• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

80 Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul

Thunder said:
this thread isn't about me, and I'm not running for President.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t address the meat of your post because there was no meat to it. Drive by one-liners appears to be your bag.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Thunder and ARealConservative, knock it off and get back on topic please.
 
At the end of the day Paul can't win because most Americans simply don't want the tiny government that he advocates.
 
Thunder said:
once again, I am not the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...

Your comment had no substance. It was just a non-starter, "look at me I am posting my vacuous dismissal of Paul." What sort of response do you want for that?
 
anyway, Ron Paul is not intellectually qualified to be POTUS. Plus the fact that he hangs around CTIsts makes him dangerous.
 
Thunder said:
anyway, Ron Paul is not intellectually qualified to be POTUS. Plus the fact that he hangs around CTIsts makes him dangerous.
Click to expand...

how do you critique the intellectual capacity of people you don't know first hand? seems like a silly method of picking POTUS
 
ARealConservative said:
how do you critique the intellectual capacity of people you don't know first hand? seems like a silly method of picking POTUS
Click to expand...

ive read some of his writings and heard him speak on video.

he associates with treasonous CTists and other America-haters.

he would be a VERY poor choice for POTUS.
 
Thunder said:
ive read some of his writings and heard him speak on video.

he associates with treasonous CTists and other America-haters.

he would be a VERY poor choice for POTUS.
Click to expand...

did you once consider your own lack of intelligence is the hindrance here?
 
AdamT said:
At the end of the day Paul can't win because most Americans simply don't want the tiny government that he advocates.
Click to expand...

Wow, so we should just let you pick the winners based on what you think will happen? We have elections to determine who can and can't win rather then just basing that on some random person's guess.
 
Thunder said:
anyway, Ron Paul is not intellectually qualified to be POTUS. Plus the fact that he hangs around CTIsts makes him dangerous.
Click to expand...

So then you want be voting for Obama because he has been associated with crazy preachers, a terrorist and has Muslims in his family, I guess. That is, these sort of guilt by association dismissals are compelling to empty headed morons who can't argue the issues.
 
25.Ron Paul will Veto any unbalanced budget Congress sends to his desk.
Click to expand...
This, alone, is enough.
:clap:
 
RStringfield said:
Wow, so we should just let you pick the winners based on what you think will happen? We have elections to determine who can and can't win rather then just basing that on some random person's guess.
Click to expand...

Alright, watch what happened in 2008 happen again in 2011 and 2012. I bet you he won't get far enough in his campaign because of his message.
 
RStringfield said:
So then you want be voting for Obama because he has been associated with crazy preachers, a terrorist and has Muslims in his family, I guess...
Click to expand...

why should Obama not associate with the Muslims in his family? how is this comparible to associating with treasonous, America-hating conspiracy theorists?

bigotry exposed.
 
ARealConservative said:
did you once consider your own lack of intelligence is the hindrance here?
Click to expand...

For the record, I received an infraction for this post

So I will reword it.

Because you refuse to discuss anything of substance, I have no idea which positions of his you consider to be stupid. Can you explain to me which positions you disagree with so I can better understand if it is Paul that is ignorant on a particular issue, or if it is you that is ignorant on these issues?

The drive by method of saying you disagree because he is stupid does not further debate. It is sad this behavior is allowed, but apparently it is.
 
Fiddytree said:
Alright, watch what happened in 2008 happen again in 2011 and 2012. I bet you he won't get far enough in his campaign because of his message.
Click to expand...

I did not expect he would win in 2008 and don't expect him to win in 2012. But, you know what I once thought Obama's name would bring too much baggage. We have elections to determine this. We don't just leave it up to odds makers.

It reminds me of the Bucs Super Bowl run when the press kept hounding Gruden how the Bucs could win in sub 40 degree temperature which they had never done before against a team (Eagles) that had their number for some time. Gruden responded with something like, "we are still going to play the game." We beat the crap out of them and then did the same to Oakland.

