US presidential election 2012 [Archive] - Page 2 - MensTennisForums.com

US presidential election 2012

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

buddyholly
12-27-2011, 01:39 AM
^^

now i know where your sources are buddy ;)

media edit job getting carved the fuck up online.. class... :lol:

I don't know what you are talking about. I read it in the National Post.

Edit: Oh, I see, you mean the the video above. To me it looks like he walked out after being unable to answer the questions without looking flustered and nervous. "I read some of them......'' ''I never read them.......'' '' What do you mean I made money?.............''

Claiming that he never knew what was written in his newsletter, under his byline, is a lose/lose proposition for him. Either he agreed with what was written or he had no idea what his correspondents were writing in his name.

Stensland
12-27-2011, 01:41 PM
chances are it was the latter. out of all the candidates paul is probably the least racist. he seems like the only stand-up guy left in the field, republican or democrat. why are you making such a fuss about this? you should be one of the biggest fanboys, your political opinions are pretty much in line with his.

buddyholly
12-27-2011, 02:40 PM
chances are it was the latter. out of all the candidates paul is probably the least racist. he seems like the only stand-up guy left in the field, republican or democrat. why are you making such a fuss about this? you should be one of the biggest fanboys, your political opinions are pretty much in line with his.

The US definition of libertarianism (fiscal conservative, social liberal) would certainly fit me, but I felt let down that Paul's past is far from exemplary. I can not easily accept that he published a newsletter for 10 years that appealed to religious extremists and white supremacists and thinks it is OK now to just say the newsletter had nothing to do with any of his views.

I think it a fair conclusion that everything he says today is just calculated to appeal to a new fan base, now that his old fan base has found other candidates. Yet you are suggesting that the candidate with what appears to be the most racist record is the least racist in the field. I don't see how that follows.

EDIT: I just googled "The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters'' at theatlantic.com. It says just what I was trying to say above. Although it might be more forgiving than me.

Stensland
12-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I think it a fair conclusion that everything he says today is just calculated to appeal to a new fan base, now that his old fan base has found other candidates. Yet you are suggesting that the candidate with what appears to be the most racist record is the least racist in the field. I don't see how that follows.


it's a gut feeling. i'm very sure you're feeling the same way. gingrich, perry, bachmann, santorum, less racist than paul? nah, come on.

Stensland
12-27-2011, 03:02 PM
anyway, only 7 more days to go: the iowa caucus is upon us. :)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/perry-romney-super-pacs-own-iowa-tv-108756.html

Perry, Romney, super PACs own Iowa TV

super pacs have just started making inroads, but already the impact on politics seems enormous. presumably america has opened a new can of worms regarding dirty campaigns.

fast_clay
12-27-2011, 03:07 PM
The US definition of libertarianism (fiscal conservative, social liberal) would certainly fit me, but I felt let down that Paul's past is far from exemplary. I can not easily accept that he published a newsletter for 10 years that appealed to religious extremists and white supremacists and thinks it is OK now to just say the newsletter had nothing to do with any of his views.

I think it a fair conclusion that everything he says today is just calculated to appeal to a new fan base, now that his old fan base has found other candidates. Yet you are suggesting that the candidate with what appears to be the most racist record is the least racist in the field. I don't see how that follows.

EDIT: I just googled "The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters'' at theatlantic.com. It says just what I was trying to say above. Although it might be more forgiving than me.

sounds like someone is waiting for jesus...

Jimnik
12-27-2011, 07:10 PM
The US definition of libertarianism (fiscal conservative, social liberal) would certainly fit me, ....
I'm pretty sure that's the international definition.

buddyholly
12-27-2011, 07:57 PM
I'm pretty sure that's the international definition.

wikipedia has about a gazillion variations.

Stensland
12-28-2011, 01:25 AM
libertarianism implies some form of anarchy over here. i don't know any political figure that openly talks "libertär". only fringe groups within the fdp (the most market-oriented, liberal party) consider themselves to be libertarians. the ideas ron paul stands for are virtually extinct in germany.

back on the campaign trail:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70887.html

Newt Gingrich goes negative

Later in the day, he laid out an expanded argument against Paul during an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, going so far as to say he wasn’t sure he’d be able to vote for the Texas congressman if he was the GOP nominee against Barack Obama.

boy must paul be a pariah within his own party...

Jimnik
12-28-2011, 01:46 AM
No country in the world that has a libertarian party with more than 5-10% of the vote. Germany's FDP comes closer than any party in UK. Problem is students don't take up politics just to let the government sell everything. They believe in "getting involved" and "making a difference" which is pretty much left-wing mentality.

Most real libertarians are businessmen not politicians which is why it's hard to find political parties.

ibreak4coffee
12-28-2011, 01:59 AM
No country in the world that has a libertarian party with more than 5-10% of the vote. Germany's FDP comes closer than any party in UK. Problem is students don't take up politics just to let the government sell everything. They believe in "getting involved" and "making a difference" which is pretty much left-wing mentality.

Most real libertarians are businessmen not politicians which is why it's hard to find political parties.

There are PLENTY of self-proclaimed libertarian businessmen who can quote Atlas Shrugged who are libertarian only until markets turn against them. Then government suddenly has a central role to play and moral hazard goes out the window.

As for the fact no libertarian party has more than 5-10% of the total vote in any country - there's a reason for that. It may be attractive as a political philosophy, but its not a fantastic blueprint for governing a society. Nor could it ever survive in a political system so beholden to special interests - which describes pretty much any political system in the world today.

Stensland
12-28-2011, 03:03 PM
i agree. most of wall street probably believed in libertarian principles, but once libertarianism would have killed off their companies, they switched over to the kind of vile, job-killing socialism they berated earlier.

from libertarian crusader to "too big to fail"-marxist within a couple of months...talk about flip-floppin'...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70892.html

Mitt Romney in striking distance of Iowa win

if romney even wins iowa, he's the republican nominee. the other candidates should just call it a day.

Jimnik
12-28-2011, 04:56 PM
There are PLENTY of self-proclaimed libertarian businessmen who can quote Atlas Shrugged who are libertarian only until markets turn against them. Then government suddenly has a central role to play and moral hazard goes out the window.
Works both ways. Self-proclaimed union and human rights leaders are only socialist until they've earned money. Then government tax collectors can go to hell and moral hazard goes out the window.


As for the fact no libertarian party has more than 5-10% of the total vote in any country - there's a reason for that.
Of course there's a reason, nobody wants to vote for a party that takes away free education, healthcare, housing, dole and welfare. If you believe voters know what they're doing consider Hitler, Mugabe and Chavez came to power this way.


It may be attractive as a political philosophy, but its not a fantastic blueprint for governing a society. Nor could it ever survive in a political system so beholden to special interests - which describes pretty much any political system in the world today.
Actually, it's the best blueprint for governing a society. There's a reason Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland and tax havens have the best living standards.

Jimnik
12-28-2011, 05:00 PM
from libertarian crusader to "too big to fail"-marxist within a couple of months...talk about flip-floppin'...

Don't worry Rainy, I won't flip-flop. :wavey:

Could never do that to you. Need someone to argue your opinions with. ;)

abraxas21
12-28-2011, 05:04 PM
Why did you pick a perfectly reasonable ad? If you think being opposed to open borders is a ''little gem'', then give me some examples of nations that the US should try to copy in its immigration policy.

i aint in favour of open borders. for one thing, i'm not sure if the canadian authorities wouldn't have had troubling doubts after they gave you a passport...

Stensland
12-28-2011, 05:05 PM
Don't worry Rainy, I won't flip-flop. :wavey:

you're a man of conviction, i got that by now. :D

*edit: some comic relief:

hOzHIbraJ0E

i cracked up at number 9. hilarious.

abraxas21
12-28-2011, 05:09 PM
libertarianism implies some form of anarchy over here. i don't know any political figure that openly talks "libertär". only fringe groups within the fdp (the most market-oriented, liberal party) consider themselves to be libertarians. the ideas ron paul stands for are virtually extinct in germany.


capitalism in its true form has never even existed. perhaps there's a case that could be made about the capitalist society in medieval iceland (famous example) or another isolated case here and here but the fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn't exist.

to some, libertarianism is just another name for capitalism given the bad rap that the latter has adquired over time. to others, libertarianism is just something different, something that actually encompasses the current system but that doesn't fit the criteria to be a synoninom (bad spelling) of capitalism

buddyholly
12-28-2011, 07:22 PM
Now you just sound like Jorge when he claimed true communism has never existed. "Capitalism'' is just a word we made up to describe systems of free trade and individual ownership.

