Yard Sale

[Robert Thomas]

Richard,



We agree, that is why I said (that is electable). At the present time, out of the about 10 choices on the ballot, only two are electable.

 

[H D]

Redfish,

I understand what you are saying, however voting for a candidate that cannot possibly win as a form of protest does nothing, and nobody really sees your protest vote.

I think that was more directed toward me rather than Redfish. If you don't think people voting for Ron Paul and sending money to his campaign hasn't made a difference, you must have missed the entire Tea Party movement which was an offshoot (if perhaps a bastardization) of Ron Paul's movement. It hasn't revolutionized the country, but there has been an indisputable impact.



You don't think the GOP notices when they lose big numbers of voters to a third candidate because people actually vote their values instead of choosing who's "electable." I hate the "electable" notion.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

"Electable is the key word", however the Electable candidate is very illusive. Obama is electable because he has already been elected. Mitt Romney had not been elected, so who is to say if he is electable...the same applies to Ron Paul or any of the other candidates eliminated from the race during the primaries?



Mitt Romeny was on the right track when his comments were recorded and now hit the news.

He said that around 47% of Americans pay no income taxes, and as long as they are getting a free ride, why would they not vote for Obama and his quest to make the rich pay more taxes....It's kind of like a pay raise for those who feel entitled to more taxpayer money.



I did some checking and found out that the bipartisan committee on taxes stated that nodw 49% of Americans paid NO taxes in 2011. Of course some of them did not make enough money, and had exemptions that allowed them to not pay any taxes, but of the non-tax payers, 25% do not claim any income. This statistics are only based on Federal Income Taxes and do not account for State income taxes, or any of their welfare programs operated by the state....ie: Medicaid, Food Stamps, Unemployment, etc.



This means that Obama can depend upon nearly 100% of the votes from the non-tax payers because he is pushing to tax the rich to give more entitlements to the poor.



I don't think Mitt Romney is the first person to see this and make comments about it....

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

-George Bernard Shaw



Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

-Frederic Bastiat, Economist (1801-1850)



In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.

-Voltaire (1764)



We have no more right to consume happiness without producing it than to consume wealth without producing it.

-George Bernard Shaw

....Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



I think you are using electable as "worth a sh**). That could exclude the whole bunch.



I am using electable as "lesser of two evils" or (Obama - Romney) 99.9% sure one of these will be elected.



Hugh,



I agree with financial and other support for Ron Paul pre-convention. Yes, it had an impact. I think financial support now, or a vote now, is not in the best interest of the Country. That Ship has sailed. Ron Paul is not "electable" at this point.

 

[Kevin Lang]

If you don't think people voting for Ron Paul and sending money to his campaign hasn't made a difference, you must have missed the entire Tea Party movement which was an offshoot (if perhaps a bastardization) of Ron Paul's movement

...so you believe that the Conservative Tea Party movement was a "bastardization" of "Libertarian" Ron Paul's vision (Libertarian again in quotes as he gives all of 'em a bad name)?



How anyone, let alone someone who takes pride in being a highly educated self-made-man and who professes to be an "informed voter", can so support Ron Paul is a mystery to me. My money is on the education.



This is also fairly funny, though based on your other posts, inaccurate:

The hard working, GDP producers who WOULD read it (or COULD) already decided to vote Romney anyway.

And for the record, I still may vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote for the candidate that most closely matches my worldview.

The irrationality of voting could demand an entire upper level undergraduate college course

A course with no practical value, I'm sure, and one that no doubt comes to an arguable "conclusion", a way for the college to cash in on those who fancy themselves philosophers.



I think these emoticons sum all this up: :cry::banghead:

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I agree...The electables are the ones we are stuck with...:cry::cry:

Or we can vote for the Devil we know or the Devil we don't know? :grin:

That's what's so frustrating....we are never really given a choice......Oh well???



:haveabeer:



...Rich

 

[H D]

I said it "could" be done in an entire class; didn't say it would be necessary or practical.



If I voted for Ron Paul, it would have no more or no less impact on the outcome of the election if I voted for Romney, Obama, or any other person. Georgia's electoral votes are going to Romney; that's a foregone conclusion. Perhaps if I lived in a swing state, I'd be more certain about being strategic with my vote.

 

[Mark K 2]

Regarding Romney's fun last evening. 52% of the people not paying taxes are retirees living on Social Security. I would surmize than a majority of these old folks were planning on voting for Romney. He not only threw them under bus, but he backed up and ran over them again. It seems that Romney is assuming that no one in the no-tax category was planning on voting for him. What a putz.



Oh, and there's this little map of where the no-tax folks live. They're all Romney states. What a super putz.



[Broken External Image]:

 

[Kevin Lang]

I said it "could" be done in an entire class; didn't say it would be necessary or practical.

So then was there a point to this following, earlier, statement of yours?

The irrationality of voting could demand an entire upper level undergraduate college course.

Cause it sounds like the answer to that is a "no". It could demand an entire upper level undergraduate course, but it might not demand that, and even if it does, the demand might not be practical, which sounds like your original statement was bogus hyperbole.



I trust that you have indeed done the research into Ron Paul that you maintain that you have, so there's no room for debate. I don't see how as a hard working, self-made-man you can agree with the perverted vision of libertarianism that is Ron Paul's. There are some positions of his that I agree with, but there are too many ideas and habits of his that I don't want to see in a President. I can only assume that you consider the "good" to outweigh the "bad", but I just don't see how you can. I don't agree that voting is irrational, but I do agree that voting for Ron Paul is irrational :bwahaha:

 

[Richard L]

Mark K.

