{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/27/2013 11:56:22 PM
41
Why didn't you vote for Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012?
Why Flood, why?
-
A: Ron Paul would never, ever win. As much as I hate to say it, voting for a 3rd party in the US is a total waste of a vote. B: He's a Libertarian. I'll admit, there are aspects of it that I agree with(legalization of gay marriage, marijuana), but the idea that the country would be better off with no taxes, no regulations on business, no welfare, etc, etc, is ridiculous. Anyone played Bioshock!? There ya go.
-
His foreign policies are ridiculous... I approve of his domestic views however. Why did't I vote for him? Wasted vote. I'd do anything for NObama but that did not work either.... High hopes for Rand Paul though! Also. don't even lecture me on "voting for who you believe in is never a wasted vote! Huzzah!" Grow up.
-
4 답변
-
작성자: MyNameIsCharlie 8/28/2013 6:13:17 AMBecause 30% of the time he is the single most intelligent man in American politics. The other 70% of the time he is as crazy as the homeless guy who wears a dress to throw off the aliens who are hunting him.
-
작성자: Gabriel Eisen 8/28/2013 7:58:35 AMHis economic policies are ridiculous, the disastrous herald of neo-serfdom, which aims to subjugate the one social institution on a global culture scale that can effectively mete social and economic power to the majority. Under Paul, it is true that one would be threatened less by the potential of social repression from agents of elected government. It is also true that one would have far less systematic organization to help curtail or offset the already gross disadvantage they would find themselves in, alone in the “free market.” If that system sounds appealing to you, reread Dickens or modern history. No labor laws, sounds shitty to me. The commoditization and subsequent privatization of every aspect of economic and cultural institutions leading toward the inevitable monopolistic control of global resources and capital, no thanks. Why should we watch the validity of true democratic power wane as strife, enmity and social inequality dramatically increase? Spit out the cool aid. The only thing standing between complete subordination in a new system of vassalage and most of us is legitimate government whose authority comes from the will and power of those represented. Resource revenue flows have been growing globally for decades, some countries have boomed, the people enjoying a real increase in living standards and per capita incomes, others are worse for it, and the suffering of those who are falling behind the rest of the world is the stuff of nightmare. The commonality of countries that avoided this “resource curse” is democratically elected governments with effective checks and balances and the legislative ability to use these increased revenues for the good of the majority. The problem is NOT government; it is the criminals that have so callously sabotaged it for narrow-minded interests and an apathetic and cynical electorate that consistently allows it to happen. I for one am tiring of the view from under the bus.
-
1 답변Because like most American libertarians, he took some legitimate issues in American society (privacy concerns, foreign policy etc), and twisted it on its head. Instead of arguing for a different, but balanced approach, they went full retard [i]in the other direction. [/i] That, and his fringe policies/beliefs are exceptionally retarded. It's amazing how such a great opportunity for libertarians in the last ten years was squandered on terrible economic policy and some rather extremist viewpoints (e.g. his stance on evolution)
-
3 답변
-
1 답변People need to view his "crazy" stances from the right view. If he got elected, it isn't like we all would be cutting the budget in half, going on the gold standard, and delete social security overnight. He wouldn't be a dictator. He has to work through Congress. And hopefully, his stances would lead to compromise toward his views. Maybe we cut 10% of the budget under his guidance. Maybe the Federal Reserve gets its mandate scaled back. Maybe social security is reformed. Sometimes you need someone with stronger more "radical" views to drive the conversation away from the status quo.
-
19 답변
-
3 답변
-
1 답변