What is this compulsion to say things we actually invent have never existed? It's just capitalism, we can make it what we want it to be, as the White Rabbit wisely said.

buddyholly
12-28-2011, 07:23 PM
i aint in favour of open borders. for one thing, i'm not sure if the canadian authorities wouldn't have had troubling doubts after they gave you a passport...

So you agree with the content of the ad, then.

I was British. WE told the Canadian authorities who could have passports.

abraxas21
12-28-2011, 07:28 PM
So you agree with the content of the ad, then.

i don't. then again, tha'ts not the relevant point. what's important is that he was pandering to rednecks all over the country, which is what i said.

I was British. WE told the Canadian authorities who could have passports.

:lol: typical brit

abraxas21
12-28-2011, 07:32 PM
Now you just sound like Jorge when he claimed true communism has never existed.
he was right

"Capitalism'' is just a word we made up to describe systems of free trade and individual ownership.
exactly, but where does the gvt fit here?

buddyholly
12-28-2011, 09:23 PM
exactly, but where does the gvt fit here?

Wherever the voters want it to fit.

Stensland
12-29-2011, 01:15 AM
indecision twenty eleven. :lol:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/8168/2011chartsgoprace.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/2011chartsgoprace.jpg/)

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 02:14 AM
This also makes sense:
capitalism Communism in its true form has never even existed. perhaps there's a case that could be made about the capitalist Amish society in medieval iceland Pennsylvania (famous example) or another isolated case here and here but the fact of the matter is that capitalism communism doesn't exist.

to some, libertarianism socialism is just another name for capitalism communism given the bad rap that the latter has adquired over time. to others, libertarianism socialism is just something different, something that actually encompasses the current system but that doesn't fit the criteria to be a synoninom (bad spelling) of capitalism communism
Heavily edited but I swear I'm not trying to wind you up. Just showing how both ends of the political spectrum work similarly. Capitalism-libertarianism share the same idealistic-realistic relationship as communism-socialism.

ibreak4coffee
12-29-2011, 02:37 AM
Works both ways. Self-proclaimed union and human rights leaders are only socialist until they've earned money. Then government tax collectors can go to hell and moral hazard goes out the window.

Absolutely. But it costs me far far far more as a taxpayer though to bail out the "independent" businessman who sprints for government support and bailouts anytime there is economic trouble or to cover bad decisions. Just like its going to cost me ridiculous amounts of money in the future to cover health care costs for a population reaching 50% obesity levels when a government-supported countrywide prevention initiative encouraging healthy choices could save me tons more in the long run.

Of course there's a reason, nobody wants to vote for a party that takes away free education, healthcare, housing, dole and welfare. If you believe voters know what they're doing consider Hitler, Mugabe and Chavez and George W. Bush came to power this way.

Fixed your post ;)

Actually, it's the best blueprint for governing a society. There's a reason Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland and tax havens have the best living standards.

Theory is great - and reality is another thing. Complete freedom for anyone living in a society is not practical, nor desirable.

And you're not calling Australia, Switzerland, and Singapore libertarian societies are you? That would be the mother of all stretches. Also, tax havens by nature tend to be micro-states with so few people to govern they are terrible examples (and even in those, standards are slipping - been to Bermuda lately? I go at least one a year - things aren't nearly as good as before, like the rest of the world). Additionally, by any measure the "socialist" utopias of Scandanavia have the best - or very close to the best - living standards in the world. Certainly better than the two Asian examples you mention here, and for the most of the population of Australia as well. Whether their model is sustainable is another question, but for now they have achieved a standard of living along with economic growth and political stability that few if any nations could ever achieve. People on the right will criticize them incessantly however because while you can become a millionaire there pretty easily, its almost impossible to become a billionaire like it is in the US or now China.

ibreak4coffee
12-29-2011, 02:41 AM
Was I the only one today who found it hilarious that a guy who left his ex-wife in the hospital with cancer was criticizing his opponents for running negative ads against him?

Comedy Central should really option the rights for the Republican primaries because start to finish this has been just must-see-tv.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 02:44 AM
Absolutely. But it costs me far far far more as a taxpayer though to bail out the "independent" businessman who sprints for government support and bailouts anytime there is economic trouble or to cover bad decisions. Just like its going to cost me ridiculous amounts of money in the future to cover health care costs for a population reaching 50% obesity levels when a government-supported countrywide prevention initiative encouraging healthy choices could save me tons more in the long run.
I agree and I feel for you. Government support and bail-outs go totally against libertarian principles. If a businessman seeks outside help, he's not a true capitalist. I wouldn't even call him a businessman if he can't competently run his business.

orangehat
12-29-2011, 02:46 AM
Actually, it's the best blueprint for governing a society. There's a reason Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland and tax havens have the best living standards.

HK has tons of issues and Singapore is almost as far as you can get from a libertarian government.

On the economy, perhaps, but even then it only extends to FDI. There exists a reason why people call Singapore the nanny state.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 04:15 AM
HK has tons of issues and Singapore is almost as far as you can get from a libertarian government.
Every country has issues, that's a lazy generic argument.

Hong Kong and Singapore are the two most libertarian economies in the world and the 5th and 13th highest living standards:

http://www.heritage.org/Index/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Only oil rich and tiny tax haven (very libertarian) islands are above.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 04:55 AM
Theory is great - and reality is another thing. Complete freedom for anyone living in a society is not practical, nor desirable.

And you're not calling Australia, Switzerland, and Singapore libertarian societies are you? That would be the mother of all stretches.
Australia, Switzerland and Singapore are as close to libertarianism as the Soviet Union was to communism. In theory, complete freedom is ideal. In practice, it is desirable to be as free as possible - from both an economic and moral stand point.


Also, tax havens by nature tend to be micro-states with so few people to govern they are terrible examples (and even in those, standards are slipping - been to Bermuda lately? I go at least one a year - things aren't nearly as good as before, like the rest of the world). Additionally, by any measure the "socialist" utopias of Scandanavia have the best - or very close to the best - living standards in the world.
Be careful, I've been beaten up on this forum for calling Scandinavia a socialist paradise. Norway is very oil rich so it's difficult to judge the effectiveness of their political system. Sweden is about the same level as Germany in terms of social liberalism. Living standard is slightly higher but they don't have to cope with the level of immigration from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe as the rest of the EU. France, for instance, has to pay to incorporate millions of uneducated unskilled labor into the economy.

Denmark, on the other hand, is a country that's easy to misinterpret because it does indeed have the highest tax rate in the western world. I myself used to be highly prejudiced but recently I found otherwise - government size and taxation are only two of many factors. The process of registering a new business is easier and faster than anywhere else in the west. The property, monetary, financial and labor laws are among the most libertarian in the world. If it wasn't for high taxes, they'd be equally free market to Switzerland.


Certainly better than the two Asian examples you mention here, and for the most of the population of Australia as well.
You better check your facts before making these statements. The two Asian countries I mention have better living standards than Scandinavia and Australia: GDP (PPP) per capita (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html)


Whether their model is sustainable is another question, but for now they have achieved a standard of living along with economic growth and political stability that few if any nations could ever achieve. People on the right will criticize them incessantly however because while you can become a millionaire there pretty easily, its almost impossible to become a billionaire like it is in the US or now China.
Again, check your facts. Both Scandinavia (heard of IKEA) and Australia (Rupert Murdoch). But in any case, you think it's wrong to have billionaires?

Also bear in mind US population is 300 million and China 1.4 billion.
Australia 20 million, Sweden 9 million, Denmark 5 million, Norway 5 million.
Which countries are more likely to have more billionaires?

tripwires
12-29-2011, 04:59 AM
Every country has issues, that's a lazy generic argument.

Hong Kong and Singapore are the two most libertarian economies in the world and the 5th and 13th highest living standards:

http://www.heritage.org/Index/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Only oil rich and tiny tax haven (very libertarian) islands are above.

:haha:

It's not. It's the truth. Singapore cannot be called a libertarian country by any stretch of the imagination. Our economy has to open to FDI because of our inherent restraints - no natural resources, tiny population which the government is trying to balloon in an unsustainable manner, and for some reason, the government's seeming lack of confidence in its own local talent. It's all been pragmatically-planned from the start. Pragmatism is actually the governing principle to everything that my government does.

