Candidates for President (mostly Ron Paul)

Of the current pool of candidates for presidential nominations, which one, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise do you think would make the best president, and why?

I used to be pretty apathetic about the entire affair until I did some research on Texas representative Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination.

He's a libertarian and a strong constitutionalist who was one of the 7 Republicans that voted against the war in Iraq, and constantly harps on Congress's unwillingness to live up to the oath.

He's also got a flawless voting record:

Quote:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

(flawless of course, referring to his consistancy)

The key issues of his campaign are outlined here. Paul is for ending military adventurism, establishing a strong border and immigration reform, free trade (though he's often opposed "free trade agreements" such as the CAFTA), and scaling back the powers of the executive.

Paul is also notorious for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, and has campaigned for making the Reserve accountable to Congress, and to have its affairs open to the public. Paul describes his ideal system being a dual money system, with notes backed by gold and silver competing alongside fiat money.
(in reality this system makes fiat money practically worthless since it lacks backing and the use of gold as a base for currency makes its use for saving more profitable in the long term, but then this is exactly what Paul has described what such a system would cause)

There isn't a doubt in my mind that of all candidates for both parties, Ron Paul is the only man that should be president. I don't think this country can handle another statist asshole who lets congress get away with anything, abuses and expands executive powers, and fails to uphold the oath to protect the Constitution.

Here's some youtube videos and interviews:
Testifying on the Federal Reserve
On MSNBC's "Flying Under the Radar"
On Bill Maher
radio interview
On Fox News's "Because You Asked"

Jam it back in, in the dark.

If there's one thing that could fuck up our country more than another neocon President it's a libertarian President. You can't get rid of the government's problems by getting rid of the government.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The government doesn't have problems, the government is our problem. You might as well say that you don't solve cancer by removing it.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I suppose if your AIDS-ridden ideology ever gets into US federal government, the overseas military bases and covert prisons will disappear, so yeah, carn Paul.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I couldn't edit the post last night because of a server hiccup, so before we get caught up in rhetoric, who is it exactly that you think would make the best president?

How ya doing, buddy?

I think Gore would kick the crap out of any one who's currently announced candidacy. I'm still holding out to see if he throws his hat in. If not, Hillary's milded but no one will vote for her, Obama's got great ideas but no experience, Giulani's more authoritarian than anyone in the current administration, McCain has imploded alreayd, and Edwards is looking more and more like the best option to me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Would you mind elaborating on that?

Also, there was an interesting article from Reason on John McCain's militarism. Basically the conclusion is that he's got an itchier trigger finger than Bush.

Quote:

from editor's note:

More disturbingly, the campaign finance “reform” that bears McCain’s name is a clear and present threat to free political expression, and the senator is unabashed about abridging the First Amendment. “I would rather have a clean government,” he recently told nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus, “than one…where ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice I’d rather have a clean government.” Far from the independent pol routinely celebrated by the mainstream media, Welch reveals, McCain is “an authoritarian maverick” with “a rigid sense of citizenship and a skeptical attitude toward individual choice” whose ideology has rarely been examined in depth by the journalists who love to quote him.

FELIPE NO

I fully agree on the McCain issue. As much as he may portray himself as a Moderate, a look at his voting record shows that he's in fact farther nuts than Bush himself.

On Hillary: Personally, I think that if one looks at the last decade or so she hasn't been too horrible, but just about everyone outside of New York hates her. Why she stays near the top of the Democratic candidate polls I cannot explain since most Democrats are leery and most independents can't stand her.

On Obama: His 2004 Convention Speech was nothing short of awe-inspiring, and he's certainly proved that he's able to talk great ideas, but as this is his first term in any sort of federal position, he doesn't have any established experience.

On Giuliani: He recently stated that he supports the right of the President to detain citizens indefinitely without charges (although he would want to use this only in "limited situations"). This is a deal-breaker for me.

Edwards: Nothing too fantastic, nothing too horrible. For now, I'll grudgingly take it.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Arainach

but as this is [Obama's] first term in any sort of federal position, he doesn't have any established experience.