Your figures do not match the governments figures. According to the bipartisan Tax committee report for 2011, there are 49% of Americans who paid no taxes. Of those 75% simply did not earn enough money and coupled with their deductions, were not required to pay taxes. The remaining 25% include people who have no income because they do not work and yes, it also includes people who live on social security based on retirement or disability.



Social Security is somewhat a kind of sacred cow...no politicians want to talk about Social Security cuts, and I don't think it can be dropped now....remember that the majority of people on Social Security worked for many years, and paid into the Social Security system for their retirement. So Romney's remarks were not directed towards them.



Romney's remarks were to point out the fact that nearly half of the American voters do not pay taxes and he probably would not get their votes anyway since they would not benefit from his tax cuts (if elected). If Obama is reelected, then they might be able to get more entitlements if Obama is successful in increasing taxes on the wealthy.



But each individual has to determine if they are better off now than they were 4 years ago, and that is the yardstick that most people will probably use.



Obama made a lot of promises that he has yet to fulfill. Obama promised that the troops would be out of Iraq in 18 months and that is still not done. He promised to close down Guantanamo Bay and it still there. He promised a Health Care system for everyone that would not cost taxpayers any more money....He got the Health Care approved, but it has not been implemented yet, and the costs are enormous.



The economy is still in shambles and unemployment has not changed significantly. The housing and real estate business are crippled by a backlog of toxic loans, gas prices are at record highs, and he throws money at companies to develop alternative energy and they just go bankrupt after they get the money???



...Rich

 

[Les]

Mark K, you may be the putz. Over 47% of WAGE EARNERS don't pay Federal Income Tax. These are not people retired, or unemployed, these are currently employed individuals. You need to do some research and get your facts straight. Second time you've spouted off with no facts to back your opinion up.

 

[Robert Thomas]

You can't base anything on the amount of people getting SS. This percentage means nothing. You have to look at a percentage of individuals living off of SS.



I live in a Florida Community. 90 % of the individuals here get SS. I get SS and my wife gets SS. It has to be less than 10 % of this 90% that actually live off this money. This area just about always votes Republican. SS has no effect on our vote. For us it's about the Country.



I spend most of my SS money on beer, the rest I waste.



Rich & Hugh

:haveabeer:

 

[H D]

KL, as you pointed out previously, it would be a philosophical type class. Political philosophy classes are quite enjoyable in my experience (John Locke, Voltaire, Socrates are some of my favorite reads) but a single lecture is pretty sufficient to prove the irrationality of voting. I'll spare you the lecture. There's probably some good ones online if interested.



Ron Paul's positives certainly outweigh his negatives. He actually addresses important issues and always has a non-politically filtered response for every question he's asked. How refreshing would that be? Difficult to win an election and get past the media like that, though.



Romney's positives also outweigh his negatives. I've said many times to many people (not sure if I've typed it here) but I think Romney is the most qualified to be president since Eisenhower. Look through our past presidents and tell me which qualifications they had that were more impressive. Only state governors such Bill Clinton even come close in qualifications, IMO.



Obama's positives...well, maybe I could find some in a second term?



Let me show you another map, Mark.



<a href="http://photobucket.com/images/black%20belt%20map" target="_blank"><img src="http://i749.photobucket.com/albums/xx133/facingsouth/black_population_county_map.jpg" border="0" alt="black belt map Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a>



I would also like to point out how incredibly white the Democratic strongholds are.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Ron Paul's positives certainly outweigh his negatives. He actually addresses important issues and always has a non-politically filtered response for every question he's asked. How refreshing would that be? Difficult to win an election and get past the media like that, though.

Don't we already know how refreshing it would be, since he already does that, and has been doing it for years?



Anyhow, I still don't see how you arrive at this conclusion that Ron Paul's positives outweigh his negatives. He's outspoken on issues, sure, but what he says is disconcerting, to say the least. Ron Paul seems much more an anarchist than a libertarian. I'm not sure what you mean by his responses being "non-politically filtered" but he has employed the same convenient "memory lapse" and flip-flopping "techniques" exhibited by most all politicians.

I'll just list the "subjects" on which we agree:...gold standard...

Ron Paul is not for the gold standard. As such, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you agree with his views for it.

You don't think the GOP notices when they lose big numbers of voters to a third candidate because people actually vote their values instead of choosing who's "electable." I hate the "electable" notion.

How will the GOP know if it is loosing votes due to the sane, rational values that Paul has that Romney does not and not to the irrational and impractical anarchist values that Paul espouses? I don't know how they will determine this, and that is of fair import as the latter is something that they can't adapt to; the GOP could get a candidate later on who is more outwardly conservative but I doubt that they could ever get one who wants to adapt a disproved foreign policy plan and replace the few sound aspects of a Federal Government with anarchy.

 

[H D]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Ron Paul doesn't support the gold standard. If you mean gold exchange standard or any of the other lies that have been incorrectly termed the "gold standard" by politicians and the Federal Reserve, then I guess we'll agree. If you mean a true gold standard as economists understand it, actually bimetallism, then yes, Ron Paul does actually support that. I think you just don't actually know what the gold standard is. Most don't and believe that it's an exchange where you can trade your dollar bills (or any other fiat symbol) for gold coins. That never existed as far as the government's ability to actually pay it out. Ever since Hamilton f'ed up our country by switching from bimetallism, money has been fake and extremely deflated. I won't bore you with an economic history lesson, though. Just know that Ron Paul does in fact support our country's economy being based on something real and tangible with intrinsic value.



Perhaps you don't actually know Ron Paul's views as well as you thought.



Believing that the lowest form of government that can handle an issue, should is not anarchist. It federalism at it's best. Federalism is shared power among levels of government, not a succession of subordinate governments stemming from the national (incorrectly labeled in recent history as the "federal") government.