As for living standards, granted I'm having it pretty comfortable here with a roof over my head and adequate food and water and a decent-sized bank account; however, the cost of living for the average Singaporean is going up and not down. Housing prices here have escalated over the past 5 years (rough estimate). I am a working professional and I'm not sure how I'm going to afford a house - by house I mean a flat/apartment - by flat/apartment I mean public housing - when it's time to move out of my parents' house (this usually means when one gets married). Perhaps this is a common problem faced by most countries, but unlike most countries we don't have a city/suburbs demarcation. It's really only a matter of how expensive a flat is - expensive or ridiculously expensive.

Someone mentioned the nanny state - this is absolutely spot-on. Which other country in the world has a government that forces you to save 20% of your salary every month which in general you cannot touch until a certain age (usually around retirement age) except in certain circumstances? That's at least $900 of my salary gone every month, locked away for "future use" while a SWF invests it in some ill-advised venture and loses money. In the meantime, I may need the money for things like graduate studies, wedding expenses, even a fucking holiday. But no, I can't touch the money that I earned because the government tells us that we need to save and the government knows best. Of course it does. That's why it's the government.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 05:14 AM
It's not. It's the truth. Singapore cannot be called a libertarian country by any stretch of the imagination. Our economy has to open to FDI because of our inherent restraints - no natural resources, tiny population which the government is trying to balloon in an unsustainable manner, and for some reason, the government's seeming lack of confidence in its own local talent. It's all been pragmatically-planned from the start. Pragmatism is actually the governing principle to everything that my government does.
Sounds like you haven't got a clue what libertarianism means. FDI is about as libertarian as it can get. What have abundant natural resources got to do with libertarianism?

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 05:19 AM
As for living standards, granted I'm having it pretty comfortable here with a roof over my head and adequate food and water and a decent-sized bank account; however, the cost of living for the average Singaporean is going up and not down. Housing prices here have escalated over the past 5 years (rough estimate). I am a working professional and I'm not sure how I'm going to afford a house - by house I mean a flat/apartment - by flat/apartment I mean public housing - when it's time to move out of my parents' house (this usually means when one gets married). Perhaps this is a common problem faced by most countries, but unlike most countries we don't have a city/suburbs demarcation. It's really only a matter of how expensive a flat is - expensive or ridiculously expensive.
Sorry to have to tell you this but rising prices are a side effect of a booming economy. Either accept high prices or accept a shit economy. That's just the reality of the world we live in. If you want low prices, move to Zimbabwe where you can buy 10 acres of land for $10. You'll have no clean food or water but at least your land is cheap. That's all that matters to you obviously.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 05:25 AM
Someone mentioned the nanny state - this is absolutely spot-on. Which other country in the world has a government that forces you to save 20% of your salary every month which in general you cannot touch until a certain age (usually around retirement age) except in certain circumstances? That's at least $900 of my salary gone every month, locked away for "future use" while a SWF invests it in some ill-advised venture and loses money. In the meantime, I may need the money for things like graduate studies, wedding expenses, even a fucking holiday. But no, I can't touch the money that I earned because the government tells us that we need to save and the government knows best. Of course it does. That's why it's the government.
Financial freedom is one of several factors which determine a country's overall freedom. Yes it's far from perfect but Singapore's business, trade, property, monetary and labor laws are among the most libertarian in the world. Not to mention one of the lowest tax rates.

If you don't think these demonstrate libertarianism then you're still clueless. Better check the definition before making these comments.

Garson007
12-29-2011, 07:55 AM
Financial freedom has got nothing to do with actual freedom.

tripwires
12-29-2011, 09:04 AM
Sounds like you haven't got a clue what libertarianism means. FDI is about as libertarian as it can get. What have abundant natural resources got to do with libertarianism?

FDI means we're an open economy. It doesn't make us a libertarian country; it doesn't mean our government is a libertarian one. That's simply laughable. I made the point about natural resources to explain why our economy is so open to FDI and foreigners. It's certainly not because the government is interested in upholding libertarian principles.

Sorry to have to tell you this but rising prices are a side effect of a booming economy. Either accept high prices or accept a shit economy. That's just the reality of the world we live in. If you want low prices, move to Zimbabwe where you can buy 10 acres of land for $10. You'll have no clean food or water but at least your land is cheap. That's all that matters to you obviously.

1. If I accept what you're saying, it means my country's economy has been "booming" for the past 30-40 years.

2. You have no idea what you're saying, so let me tell you what it's like in Singapore because I actually live here. Housing prices have escalated astronomically over the past 5 years (again, this is a rough estimate) for various reasons, one of which is the government's various pro-foreigners policies that directly or indirectly have encouraged cash-rich foreigners, mainly people from China and Indonesia, to come in here and drive up property prices. This is a fact, easily attested to by the government's recent measures introduced to cool property prices in Singapore (which include, among other things, higher stamp duty rates for foreigners who buy private properties).

3. I find it absolutely laughable that you seem to be insinuating that "cheap land" is something that I shouldn't care about. Another fact for you: one of the policies that the Singapore government has promoted since independence in 1965 is home ownership. It's a bedrock of Singaporean existence. There is nothing trivial about my concern about whether land is cheap here if I cannot afford a home for myself. It's pointless bringing up Zimbabwe - we're obviously way ahead of them in terms of development. There is also no logical trade-off between clean water and "cheap land" as you put it. It is perfectly reasonable for a citizen of any country to expect to be able to afford his own home. I'm not even talking about buying a huge bungalow in Nassim Road or a serviced apartment in town for S$23 million. I'm talking about how the average price of private property is easily over S$1.2 million and before the government stepped in, public housing (public housing) wasn't that far behind. We're not all millionaires here. I earn more than the average Singaporean but I still can't afford private property. In fact, my salary works against me too with regard to public housing (short version: income cap for married couples; preference given to married couples).

4. FYI, I'm not the only Singaporean complaining about rising cost of living and rising housing prices. It was a hot topic of contention during the May general elections and contributed to the least resounding victory for the PAP in the elections. You can look this up - the Economist did a pretty solid piece on it.

Financial freedom is one of several factors which determine a country's overall freedom. Yes it's far from perfect but Singapore's business, trade, property, monetary and labor laws are among the most libertarian in the world. Not to mention one of the lowest tax rates.

If you don't think these demonstrate libertarianism then you're still clueless. Better check the definition before making these comments.

Please, stop trying to educate me on my own country's "overall freedom". We're not North Korea but we're not exactly Taiwan either. FYI, there is no minimum wage in Singapore and there is no culture of trade unionism because it has been discouraged by the PAP government post-independence in order to reduce the frequency of strikes and attract MNCs to set up shop here. Not to mention income inequality has increased over the past few years (fuzzy on the exact stats but it's somewhere out there). It's also funny that you should mention property laws - we cannot have libertarian property laws because everything ultimately belongs to the government due to scarcity of land.

Is this what you mean by "libertarian"? Yes, we have an open economy that promotes free trade and FDI and second-rate foreigners coming in here and making it as CEOs. Sure, we are a democracy in name and we hold free and fair (this is debatable but for the purpose of this post let's just let it slide) elections once every five years. But that's about as far as it goes, and I sincerely hope you weren't arguing that Singapore is libertarian politically because it would show that you know absolutely nothing about my country.

Like I said in my previous post, whatever policies that the government has instituted to date to promote economic freedom isn't so much because they give a shit about individual liberty. It's all done in the name of pragmatism. Singapore, a small country with no natural resources, needed to find a way to survive in the world after we were kicked out of Malaysia in 1965. I definitely think it's great that my government has gotten it right so far, minus the past 5 years or so, because it means that I'm not living in poverty and we're better than Malaysia. But to use the word "libertarian" to describe my country is absolutely, absolutely laughable; to lump my country in the same category as Australia and Switzerland is just...let me put it kindly: you are being very kind to us. In fact, I find it cute that you seem convinced of your opinion. Tell that to any Singaporean with a working brain between his ears who doesn't blindly support the ruling party and he'd probably laugh in your face.

Lastly, unless you are a PAP mole, there was no need to get defensive and rude. My original post was really just me ranting about my government. Maybe I shouldn't have used the :haha: smiley but I honestly find it hilarious whenever a foreigner tries to argue that Singapore is more liberal or libertarian than it really is (when in fact it is not at all). Then again, I guess it's true for them - Singapore is a great country to live in if you're a foreigner. Just don't vandalise any MRT trains or try to bring in drugs.

orangehat
12-29-2011, 01:35 PM
Using my definition from google:

Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Let me point out 7 reasons why Singapore does not fall in line with this definition.