And yet you gravitate towards John Edwards, whose established experience in federal office is a single term in the Senate.

Most amazing jew boots

Edwards has served a 6-year Senate Campaign and has experience in a Presidential Campaign. Obama has 3 years of experience (will be 4 by the time the Election comes around).

Also, like it or not, Obama is black. Much as people may like to deny it, there is a statistically significant portion of the population that will not vote for him because of that fact.

Also, where did I say I thought Edwards was amazing? I merely think he doesn't suck as much as everyone else.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Except from what you said about Obama, you don't think he sucks at all; you're just holding his lack of experience against him.

The four years in the Senate Obama will have served in 2008 are, for all intents and purposes, close enough to the six Edwards served in 2004 to be irrelavent. Not that experience has ever mattered when talking about Edwards and high office, mind you; Al Gore considered him for vice president in 2000, just two years into his one term, and began to be seriously talked about as a presidential candidate just months later. (Of course, Obama comes to Washington with 8 years of experience in the Illinois State Senate, but that's not relavent to anything.)

You seemed to speak highly of Obama when running through candidates. If a difference of two years in the Senate is enough for you to support Edwards over him, you couldn't have been very impressed.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I've also seen some arguments that Obama isn't really "black" because he's descended from African immigrants instead of African slaves, so he's not even guaranteed a "black vote."

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Ron Paul looks like a great option. It's about time somebody challenged the GOP to get back to it's base ideals. My only reservation with his was his views on CIA. I can understand doing away with nation building and setting up "democracies," but to do away with it altogether? I agree that we need some foreign policy reform, and that we've got big enough domestic problems that we should deal with. But the agency does so much shit behind the scenes for absolutely zero recognition. They constantly put their lives on the line to be the eyes, ears, and invisible hand of the US abroad. Gathering intelligence so effectively is one of the reasons why we are a super power.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I felt the same sense of connection when I did a little research on Dennis Kucinich. His ideas and mine seem to coincide on nearly every popular issue. He's fairly libertarian, which is a positive in my book. It's a shame he'll never get close to making it out of the primaries, but he has my vote for them, at the very least. =/

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

I'm at the point where I don't even care to vote anymore. The Republicans lack the spine to fight, the Democrats refuse to and will institute more socialist programs to make us even more dependent on the government, which are inevitable anyway, so why fight it?

Doesn't matter who wins.

FELIPE NO

I'm a Democrat so when I compare Hilary and Obama I came with this conclusion

Hilary: Could be good, her husband was probably one of the best presidents ever. I think her biggest problem is getting the 18-30 year-old votes.

Obama: He may not have the experience but I can't help but think of that as a plus, in that he isn't tainted by the politcal rat race.

So I think I'm leaning towards him.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

If you think Obama isn't tainted by politics, then you're just being naive as hell. Idealism goes out the window and is swiftly replaced by realism the minute you run for any significant office. It is the factor of having a limited track record that makes Obama electable, but it does not in anyway make him any less shady or corrupted as any other politician in D.C.

Most amazing jew boots

Makes me feel better about Ron Paul.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Also, like it or not, Obama is black. Much as people may like to deny it, there is a statistically significant portion of the population that will not vote for him because of that fact.

Democrats can't get electoral votes in states where that is a significant fact.

If the Republicans put a Mormon up, that will be just as heavy on some people's minds.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I'd like to see Guiliani for myriad reasons that have been said over and over, but also because I think Charisma is an overlooked quality in politics. Guiliani is a guy people can get behind, no matter what your beliefs are because he seems like a no bullshit guy who wants to get the job done. Unlike, say, Bush, he has the potential to be a leader to people who disagree with him.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I think most New Yorkers would have said on September 10 that Guiliani was nothing but bullshit.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Makes me feel better about Ron Paul.

I've been thinking about a potential Ron Paul presidency, and I don't see how it could end up as anything short of a disappointment. At best. At worst, it would be an unmitigated disaster.

