[quote name='dmaul1114']There are a lot of trolls that come in. But vs. needs some new blood. There's really what, maybe 10 regulars who post here on a semi daily basis? So it's gotten pretty stale as it's the same old people, arguing over the same old shit ad nauseum--myself included.
But it is unlikely any informed people will come over for election crap and stay anyway. *shurgs*[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree. We could use some non-troll-ish new blood, but even then, it'll devolve into the left/right paradigm. I think if we had a few more people more versed in political theory and gay issues would really improve the depth of of our discussions. Not to say that none of the regulars aren't either, but it comes up so rarely.
[quote name='Chase']I'm not a fan of partisan politics. I haven't truly read the politics-infused CAG Versus threads in a while, so I have forgotten how they function. There are a lot of well-educated people here. Somewhat intimidating, to be honest. Plus, I only dabble in political news.[/QUOTE]
Well, the first step is always asking questions and since you didn't drop a Ron Paul 2012!!! bomb on us, I know I'm generally a lot more cordial.
But yes, Ron Paul.
- I dig small government.
The problems with small governments is that they're even more susceptible to corruption due to the mere scope of their jurisdiction. Paul is more interested in a loose confederation of nation states and less concerned with the abuses the people would experience a decentralized federal government.
- Somewhat torn on his opinion of abortion. People should accept responsibility for their actions if they didn't take preventative measures. But, I think abortion should be legal for cases like rape, incest, and for health concerns. I'm a fan of how he would let states handles these decisions.
If the resources and opportunities aren't there to take care of those responsibilities, then they need an alternative option. This means that if you are going to force these people to have kids, you better provide a welfare system. Throwing the social contract out the door is not an answer.
- Unlike Mitt Romney, he has been consistent. For better or worse, I like consistency.
Being consistently wrong is not something to admire. John Kerry put it best when he said that he has no problem changing a position if it is wrong.
- He voted against No Child Left Behind
- Big fan of his environmentalism
- I dig how he wants government out of health care
These are just a few things off the top of my head. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. (I had been mistaken on a few points about Romney, to be honest.)
Without going too deep, the problem with Paul is that he wants to cut federal government out of everything, like I alluded to earlier. Let's take his stance on drugs for instance, which is a popular issue that privileged kids usually attach to when they first start really becoming politically conscious. Paul isn't really supportive of the carte blanche legalization of drugs, but just supports the stance that the federal government should have no say about it. He would rather have states make it illegal, rather than legalize it because he is anti-drug period. Change the issue into abortion, civil rights, or any seemingly "liberal" issue and it's the same thing.
He's an authoritarian dominionist that cavorts with known white supremacists. His excuse of "fools and their money are soon separated" doesn't fly because they'd stop supporting him if he didn't represent their ideology. It's really no coincidence; it's the Southern Strategy in action.
[quote name='BigT']Nice to have another Ron Paul supporter around.
Basically, the two party system serves mainly to distract people from the real issues, while perpetuating the status quo. GW Bush = Mitt Romney = Barack Obama. Judge Napolitano was right on with his comments earlier this month (I guess that was too much for Fox to handle... now he's off of TV and there are no more decent news programs available to watch):[/QUOTE]
I'd say that there's enough of a difference between those three politicians to say that they would govern differently. Things like repeal of DADT or the pay equity bill would've never happened under Bush or Romney and neither would the new consumer credit protection agency.
With regard to the issues, I think that the most dangerous aspect of our day is the increasing amount of power that we are ceding to our government. The only one who argues against that is Ron Paul. Obama, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all want to expand government and all support stronger laws that superficially are designed to "protect the children," "fight the terrorists," or "protect the public from dangerous drugs or dangerous banks" However, deep down, these laws and regulations are designed to enrich those favored by government and to further strengthen their power...
This is emblematic of the problem with the narrow view of current conservative ideology: that the government has too much power. Instead of looking at the entity that benefits from malfeasance, they look at the middleman. Government doesn't just give and take in a vacuum, it's just a tool and right now, it's the power elite/.001%/corporations/or whatever you want to call them that are in control.