1. No real freedom of speech, widespread censorship (and subsequently induced self-censorship). I believe Singapore ranked 136 on the Media freedom index 2010. (Behind Bangladesh, ZIMBABWE, Congo and IRAQ)
2. You can't protest, a gathering of more than 5 people in a public area (yes you read that right, 5 people) is technically an illegal gathering without a police permit if it is meant for a cause (even for charity)
3. Forced savings (as stated above)
4. Excessive "big brother" influence in daily lives (e.g. fines on everything from eating on public transport to spitting and a ban on chewing gum)
5. Dubious independence of the judicial system (multiple lawsuits bankrupting opposition and potential political opponents that would never stand anywhere else)
6. Internal Security Act (gives right for detention up to 2 years without probable cause)
7. Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses (granted they're annoying and non-mainstream) despite supposed religious freedom.

Libertarian does not solely refer to economic policies, that would make you more like a fiscal conservative.

tripwires
12-29-2011, 02:32 PM
Using my definition from google:

Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Let me point out 7 reasons why Singapore does not fall in line with this definition.

1. No real freedom of speech, widespread censorship (and subsequently induced self-censorship). I believe Singapore ranked 136 on the Media freedom index 2010. (Behind Bangladesh, ZIMBABWE, Congo and IRAQ)
2. You can't protest, a gathering of more than 5 people in a public area (yes you read that right, 5 people) is technically an illegal gathering without a police permit if it is meant for a cause (even for charity)
3. Forced savings (as stated above)
4. Excessive "big brother" influence in daily lives (e.g. fines on everything from eating on public transport to spitting and a ban on chewing gum)
5. Dubious independence of the judicial system (multiple lawsuits bankrupting opposition and potential political opponents that would never stand anywhere else)
6. Internal Security Act (gives right for detention up to 2 years without probable cause)
7. Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses (granted they're annoying and non-mainstream) despite supposed religious freedom.

Libertarian does not solely refer to economic policies, that would make you more like a fiscal conservative.

I agree with pretty much all of this, except I would qualify 5 to say that defamation lawsuits haven't been used as much in recent times by the ruling party as compared to the past. In fact, as far as I know no one was sued before, during and after the general elections this year.

This may be shocking to others but I consider this progress for the nation.

fast_clay
12-29-2011, 02:38 PM
number 7 is pretty solid though...

Stensland
12-29-2011, 03:58 PM
great posts, tripwires. very interesting to read.

ibreak4coffee
12-29-2011, 04:20 PM
tripwires and orangehat :worship:

Be careful, I've been beaten up on this forum for calling Scandinavia a socialist paradise. Norway is very oil rich so it's difficult to judge the effectiveness of their political system. Sweden is about the same level as Germany in terms of social liberalism. Living standard is slightly higher but they don't have to cope with the level of immigration from Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe as the rest of the EU. France, for instance, has to pay to incorporate millions of uneducated unskilled labor into the economy.

I put "socialist" in parentheses because I am well aware of how successfully these countries have blended economic openness with social protections. For some reason though, the right in the US (and elsewhere) like to "warn" that the US will turn into Scandanavia if health care or other social protections are passed. Scaremongering without facts. Yes they pay a lot in taxes there - so do I in New York state and they get a much better deal out of it.

Also Sweden doesn't have to cope with immigration???? Have you ever been there? Seriously one google search would have shown you that 25% of the population of Sweden is either foreign born or from a parent born abroad. They were extremely welcoming of refugees from the former Yugoslav republics and more recently from Iraq. Its started to cause visible tensions as elsewhere.

Denmark, on the other hand, is a country that's easy to misinterpret because it does indeed have the highest tax rate in the western world. I myself used to be highly prejudiced but recently I found otherwise - government size and taxation are only two of many factors. The process of registering a new business is easier and faster than anywhere else in the west. The property, monetary, financial and labor laws are among the most libertarian in the world. If it wasn't for high taxes, they'd be equally free market to Switzerland.

You said it. Denmark is a fantastic country. But again, its not libertarian. They just have made it easier to do business while maintaining a strong social safety net - which no true libertarian endorses. Certainly if you listen to the definition of libertarianism in the country we both live in, you'd think government had absolutely no value to add to society at all beyond maintaining an army.


You better check your facts before making these statements. The two Asian countries I mention have better living standards than Scandinavia and Australia: GDP (PPP) per capita (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html)

No need to repeat what tripwires has written. Suffice it to say you define "living standards" solely on economic data and activity. To most people, its more than that. GDP per capita as a metric is not a great way to define living standards either - its not a measurement of standard of living or personal income but of national economic activity. People's real incomes and standards of living can be declining while GDP is increasing. And in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, international bankers making astronomical sums doesn't mean the average person there is better off. GDP doesnt make a distinction. If you take the Human Development Index, Singapore is only 26th (though I concede Australia scores very high in second place)

Again, check your facts. Both Scandinavia (heard of IKEA) and Australia (Rupert Murdoch). But in any case, you think it's wrong to have billionaires?

Also bear in mind US population is 300 million and China 1.4 billion.
Australia 20 million, Sweden 9 million, Denmark 5 million, Norway 5 million.
Which countries are more likely to have more billionaires?

I said it was harder - not impossible. And again, you are misinterpreting what I said. Where did I say its wrong to have billionaires? But mentioning a man who made his fortune in the UK and US and then globally and hasnt had his base of operation in Australia in over 35 years is not exactly a great example for those 15 billionaires still living and working in Australia. Forbes doesnt even list Murdoch as Australian anymore.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 08:53 PM
FDI means we're an open economy. It doesn't make us a libertarian country; it doesn't mean our government is a libertarian one. That's simply laughable. I made the point about natural resources to explain why our economy is so open to FDI and foreigners. It's certainly not because the government is interested in upholding libertarian principles.
Actually that's exactly what it means. An economy open to foreign trade and investment is free from government intervention. Lack of intervention is the heart of libertarianism. Again, check the definition.

Garson007
12-29-2011, 09:05 PM
Cripes, Jimnik, that's a bit one dimensional. A libertarian philosophy also believes in social freedoms. Social freedoms are not the same as economic freedoms. They're two completely different things. Politics is not unidimensional and neither is libertarianism.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:05 PM
1. If I accept what you're saying, it means my country's economy has been "booming" for the past 30-40 years.

2. You have no idea what you're saying, so let me tell you what it's like in Singapore because I actually live here. Housing prices have escalated astronomically over the past 5 years (again, this is a rough estimate) for various reasons, one of which is the government's various pro-foreigners policies that directly or indirectly have encouraged cash-rich foreigners, mainly people from China and Indonesia, to come in here and drive up property prices. This is a fact, easily attested to by the government's recent measures introduced to cool property prices in Singapore (which include, among other things, higher stamp duty rates for foreigners who buy private properties).