Things can change and what seemed undoable can become a cake walk in a very short period. You pay your money and you take your chances.

Ron Paul is still going to be a part of the election and whether you think he can win or not is not really relevant to anything except in the peanut gallery.
 
Thunder said:
why should Obama not associate with the Muslims in his family? how is this comparible to associating with treasonous, America-hating conspiracy theorists?

bigotry exposed.
Click to expand...

Your own. I don't care that Obama has Muslims in his family. I did not dismiss Obama based on the fact that he has been in the presence of a known terrorist many times or based on attending the church of a preacher that has said some relatively inflammatory things including references to some rather crazed conspiracy theories. I don't consider the fact that Ron Paul is polite to conspiracy theorists a reason to vote against him either.

You are the one using non issues as the basis for your choice. I just wonder why it is so biased and bigoted?
 
ARealConservative said:
he isn't pushing the fair tax and refused to co-sponsor it. if it came up for a vote, he indicated he would likely vote for it as an improvement over the cucrrent system, but he is not pushing for its implementation. how can I make it any more clear for you?
Click to expand...

Fine, I will reword. He "favors" a fair or flat tax over our current system. That alone is enough for me to determine that he is not the candidate for me since I only supports systems that make an attempt to move us back to the progressive system we had between 1932 and 1981.

That out of the way, and I will point out again what was choosen to be ignored the first time, he IS campaining on the absolutely obsurd concept of eliminating income tax entirely. Lots of candidates have promised a modest tax cut here or there but this is just insane.
 
Last edited:
pdog said:
Fine, I will reword. He "favors" a fair or flat tax over our current system. That alone is enough for me to determine that he is not the candidate for me since I only supports systems that make an attempt to move us back to the progressive system we had between 1932 and 1981.

That out of the way, and I will point out again what was choosen to be ignored the first time, he IS campaining on the absolutely obsurd concept of eliminating income tax entirely. Lots of candidates have promised a modest tax cut here or there but this is just insane.
Click to expand...


You claim you want a progressive system – what can be more progressive then not taxing labor? Prior to the implementation of the 16th amendment, the super rich payed for everything while the poor benefitted from a lack of inflation.

The current system is less progressive then you think – chiefly because the super wealthy continue to benefit from the insidious inflation tax – new money reaches them before it dilutes their buying power, by the time poor people see the increase in dollars circulating, it simply causes them to pay higher prices and they do not get the same benefit.

You still mistake his position though. He is far more pragmatic then you give him credit for, he tempers any talk of elimination of labor tax with the understanding that we would first need a fundamental shift in the cradle to grave system our federal government has transformed us into. He is largely running on a platform of downsizing government – lower taxes for all is just the result of that paradigm shift.
 
ARealConservative said:
what can be more progressive then not taxing labor?
Click to expand...
Ummm.... not taxing = a 0% flat tax. Progressive tax not equal to flat tax.

ARealConservative said:
The current system is less progressive then you think
Click to expand...
I never said I liked our current system. I want MORE progression. In 1981 there were 16 brackets. Today there are 6. Moreover the upper limit has been pretty much stuck in the 200k range for nearly 70 years. I'm pretty sure 200k in 1942 was quite a bit more than it is today.

ARealConservative said:
You still mistake his position though. He is far more pragmatic then you give him credit for, he tempers any talk of elimination of labor tax with the understanding that we would first need a fundamental shift in the cradle to grave system our federal government has transformed us into. He is largely running on a platform of downsizing government – lower taxes for all is just the result of that paradigm shift.
Click to expand...
I get it. But roughly 1 trillion dollars is collected in the form of income taxes every year. Meanwhile, congress is patting themselves on the back for reducing the deficit (not the debt) by 2 trillion over ten years. What he is campaining on is not feasable and takes advantage of people that don't understand the complexities of our economic problems and are blinded by the promise of a few extra bucks in their pocket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom