Paul fans, who were completely appalled.

 

Didn't we understand that the government spending is TOTALLY BLOATED?

Didn't we understand the "crowding out" theory that they teach you in Econ 101? (That government spending somehow deters private spending.)

Didn't we understand that the economy is already destroyed?�

 

Um. Yes, Ron Paul fans. We understand all that.

 

And so we have a simply question back:

 

When you suddenly cut $1 trillion of spending out of a $14 trillion economy, what do you think will happen to the economy?

 

That's right!

 

The economy will shrink by 7%, to $13 trillion.

 

And the folks whose salaries are paid by that $1 trillion--let's call it 1.5 million of the 4.4 million people employed by the federal government--will instantly be unemployed.�

 

So, yes, we think it's fair to say that this would "destroy" the economy, at least in the short term.

 

Now, Ron Paul absolutely deserves credit for saying what expenses he would cut, unlike his lame-ass GOP candidate colleagues, who talk a big game about runaway spending but are too wimpy to actually cut anything.

 

And, it's possible that, down the road, the ~1 million or so government workers that Ron Paul fired would get motivated and get great jobs and start businesses and stuff and that, eventually, this would begin to close the $1 trillion GDP gap Ron Paul created when he fired them.

 

But this would take time.

 

And given that there are already 14 million unemployed people in this country, it will probably take a lot of time.

 

So be honest, Ron Paul fans: Ron Paul's economic plan would, at least initially, destroy the economy. If you still support it because you think we need to "take our medicine" and because this medicine will make us stronger in the long run, great. But don't pretend it's going to be all sunshine and roses.

 

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-18/news/30292591_1_government-spending-economy-private-spending#ixzz1idFbwbg3

[AcuWill 45]

this is a short beginning to my problems with ron paul:

Do you understand the concept of a "recession" and its effects on economies?

 

 

Think in terms of basketball and building a team and you might start getting on the right track.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I'm pretty sure trading away all our veteran workers and trying to rebuild the economy through a draft isn't legal.

[AcuWill 45]

With Paul, I think it's the fact that he takes really complex issues and boils them down into two sentence talking points that "sound good" to people who aren't really willing or able to wrap their heads around what enacting his ideas would actually entail.

 

Take for instance his suggestion that we shut down all non-domestic military bases and bring back all our troops back to America to "spend their salaries here,"

 

That sounds nice as a talking point, but the actual effect of suddenly having an extra 250,000+ soldiers in the US would be a huge problem, since, even if we ignore the fact that it would violate multiple treaties, leave several of our closest allies out to dry and likely result in South Korea turning into a 38k square mile sheet of glass, we'd have no where to put them. Either the government would have to spend huge money up front to build dozens of new military bases to house them all, or we'd have to immediately cut our military strength by about 15%, while flooding the entire country with over a quarter million newly unemployed American citizens with access to guns and firearms training.

 

But "Lets bring our boys home" makes a nice talking point, so some people will get behind it. It's the same thing as "Lets just wipe the debt away by filing for bankruptcy. That'll give confidence to investors" statement. Sure it sounds like when you've heard that we owe so much money to foreign governments, but when you consider that more than half of US debt is owed to American citizens and companies, you can't help but realize that suddenly telling everyone that US treasury bonds are now worthless sheets of paper would collapse the entire world economy almost overnight. I mean hell, Greece is a small-fry as far as 1st world economies go, and the whole market lost it's *****ing mind when they threatened to file for bankruptcy, and did it AGAIN when the EU couldn't decide how to deal with the Greece problem. The US files for bankruptcy, and the whole world goes to ****.

 

We're #1! We're #1!

I will destroy your whole first argument in one sentence:

 

Read history, especially the part starting with the end of WWII.

 

 

Bonus: Educated yourself between the difference of EU and US sovereign debt structures and actually listen past the sound bite played regarding filing for bankruptcy as to what the real point of the discussion was.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

I will destroy your whole first argument in one sentence:

 

Read history, especially the part starting with the end of WWII.

 

So step one of Paul's plan would be to annihilate the industrial and economic infrastructure of every other major country on Earth? Or are we ignoring that rather significant part of the 50s boom?

 

[Ryan the Magic Fan 253]

This is why you never mix sports and politics.