Yes, it has been booming for the last 30-40 years. Housing prices don't escalate in a receding economy. Encouraging cash rich foreigners is one of the benefits of libertarian policy. They invest and consume which stimulates the economy, creates jobs and generates wealth for locals. Rising prices are a side effect but infinitely better than recession and deflation. Your complaints about foreign investors driving up prices represent right-wing nationalistic policy, not libertarian.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:07 PM
Cripes, Jimnik, that's a bit one dimensional. A libertarian country also believe in social freedoms. Social freedoms are not the same as economic freedoms. They're two completely different things. Politics is not unidimensional and neither is libertarianism.
So what's your point? I also believe in social freedom, hence why I'm a libertarian not a republican. If Singapore have anti-social freedom laws then I'm against that but this is a discussion about economics and business which is probably the more important aspect of libertarianism.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:18 PM
Btw, making "I find it absolutely laughable" statements doesn't help your argument. A lot of misconceptions you've made on libertarianism are laughable.
3. I find it absolutely laughable that you seem to be insinuating that "cheap land" is something that I shouldn't care about. Another fact for you: one of the policies that the Singapore government has promoted since independence in 1965 is home ownership. It's a bedrock of Singaporean existence. There is nothing trivial about my concern about whether land is cheap here if I cannot afford a home for myself. It's pointless bringing up Zimbabwe - we're obviously way ahead of them in terms of development. There is also no logical trade-off between clean water and "cheap land" as you put it. It is perfectly reasonable for a citizen of any country to expect to be able to afford his own home. I'm not even talking about buying a huge bungalow in Nassim Road or a serviced apartment in town for S$23 million. I'm talking about how the average price of private property is easily over S$1.2 million and before the government stepped in, public housing (public housing) wasn't that far behind. We're not all millionaires here. I earn more than the average Singaporean but I still can't afford private property. In fact, my salary works against me too with regard to public housing (short version: income cap for married couples; preference given to married couples).
Well there's the difference between you and me. If you can't afford to buy a home, you don't deserve to own a home. It's a simple as that. You're gong to think I'm very harsh but I come from West London (highest property prices in Europe next to Monaco). We have tons of billionaire foreigners from Russia and the Middle-East driving up property prices in my neighbourhood. There are apartments two streets away from my home which go for £5million. It sucks I can't afford to own my own home (yet) but I'm not going to blame it on a lack of freedom. It's the reality of the world we live in. An economy is still better off with billionaires driving prices up than no billionaires at all.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:24 PM
4. FYI, I'm not the only Singaporean complaining about rising cost of living and rising housing prices. It was a hot topic of contention during the May general elections and contributed to the least resounding victory for the PAP in the elections. You can look this up - the Economist did a pretty solid piece on it.
I know, I watched it on Al Jazeera. I also saw many news clips of Singaporeans complaining about the gap between wealthy and poor. You can complain all you want but the economy is still better off with the foreign billionaires than without. Not just for the locals but the foreigners themselves. Again, I sound harsh, but I empathise with the foreign billionaires too.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:29 PM
Please, stop trying to educate me on my own country's "overall freedom". We're not North Korea but we're not exactly Taiwan either. FYI, there is no minimum wage in Singapore and there is no culture of trade unionism because it has been discouraged by the PAP government post-independence in order to reduce the frequency of strikes and attract MNCs to set up shop here. Not to mention income inequality has increased over the past few years (fuzzy on the exact stats but it's somewhere out there). It's also funny that you should mention property laws - we cannot have libertarian property laws because everything ultimately belongs to the government due to scarcity of land.

Is this what you mean by "libertarian"? Yes, we have an open economy that promotes free trade and FDI and second-rate foreigners coming in here and making it as CEOs. Sure, we are a democracy in name and we hold free and fair (this is debatable but for the purpose of this post let's just let it slide) elections once every five years. But that's about as far as it goes, and I sincerely hope you weren't arguing that Singapore is libertarian politically because it would show that you know absolutely nothing about my country.

Like I said in my previous post, whatever policies that the government has instituted to date to promote economic freedom isn't so much because they give a shit about individual liberty. It's all done in the name of pragmatism. Singapore, a small country with no natural resources, needed to find a way to survive in the world after we were kicked out of Malaysia in 1965. I definitely think it's great that my government has gotten it right so far, minus the past 5 years or so, because it means that I'm not living in poverty and we're better than Malaysia. But to use the word "libertarian" to describe my country is absolutely, absolutely laughable; to lump my country in the same category as Australia and Switzerland is just...let me put it kindly: you are being very kind to us. In fact, I find it cute that you seem convinced of your opinion. Tell that to any Singaporean with a working brain between his ears who doesn't blindly support the ruling party and he'd probably laugh in your face.
Everything you say here indicates libertarianism. Sorry to break it to you but no minimum wage, no trade unions, ease of access for foreigners - ALL LIBERTARIAN POLICIES.

Please, please, I beg you, check the definition before going any further.

scoobs
12-29-2011, 09:29 PM
So what's your point? I also believe in social freedom, hence why I'm a libertarian not a republican. If Singapore have anti-social freedom laws then I'm against that but this is a discussion about economics and business which is probably the more important aspect of libertarianism.
Clearly Singapore has a very laissez-faire approach to business and economic matters (mostly) but interferes much more in the social aspects of its citizens (and I'd argue about how economically libertarian it is to force your citizens to save 20% of their income).

But the social aspects of libertarianism cannot be divorced from the economic aspects and still be libertarian. I would argue that the social libertarian aspects are actually the most important ones - they're certainly the ones that seem to be the hardest to implement and are thus sacrificed while economic libertarianism is much more abundant.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:32 PM
Lastly, unless you are a PAP mole, there was no need to get defensive and rude. My original post was really just me ranting about my government. Maybe I shouldn't have used the :haha: smiley but I honestly find it hilarious whenever a foreigner tries to argue that Singapore is more liberal or libertarian than it really is (when in fact it is not at all). Then again, I guess it's true for them - Singapore is a great country to live in if you're a foreigner. Just don't vandalise any MRT trains or try to bring in drugs.
How was I rude?

Liberal and libertarian are two COMPLETELY separate philosophies. Please please check this out. I swear I'm not being defensive or rude. You simply don't understand the free market principles I'm arguing for.

scoobs
12-29-2011, 09:35 PM
In terms of the US Election, I read an article today echoing my sentiments that Obama should be viewed as a moderate/centrist Republican if anything and that's one reason the Republicans are struggling to find an authentic candidate who offers enough difference to Obama without coming off as entirely loopy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

As things stand, I suspect we're in for a re-run of 2008 with Obama getting a less decisive but ultimately comfortable win. Once again the Republicans cannot unite around a candidate who energizes enough of the respective bases at any one time and still seems credible to the swing voters.

The major wildcard in the 2012 cycle is the Super PACs formed as a result of Citizens United, and how much influence they are able to buy and how much they're able to swing individual races - these are likely to break heavily for the Republicans. Potentially if Ron Paul decides to run as an independent (he won't get the Republican nod) that could chuck a major spanner in the works too, but I doubt it.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:40 PM
Using my definition from google:

Libertarianism: An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.

Let me point out 7 reasons why Singapore does not fall in line with this definition.

1. No real freedom of speech, widespread censorship (and subsequently induced self-censorship). I believe Singapore ranked 136 on the Media freedom index 2010. (Behind Bangladesh, ZIMBABWE, Congo and IRAQ)
2. You can't protest, a gathering of more than 5 people in a public area (yes you read that right, 5 people) is technically an illegal gathering without a police permit if it is meant for a cause (even for charity)
3. Forced savings (as stated above)
4. Excessive "big brother" influence in daily lives (e.g. fines on everything from eating on public transport to spitting and a ban on chewing gum)
5. Dubious independence of the judicial system (multiple lawsuits bankrupting opposition and potential political opponents that would never stand anywhere else)
6. Internal Security Act (gives right for detention up to 2 years without probable cause)
7. Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses (granted they're annoying and non-mainstream) despite supposed religious freedom.

Libertarian does not solely refer to economic policies, that would make you more like a fiscal conservative.
I know I know. I'm sure there are tons of laws against social freedom. I'm against all of them (except the Jehovah Witness one).

Every country has random anti-social laws I don't agree with. The social side of freedom is almost impossible to measure since it's made up of entirely subjective laws, some of which infringe freedom more than others. The only aspect of libertarianism that can be quantifiably measured is the economic side which is why it's the only one I'm discussing.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 09:51 PM
Also Sweden doesn't have to cope with immigration???? Have you ever been there? Seriously one google search would have shown you that 25% of the population of Sweden is either foreign born or from a parent born abroad. They were extremely welcoming of refugees from the former Yugoslav republics and more recently from Iraq. Its started to cause visible tensions as elsewhere.
I already had this debate earlier in the year. Of the 25% foreign born, the vast majority are either from Finland, Norway, Denmark or other developed fully educated European origins. The immigrants I'm talking about are uneducated, unskilled labor from 3rd world countries. Sweden have about 40,000 Iraqis living in Stockholm and maybe a similar number from the old Yugoslavia. Firstly, this is not a major proportion of the population. Secondly, most of these workers are better skilled and educated than the African immigrants in UK, France, Italy and Spain. If you pay less to bring immigrants up to speed then it's less burden on the government and they can spend more on free healthcare.

rocketassist
12-29-2011, 09:55 PM
Obama needs to hold out long enough for when we kick the coalition out.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 10:04 PM
You said it. Denmark is a fantastic country. But again, its not libertarian. They just have made it easier to do business while maintaining a strong social safety net - which no true libertarian endorses. Certainly if you listen to the definition of libertarianism in the country we both live in, you'd think government had absolutely no value to add to society at all beyond maintaining an army.
Making it easier to do business is at the heart of libertarian policy. Yes, I already said taxes are too high which is why I did NOT call Denmark libertarian. But there are other factors which make it one of the most free market (libertarian) countries in the world.


