heretic on 2/9/2008 at 18:46
Quote Posted by heywood
That said, I really *wish* there were a libertarian leaning progressive/reform candidate this time to siphon votes from the Republicans.
DR. Ron Paul-
Though apparently not being in the corporate pocket and sticking to your convictions despite unfashionable objections makes you a "crackpot" or "lunatic" these days.
It's really quite amazing that the few politicians we have with any semblance of integrity are similarly lambasted and dismissed. R. Paul, R. Nader or D. Kucinich are far more deserving of the attention given to those that have been bought and paid for, then media-circulated into wider appeal until everyone falls in line.
Ron Paul fucking (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk) owned several debates that he was able to crash early on, and he makes Congress look like the jackles they are everytime he schools them on everything from the (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q) federal reserve to (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAJH-HugHhM) interventionist politics.
Obviously none of this matters for those that don't agree with the man, but for us Libertarians- we had our first real chance at a true believer and ended up with yet another lame-duck.
Kalit on 2/9/2008 at 20:13
Quote Posted by SD
Those three candidates screwed themselves out of having any chance by being certifiable lunatics.
There was a rumour doing the rounds some months ago of a Paul/Kucinich joint ticket, which would be quite possibly the worst presidential ticket of all time. I'm not sure the world would even survive the inauguration.
How are they lunatics? And that was just people people saying they wanted Paul/Kucinich, both of them flat out denied ever running together whenever they were asked. I think that they make a lot more sense than anyone else that was running in primaries/presidential race.
SD on 2/9/2008 at 20:29
Quote Posted by heretic
Though apparently not being in the corporate pocket and sticking to your convictions despite unfashionable objections makes you a "crackpot" or "lunatic" these days.
Not true. Espousing ridiculous ideas make you a lunatic.
Let's take the aforementioned Dr Paul. This is a guy who thinks America needs to return to the Gold Standard. Does he think depression and unemployment is preferable to depreciation and inflation? Why does he want to limit the Federal Reserve's ability to respond to potential economic crises? It was the Fed pumping money into the system that meant the 1987 stock market crash caused only a fraction of the damage that the 1929 crash did.
And who but a loony thinks that self-interested non-interventionism makes for a healthy foreign policy?
Ron Paul would have been a disastrous president, ignoring the world while he dismantled the government. Red Dennis Kucinich is every bit as swivel-eyed for completely different reasons, and Nader needs to give up the ego-trip before he does any more damage; being an advert for party reform is not the same as being an answer for it.
Morte on 2/9/2008 at 21:13
Quote Posted by SD
And who but a loony thinks that self-interested non-interventionism makes for a healthy foreign policy?
...most countries?
heretic on 2/9/2008 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Morte
...most countries?
Not only that, but non-interventionist policy is not the same thing as isolationist policy.
heywood on 2/9/2008 at 22:23
Quote Posted by heretic
Not only that, but non-interventionist policy is not the same thing as isolationist policy.
Bingo. Ron Paul is an isolationist, not just a non-interventionist. And isolationism is just one of several unrealistic and impractical positions that he supports. Since I have libertarian values, it pains me to say this, but the reactionary core of the modern Libertarian party and fringe Republicans like Ron Paul have the same problem as the Communists. That is, they view the world not as it is, but through simplistic stereotypes of the way things ought to be. Ideologues on both sides need to reconcile their views with certain degree of realism and pragmatism before they can be trusted to govern.
Kalit on 2/9/2008 at 23:05
Quote Posted by SD
Red Dennis Kucinich is every bit as swivel-eyed for completely different reasons, and Nader needs to give up the ego-trip before he does any more damage; being an advert for party reform is not the same as being an answer for it.
As mentioned Ron Paul wants to do what most countries already do, stop invading other countries and stop trying to police the world. As far as the federal reserve limiting the 1987 stock market crash, it did, but I don't care about the stock market at all (yes, it would affect companies I sometime support I know). And you still haven't said anything about Kucinich or Nader besides this vague statement. I'm assuming for Nader you mean him always complaining about 3rd parties getting screwed, and that is because it is true.
The one big thing I don't agree with Kucinich about is him wanting to ban handguns (non-military, I believe he said that), but I know that would not pass anyway. There are things I don't agree with all 3 of these people, but I agree with them a lot more than any of the other candidates
BEAR on 2/9/2008 at 23:33
Kucinich says some crazy things but he's the only one out there pushing a non-profit health care system as well. He's kind of necessary to define the far-left so that people right of him can be more centrist. I like a lot of the things he says but I agree, he could never be president.
Did not Ron Paul advocate a flat-rate sales tax and the abolition of income tax? I might be wrong about that, I hope so. I love him reaming Guliani in the debates, and the whole 'reading list' thing, that was fantastic. I would have liked to seen him and Gravel get a lot more airtime during the debates.
heretic on 2/9/2008 at 23:47
Quote Posted by Kalit
The one big thing I don't agree with Kucinich about is him wanting to ban handguns (non-military, I believe he said that), but I know that would not pass anyway. There are things I don't agree with all 3 of these people..
Ditto,
I more or less line right up with Paul on domestic issues, but I have strong issues with both Nader and Kucinich obviously. Also: Any notion of a Paul/Kucinich ticket is a pipe dream, as they are not the least bit compatible.
That said I respect all three of them greatly for the one thing they have in common. -That their political positions can not be bought or sold, unlike the vast majority of the big players in our political circus.