 

Ah well screw it. Newt for the win, but I honestly don't see Obama losing to anyone this year no matter how many problems he has.

[AcuWill 45]

So step one of Paul's plan would be to annihilate the industrial and economic infrastructure of every other major country on Earth? Or are we ignoring that rather significant part of the 50s boom?

The DOM plan of posting on the internets:

 

1. Comment on something spouting own intellectual superiority by picking some one sided aspect of something. Make it long and convoluted enough that probably nobody responds.

2. If someone responds anyway, ignore their points and pick some portion again at random that really has nothing to do with the main point and totally diverges from the original argument in the first DOM post.

3. If they still respond, ignore response completely, and attempt to diffuse dissonance by trying some pithy remark marginalizing some large population of people you attempt to lump the responding poster in.

4. If they still respond, attempt to find a grammatical error. (Note: this step can be skipped to in order to reduce dissonance at any time in the DOM plan.)

 

In response to your marginal response to something that doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that I responded to: HOLY **** IT IS GOING TO BE SO HARD TO REINTEGRATE .08% OF THE COUNTRIES POPULATION THAT IS OF GOOD WORKING AGE AND HAS SHOWN THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN TRYING SITUATIONS, BE TRAINED, AND WORK IN A TEAM STRUCTURE. HOW CAN THE ECONOMY OR POPULACE HANDLE THAT??????????????????????????????????????? RUN FOR YOUR BUNKERS, GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO.

 

 

And just for you DOM, so you don't kill yourself tonight, I left a typo. Can you find it before the box cutters?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The DOM plan of posting on the internets:

 

1. Comment on something spouting own intellectual superiority by picking some one sided aspect of something. Make it long and convoluted enough that probably nobody responds.

2. If someone responds anyway, ignore their points and pick some portion again at random that really has nothing to do with the main point and totally diverges from the original argument in the first DOM post.

3. If they still respond, ignore response completely, and attempt to diffuse dissonance by trying some pithy remark marginalizing some large population of people you attempt to lump the responding poster in.

4. If they still respond, attempt to find a grammatical error. (Note: this step can be skipped to in order to reduce dissonance at any time in the DOM plan.)

 

In response to your marginal response to something that doesn't really have anything to do with your original point that I responded to: HOLY **** IT IS GOING TO BE SO HARD TO REINTEGRATE .08% OF THE COUNTRIES POPULATION THAT IS OF GOOD WORKING AGE AND HAS SHOWN THE ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN TRYING SITUATIONS, BE TRAINED, AND WORK IN A TEAM STRUCTURE. HOW CAN THE ECONOMY OR POPULACE HANDLE THAT??????????????????????????????????????? RUN FOR YOUR BUNKERS, GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO.

 

 

And just for you DOM, so you don't kill yourself tonight, I left a typo. Can you find it before the box cutters?

 

 

On Veterans Day in America, it’s sobering to realize just how badly the job market has turned against the men and women who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their rate of unemployment was 12.1 percent in October, vs. 9 percent for the U.S. overall. But that only scratches the surface of the employment picture for vets.

 

Dig deeper into the pages of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data and it becomes apparent that while the job market is slowly improving for most Americans, it’s moving in the opposite direction for Gulf War II vets (defined by the BLS as those on active duty since 2001). The youngest of veterans, aged 18 to 24, had a 30.4 percent jobless rate in October, way up from 18.4 percent a year earlier. Non-veterans of the same age improved, to 15.3 percent from 16.9 percent. For some groups, the numbers can look a good deal worse: for black veterans aged 18-24, the unemployment rate is a striking 48 percent...

 

http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-wall-street/archives/2011/11/the_vets_job_crisis_is_worse_than_you_think.html

[AcuWill 45]

 

Thank you for providing statistics to validate my point. Assuming the 250k would return and adjusting generously that a full 25% would be unemployed, we actually only have to worry about .02% of the population.

 

Hope you have a lot of canned food in your bunker.

[Cactus 83]

This is why you never mix sports and politics.

 

Ah well screw it. Newt for the win, but I honestly don't see Obama losing to anyone this year no matter how many problems he has.

 

Don't know if he can recover from the attack advertisement from Romney's PACs. Its going to be fun to watch them throwing jabs at each other now. Also, McCain endorsing Romney, that's just straight up hilarious