No need to repeat what tripwires has written. Suffice it to say you define "living standards" solely on economic data and activity. To most people, its more than that. GDP per capita as a metric is not a great way to define living standards either - its not a measurement of standard of living or personal income but of national economic activity. People's real incomes and standards of living can be declining while GDP is increasing. And in the case of Singapore and Hong Kong, international bankers making astronomical sums doesn't mean the average person there is better off. GDP doesnt make a distinction. If you take the Human Development Index, Singapore is only 26th (though I concede Australia scores very high in second place)
No, GDP figures are not the be all end all measure of living standard. But they are the best most reliable unbiased quantifiable gauging of economic strength. There are many reasons why I trust it more than any other statistic.



I said it was harder - not impossible. And again, you are misinterpreting what I said. Where did I say its wrong to have billionaires? But mentioning a man who made his fortune in the UK and US and then globally and hasnt had his base of operation in Australia in over 35 years is not exactly a great example for those 15 billionaires still living and working in Australia. Forbes doesnt even list Murdoch as Australian anymore.
And I'm saying you're wrong. You didn't even address the fact that US has 15 times the population of Australia, which I already indicated. Hence total economy size and consumer power will allow businesses to be bigger and make more money. If Australia had population 300 million, it would equal America on billionaires.

Jimnik
12-29-2011, 10:06 PM
This is fun. Finally got people giving me coherent (ish) counter-arguments. I love the off-season. :bounce:

orangehat
12-30-2011, 02:03 AM
I know I know. I'm sure there are tons of laws against social freedom. I'm against all of them (except the Jehovah Witness one).

Every country has random anti-social laws I don't agree with. The social side of freedom is almost impossible to measure since it's made up of entirely subjective laws, some of which infringe freedom more than others. The only aspect of libertarianism that can be quantifiably measured is the economic side which is why it's the only one I'm discussing.

How is that fair? Say Mugabe's Zimbabwe had economic policies similar to that of HK/Singapore/Switzerland. Does that make them "libertarian" because we can't compare the social side and we could only compare the economic policies, hence they would be "similarly libertarian"?

Granted, I'm using an extreme example in the form of Zimbabwe but you get my drift.

Back on topic: I feel like if I were to be voting in this election I would be "forced", rather than willingly voting for obama. A lot of my friends and I are the same .. we're not liberal/lefties in any sense of the word but we would be in the US simply because we are anti-conservative. And I think in all senses thats the best way to put it now - anticonservative - because the entire balance of US politics has swung so far right that it is ridiculous.

There are many policies that I either don't agree with Obama on or feel that he is not doing enough on but the alternative is simply so horrendous that anything Obama does would be better than it.

Jimnik
12-30-2011, 03:41 AM
How is that fair? Say Mugabe's Zimbabwe had economic policies similar to that of HK/Singapore/Switzerland. Does that make them "libertarian" because we can't compare the social side and we could only compare the economic policies, hence they would be "similarly libertarian"?

Granted, I'm using an extreme example in the form of Zimbabwe but you get my drift.
You're right, it's not fair. A country can be economically free but socially repressed. That's certainly not libertarian. But like I said, there's no way to quantifiably measure social freedom. It's impossible for me to compare unless I've actually experienced what it's like to live in the country.

100% fairness is impossible.

tripwires
12-30-2011, 08:03 AM
You're right, it's not fair. A country can be economically free but socially repressed. That's certainly not libertarian. But like I said, there's no way to quantifiably measure social freedom. It's impossible for me to compare unless I've actually experienced what it's like to live in the country.

100% fairness is impossible.

Jimnik you're confusing me. You make this statement and call Singapore libertarian at the same time, but only in terms of the Singapore economy. There seems to be a contradiction here. Maybe it would help if you posted your definition of 'libertarianism'.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm operating on this one:

Libertarianism has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the basic moral principle of society. In the broadest sense, it is any political philosophy which approximates this view. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating strict limits to government activity and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.

(from our trusty Wikipedia)

Singapore definitely fails on the first bolded part. Maximising liberty and political freedom? No chance in hell. From a purely economic perspective, I am willing to concede that our open and trade-friendly economy gives an appearance of libertarianism. But it's probably most accurate to say that Singapore has a free market economy without going into the philosophy underpinning the said free market and attributing libertarianism to a government that probably doesn't use it as its guiding principle. Seriously, it's giving the PAP government too much credit. It has never been a libertarian government and it is currently not one.



Well there's the difference between you and me. If you can't afford to buy a home, you don't deserve to own a home. It's a simple as that. You're gong to think I'm very harsh but I come from West London (highest property prices in Europe next to Monaco). We have tons of billionaire foreigners from Russia and the Middle-East driving up property prices in my neighbourhood. There are apartments two streets away from my home which go for £5million. It sucks I can't afford to own my own home (yet) but I'm not going to blame it on a lack of freedom. It's the reality of the world we live in. An economy is still better off with billionaires driving prices up than no billionaires at all.

I think you missed the crux of what I was saying. My point about escalating property prices was in response to your post about Singapore having a high standard of living. The point that I raised essentially relates to how being ranked #13 (I think it was) on the standard of living list doesn't quite translate to actual reality because cost of living in Singapore has escalated over the past 5 years or so.

I agree with your second sentence insofar as it relates to private property - I don't, and won't, advocate government subsidies for individuals who want to own private property. That said, the problem that many Singaporeans face has to be taken in its context. We are a small country. There is no clear city/suburb demarcation save for a few parts of Singapore. Save for the high-end parts of Singapore, the price of a private condominium (which is getting smaller in size for whatever reason) is pretty much comparable throughout the rest of the country. I live in a part of Singapore that is quite far from the city centre and new developments around my area easily go for S$1.5 million at least. This was unheard of 5, 10 years ago. And this is clearly a problem which even the government recognises, which is why it stepped in recently and introduced price cooling measures.

Second, the government has a responsibility to ensure that public housing is affordable for its citizens. The PAP government, in fact, has a vested interest in ensuring this because of its emphasis on home ownership (not land, by the way - no one really owns land here) as opposed to home rentals. If it wants Singaporeans to have a stake in a country - which it does - then it has to make public housing affordable for Singaporeans. Before the elections this year, the price of public housing was practically pegged to that of private property. I don't know how it works in other countries but for me, that was absolutely ridiculous. Again, I emphasise that this point relates to Singapore's high standard of living and not not having enough freedom.

Regarding the point about foreigners - what you said works in theory, but in reality the Gini coefficient for Singapore has increased over the past 10 years or so and is one of the highest among developed countries. Clearly, the Singapore economy has benefited from the influx of foreigners, but it has not translated to a proportionate distribution of wealth on the ground. Conversely, guess whose salaries are pegged to GDP growth, among other things? The Cabinet ministers. Would you call this libertarian? I don't know, as a Singaporean I've never felt like the government cared too much about my individual liberty.

Last question: Have you ever lived here?

fast_clay
12-30-2011, 03:26 PM
:speakles:

wow... you have a clear head...

allpro
12-30-2011, 06:14 PM
barring any major scandals or controversies, i think it'll be obama vs romney. as to who wins, that depends on the economy and unemployment level in about 9-10 months from now.

allpro
12-30-2011, 06:48 PM
....and both are excellent debaters so i expect some lively, intelligent debate. but romney has to pick a moderate, non-polarizing vp candidate to win the general election (i.e. no to santorum, religious right-wingers, etc.).

Stensland
12-30-2011, 07:16 PM
why would he need to pick a moderate? after all, romney himself is getting flak from the right due to his (according to limbaugh, hannity and the likes) centrist stance on many issues.

i think his presidential campaign will probably look a little like mccain 08: in order to calm the far out radicals, chances are advisors might propose some sort of palinesque vp. romney's got the business credentials just like mccain had the political and military credentials, but both their street creds are a joke.

if romney becomes the nominee, watch out for a major appeasement move.

buddyholly
12-30-2011, 07:46 PM
....and both are excellent debaters so i expect some lively, intelligent debate. but romney has to pick a moderate, non-polarizing vp candidate to win the general election (i.e. no to santorum, religious right-wingers, etc.).

Christie is campaigning with him today. Maybe a sign?

Stensland
12-30-2011, 07:51 PM
christie makes sense in a way as he brings in the giuliani-coulter crowd (who are heavily opposed to romney), but then again there's quite an overlap. both christie and romney speak to the fiscal, monetary side of the republican party, but neither can tap into the whole bible belt reservoir in the south and the midwest.

if i was a christie advisor, i'd tell him to strengthen his game, lose a couple of pounds and give it a hell of a go in 2016. on his own. he's just gonna get burned next year, better skip the mess.