To be a successful president, he will have to make compromises with positions he's taken on issues while in Congress, which he could take because his proposals haven't got a snowflake's chance of being enacted anyway (and because he holds a safe seat). If he makes those compromises, libertarians who sing his praises now will turn on him, because libertarianism is a revolutionary ideology and libertarians by and large are more concerned with ideological purity than with governing. As such, deviation will be treated as apostacy by his base.

If, however, Paul tries to stick to his ideology, he will come into conflict at every turn. Chief among his opponents will be Congress, regardless of which party ends up in control. Since neither party shares the libertarian inclination to dismantle the federal government wholesale, and since Congress is Congress, appropriations bills will be passed that contains funds for things Paul disagrees with. If Paul is serious about his beliefs, he will veto these bills, as well as a great deal more of what Congress passes. Congress will eventually tire of this and vote to override his vetos on a consistent basis. (It's safe to say that Paul's own legislative agenda would be dead on arrival.) It would be the same kind of thing as happened during Andrew Johnson's presidency, and would ultimately end the same way, with Congress victorious. Paul's own ideology would demand such an outcome, even.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

On the other hand, if Paul was elected president it would reflect a significant shift in public opinion. It's not like libertarianism would be a tremendous deal, but people would have to be seriously distrustful of the Federal government.

A congress that would consistantly override Paul's vetoes may not be able to sustain itself, and while the "political class" like Kennedy may be able to hold their seats the more liquid seats would be in danger of a shift.

I also don't think you've considered foreign policy much under Paul. While it's true that it's not so much in the hands of the presidency with interest groups, if we could go at least one presidential term without an act of military adventurism, I still think Paul is worth voting for.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Chief among his opponents will be Congress, regardless of which party ends up in control. Since neither party shares the libertarian inclination to dismantle the federal government wholesale, and since Congress is Congress, appropriations bills will be passed that contains funds for things Paul disagrees with. If Paul is serious about his beliefs, he will veto these bills, as well as a great deal more of what Congress passes. Congress will eventually tire of this and vote to override his vetos on a consistent basis. (It's safe to say that Paul's own legislative agenda would be dead on arrival.) It would be the same kind of thing as happened during Andrew Johnson's presidency, and would ultimately end the same way, with Congress victorious. Paul's own ideology would demand such an outcome, even.

He'll have a much more difficult time if the Dems are in control, but either way, he's a congressman now, and I'm sure has a better understanding than any of us as to what he'd need to do in order to get things done. The only reason why he'd really have trouble with the legislative branch as a whole is because he's actually trying to get them to live up to the responsibilities delegated to them by the constitution. For the last 60 years or more, the legislative branch has been passing the buck to the executive. Then when it comes time for election they scream, "don't blame me, blame the president!"

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

On the other hand, if Paul was elected president it would reflect a significant shift in public opinion. It's not like libertarianism would be a tremendous deal, but people would have to be seriously distrustful of the Federal government.

Which, quite simply, they aren't. Not at the level that libertarians are. Which is good for Paul, as it means he can continue to vocalize libertarian ideology without having to worry about making it work.

Quote:

A congress that would consistantly override Paul's vetoes may not be able to sustain itself, and while the "political class" like Kennedy may be able to hold their seats the more liquid seats would be in danger of a shift.

Considering that Paul's libertarianism, if he tried to enact it, would ruffle feathers of both liberals and conservatives, Congress's position is more likely to be secure than his. While many would have no problem dismantling USA PATRIOT, how many of those would similarly have no problem dismantling something like Social Security? Besides, if Congress has to keep overriding presidential vetoes to get anything done, they'll take that message to their constituents. It only remains to be seen whether Democrats or Republicans would be the ones to benefit.

Quote:

I also don't think you've considered foreign policy much under Paul. While it's true that it's not so much in the hands of the presidency with interest groups, if we could go at least one presidential term without an act of military adventurism, I still think Paul is worth voting for.

What foreign policy? "Come home, America" is not a foreign policy, and is fundamentally unworkable in any event.

I said in my previous post that a Paul presidency would be at best a disappointment. Taking libertarianism to its logical conclusion in regards to foreign and defense policy, it would be nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

Not that we have to worry about it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.