Stensland
12-30-2011, 08:04 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70957.html

Super PACs go stealth through first contests

Super PACs spending millions of dollars on the brutal ads shaping the GOP presidential primary have taken advantage in the past few weeks of a pair of loopholes that will let them keep their donors secret until after votes are cast in the first four big contests

super pacs are simply fascinating.

ibreak4coffee
12-30-2011, 08:43 PM
christie makes sense in a way as he brings in the giuliani-coulter crowd (who are heavily opposed to romney), but then again there's quite an overlap. both christie and romney speak to the fiscal, monetary side of the republican party, but neither can tap into the whole bible belt reservoir in the south and the midwest.

if i was a christie advisor, i'd tell him to strengthen his game, lose a couple of pounds and give it a hell of a go in 2016. on his own. he's just gonna get burned next year, better skip the mess.

There are plenty of people who are genuinely concerned that Christie's body wouldn't be able to withstand the necessary campaigning for President. VP suits him better. They do overlap, except that he's a darling of the Tea Party whereas Mitt will never win them over.

Stensland
12-30-2011, 10:01 PM
yeah he got the tea party crowd behind him, no doubt, but mostly the fiscal conervative part of it. i'm not sure about the bible folks. so far romney comes off like he doesn't really wanna meddle with all the religious issues at hand, ceding the momentum to underdogs like santorum. mormonism might be too weird for "regular" christians to cope with and christie certainly doesn't offer anything inherently christian, he's never focused on stuff like that.

this is why a romney/christie ticket doesn't make sense to me. christie might be eyeing some other job, like secretary of commerce. that i could get on board with. secretary of labor would be fun as well, given his frequent union rants. :D

orangehat
12-31-2011, 01:44 AM
The religious crazies down south will never vote for obama anyway :shrug:

They will tick(or cross?) that republican box as long as human beings are on the ticket, some would probably check it even if non-humans were on there.

ibreak4coffee
12-31-2011, 03:44 AM
The religious crazies down south will never vote for obama anyway :shrug:

They will tick(or cross?) that republican box as long as human beings are on the ticket, some would probably check it even if non-humans were on there.

Obama doesn't need the deep South to win. But there are plenty of Tea Party "patriots" in the most important swing states - i.e. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio - and they are very vocal in the Southwest and Mountain states too - states Obama simply has to carry to win re-election.

Jimnik
12-31-2011, 04:00 AM
Jimnik you're confusing me. You make this statement and call Singapore libertarian at the same time, but only in terms of the Singapore economy. There seems to be a contradiction here. Maybe it would help if you posted your definition of 'libertarianism'.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm operating on this one:


(from our trusty Wikipedia)

Singapore definitely fails on the first bolded part. Maximising liberty and political freedom? No chance in hell. From a purely economic perspective, I am willing to concede that our open and trade-friendly economy gives an appearance of libertarianism. But it's probably most accurate to say that Singapore has a free market economy without going into the philosophy underpinning the said free market and attributing libertarianism to a government that probably doesn't use it as its guiding principle. Seriously, it's giving the PAP government too much credit. It has never been a libertarian government and it is currently not one.
Fair enough, I would totally concede Singapore is not libertarian when it comes to social issues. Indeed I'm only concerned with the economic aspect for now. But you're right for true libertarianism the social side is equally important.


I think you missed the crux of what I was saying. My point about escalating property prices was in response to your post about Singapore having a high standard of living. The point that I raised essentially relates to how being ranked #13 (I think it was) on the standard of living list doesn't quite translate to actual reality because cost of living in Singapore has escalated over the past 5 years or so.
Yes, I understand what you mean. We have a similar problem in London because property prices are so high that retailers have to charge customers more to afford rent. All goods and services become more expensive reducing consumer purchasing power. This is why economists use two different GDP figures: one for OER (official exchange rate) and one for PPP (purchasing power parity). I think the latter measures quality of living based on the goods and services the locals can afford due to variations in price.


I agree with your second sentence insofar as it relates to private property - I don't, and won't, advocate government subsidies for individuals who want to own private property. That said, the problem that many Singaporeans face has to be taken in its context. We are a small country. There is no clear city/suburb demarcation save for a few parts of Singapore. Save for the high-end parts of Singapore, the price of a private condominium (which is getting smaller in size for whatever reason) is pretty much comparable throughout the rest of the country. I live in a part of Singapore that is quite far from the city centre and new developments around my area easily go for S$1.5 million at least. This was unheard of 5, 10 years ago. And this is clearly a problem which even the government recognises, which is why it stepped in recently and introduced price cooling measures.

Second, the government has a responsibility to ensure that public housing is affordable for its citizens. The PAP government, in fact, has a vested interest in ensuring this because of its emphasis on home ownership (not land, by the way - no one really owns land here) as opposed to home rentals. If it wants Singaporeans to have a stake in a country - which it does - then it has to make public housing affordable for Singaporeans. Before the elections this year, the price of public housing was practically pegged to that of private property. I don't know how it works in other countries but for me, that was absolutely ridiculous. Again, I emphasise that this point relates to Singapore's high standard of living and not not having enough freedom.

Regarding the point about foreigners - what you said works in theory, but in reality the Gini coefficient for Singapore has increased over the past 10 years or so and is one of the highest among developed countries. Clearly, the Singapore economy has benefited from the influx of foreigners, but it has not translated to a proportionate distribution of wealth on the ground. Conversely, guess whose salaries are pegged to GDP growth, among other things? The Cabinet ministers. Would you call this libertarian? I don't know, as a Singaporean I've never felt like the government cared too much about my individual liberty.
I understand what you say. It can be very frustrating to see housing prices in your own country rise so much because of foreign investors. But I just can't condone the policy of public housing to protect true Singapore born citizens. This is very right wing protectionist mentality which goes against libertarian principles. If the government really owns all the property, I strongly disagree with that and I would admit this is not libertarian.

Unfortunately the rise in Gini coefficient is a common side effect of libertarian policy. It causes instability which is why libertarianism rarely survives in democratic nations. Voters always fight against inequality so, even though it boosts median wealth, there's always an element of resentment towards the wealthiest 20% who benefit the most. I hate this resentment from both a moral and economic standpoint but, alas, that's human nature.

I can sort of understand cabinet ministers salaries being pegged to GDP. They should logically be rewarded if they do their job right and the economy booms. They should also be penalised for mistakes which cause recession. It's kind of similar to the policy of performance bonuses and incentives to employees of companies. I'm not sure if it's libertarian but it sounds reasonable, to be honest, even though I can see why voters get angry when cost of living rises and ministers are being rewarded for it.


Last question: Have you ever lived here?
Nope, never. Have a few friends from Singapore but that's the extent of my personal experience. Like I said, I'm basing my opinion on the research I've done into economic policies of various countries. Experts (economists and businessmen) agree that Singapore is more libertarian than most when it comes to ECONOMIC policy. But obviously you know more than me what life is really like for the average citizen. I'm sorry I sound arrogant, like I'm lecturing you about your own country which puts me way out of line, but it's the principle of libertarianism I'm defending here. Despite everything you've told me, Singapore sounds like a good example why something close-to-libertarianism works.

RafaNadal2012!!!
12-31-2011, 05:07 PM
Ron Paul. Simple.

orangehat
01-01-2012, 05:33 AM
Obama doesn't need the deep South to win. But there are plenty of Tea Party "patriots" in the most important swing states - i.e. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio - and they are very vocal in the Southwest and Mountain states too - states Obama simply has to carry to win re-election.

Yea but my question is, doesn't the fact that they are tea party "patriots" mean they are inherently fated to vote against obama anyway? No matter what candidate the GOP comes up with, they will surely be more "small government" and "responsible spending" than obama, whatever the hell that means.

I don't understand why Romney winning would affect that fact.

Stensland
01-01-2012, 05:58 AM
Yea but my question is, doesn't the fact that they are tea party "patriots" mean they are inherently fated to vote against obama anyway?

they might just not show up at all. lots of them are lazy fucks who need to get riled up in order to move their asses off the couch.

Stensland
01-01-2012, 06:06 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70977.html

Mitt Romney's campaign: The monotonous march

romney seems like he's the only pro in a field of hapless amateurs. speaks volumes that being pro alone will do it this time. what a sad campaign, even fox news anchors like cavuto or ingraham look bored.

orangehat
01-01-2012, 07:36 AM
they might just not show up at all. lots of them are lazy fucks who need to get riled up in order to move their asses off the couch.

Yeah someone told me that too but it feels weird to me :lol:

I am much more likely to vote in a messy shoot-out then one where there are clear cut candidates :lol:

atennisfan
01-01-2012, 02:38 PM
Did someone just give Singapore as an example for libertarianism?

LOL.

You cannot even put singapore and liberty in the same paragraph.

Also, even if you only mean economically, there are many more apt countries to fit more, such as SAR Hong Kong.

atennisfan
01-01-2012, 02:43 PM
Also, you cannot take singapore to compare with countries such as USA. It just doesn't compare.

You compare economic freedom of Singapore with that in NYC.
Singapore is that small.
It is far easier to manage a city, than a millions kilometre square country.

atennisfan
01-01-2012, 02:45 PM
Also, without its resources rich neighbors of Indonesia and Malaysia who stuffed their money in singapore, no way singapore could have been as successful as it is now.
Singapore attracted multinationals who do business in the region because it is the least corrupt country and the most stable and most predictable. Not because of its libertarian economy lol.

atennisfan
01-01-2012, 02:58 PM
Ron Paul for president!

buddyholly
01-01-2012, 04:18 PM
they might just not show up at all. lots of them are lazy fucks who need to get riled up in order to move their asses off the couch.

How many have you met?

ibreak4coffee
01-01-2012, 06:08 PM
Yea but my question is, doesn't the fact that they are tea party "patriots" mean they are inherently fated to vote against obama anyway? No matter what candidate the GOP comes up with, they will surely be more "small government" and "responsible spending" than obama, whatever the hell that means.

I don't understand why Romney winning would affect that fact.

Turnout wins US elections - Obama turned out a ridiculous amount of the Democratic base in 2008 (and expanded it) but that won't happen again. There are plenty of disillusioned liberals who are going to stay home, forgetting how frustrated they were under Bush, thinking somehow the country would have been better off with Hillary as President (a notion I find utterly ridiculous). Conversely there are plenty of conservatives who stayed home in 2008 who are going to come out in greater numbers than 2012 to vote against Obama. Independents are still up for grabs but not nearly as enthusiastic for Obama as 4 years ago. They will play a key role in this election, however - its going to come down not to the popular vote but the Electoral College vote - where the election of a perceived moderate - or at least more experienced - Republican candidate becomes important.

Its true about 30% of the US population would never vote for Obama. But a similar number exists on the other side that would never vote for a Republican candidate. The minor difference is that the "liberal" base is generally more concentrated in various big states (on the coasts) that aren't swing states by any stretch. They are growing in other key states for Obama though - Colorado, New Mexico for example - and therefore his ability to turn out his 30% is going to be critical. If the Republicans put a ticket together, however, without a flame thrower it won't be as easy for the Obama team to turn out his base (and younger voters) like they did in 2008. And influence of the Tea Party also peaked about a year ago - they are still important but not as much as they were.

Of course lots can happen in the next 11 months, but while you should never underestimate the advantages of incumbency, there are issues the Obama team will need to address and they become harder to address if you're running against Romney than against say Bachmann or Gingrich.

Mjau!
01-01-2012, 09:48 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70977.html



romney seems like he's the only pro in a field of hapless amateurs. speaks volumes that being pro alone will do it this time. what a sad campaign, even fox news anchors like cavuto or ingraham look bored.

This :silly: is a professional?

uHSfnqho2jw

:o

Newt Gingrich vs Ron Paul On Predicting The Economic Collapse :yeah:

dh4VFRx7ra0

Tb5aGgQXhXo

More of the same (you can skip the first 3 minutes):

VTDbr4BqsiE

American democracy :worship:

v7saPfv9Vrc

RafaNadal2012!!!
01-03-2012, 12:02 AM
This :silly: is a professional?

uHSfnqho2jw

:o

Newt Gingrich vs Ron Paul On Predicting The Economic Collapse :yeah:

dh4VFRx7ra0



More of the same (you can skip the first 3 minutes):

VTDbr4BqsiE

American democracy :worship:

v7saPfv9Vrc

didn't realize you were a truther? Alex Jones?

I love Ron Paul. He will win Iowa, and nomination, and presidency. By far best candidate for real much needed Change

Jimnik
01-03-2012, 12:57 AM
America doesn't need too much change, especially from an economic perspective. But Ron Paul is the only candidate I'd trust to make changes.

buddyholly
01-03-2012, 01:28 AM
I love Ron Paul. He will win Iowa, and nomination, and presidency. By far best candidate for real much needed Change

He may well be finished tomorrow.
Today he called far right candidate Santorum a liberal by comparison. Wow, I didn't know libertarianism was far, far right.

habibko
01-03-2012, 02:20 AM
LRA3BX-49xc

:lol:

Jimnik
01-04-2012, 03:29 AM
Almost all votes counted:

Romney 25%
Santorum 25%
Paul 21%
Gingrich 13%
Perry 10%
Bachmann 5%


Still a few to go...

Stensland
01-04-2012, 03:37 AM
what an unbelievable finish by santorum. couple of days ago he was polling inthe single digits!

people must really hate romney. no matter how much cash he throws at them, hardly anything sticks. ads, townhall meetings, faux romneymania all over the place, super pacs destroying the opposition, yet he's gonna leave iowa as a sad fuck.

Jimnik
01-04-2012, 03:43 AM
Indeed. According to BBC Romn€y out$pent Santorum 50-1. Unbelievable.

Stensland
01-04-2012, 03:47 AM
that must be some kind of record. did you watch gingrich address his folks? man, was he pissed.

i have a feeling the candidates are gonna gang up on romney in the coming weeks. gingrich won't go easy.

buddyholly
01-04-2012, 04:31 AM
what an unbelievable finish by santorum. couple of days ago he was polling inthe single digits!

people must really hate romney. no matter how much cash he throws at them, hardly anything sticks. ads, townhall meetings, faux romneymania all over the place, super pacs destroying the opposition, yet he's gonna leave iowa as a sad fuck.

Why would you say that about the winner? I think I detect bias. Next he wins New hampshire in a landslide.

Tomorrow when everyone Googles "Santorum'' he will plummet. Try it and see, if you don't already know.

Stensland
01-04-2012, 04:40 AM
so you believe romney feels like he's won this thing?

Jimnik
01-04-2012, 05:22 AM
that must be some kind of record. did you watch gingrich address his folks? man, was he pissed.

i have a feeling the candidates are gonna gang up on romney in the coming weeks. gingrich won't go easy.
Yea, Gingrich was being stupid. He complains about negative campaigning and then delivers the most angry negative speech of all. Even Michelle Bachmann, by far the biggest loser, stayed happy and positive.

I'm not particularly fond of Santorum but got to respect the campaign he ran. Put in more hours and hard work than any of them. He deserves his victory.

Junkyard Racket
01-04-2012, 06:59 AM
Mitt Romney wins the Iowa caucus by just 8 votes. :eek:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GOP_CAMPAIGN?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=

fast_clay
01-04-2012, 07:34 AM
fair play to santorum...

buddyholly
01-04-2012, 12:44 PM
Ron Paul now saying he is not responsible for posts on his Twitter account. Sound familiar?

He certainly doesn't have a "The Buck Stops Here'' plaque on his desk. More like a hot potato.

buddyholly
01-04-2012, 12:47 PM
so you believe romney feels like he's won this thing?

Well, the others are on a roller coaster of popularity, while Romney stays steady. I think this will tell in the end.

scoobs
01-04-2012, 01:32 PM
Given Romney won the state with minimal on the ground effort from him until the last month or so and a splurge of late cash on advertising, over a guy who has been ground pounding for nearly a year, the length and breadth of the state and has recently had his own turn on the poll surge merry-go-round, is revelatory.

Santorum will still likely finish nowhere in New Hampshire, while Romney will probably run away with it.

One can only hope Gingrich and other stick around for a while lobbing grenades but it seems like Romney's to lose - he may even wrap it up on Super Tuesday. Republicans may have to hold their noses to do it but it seems they want a credible candidate to face Obama in November.

Mae
01-04-2012, 02:18 PM
Sadly a lot of the time in the U.S. the Republicans don't seem to have a credible candidate :sad:

Pirata.
01-04-2012, 03:25 PM
Bachmann :wavey:

Jimnik
01-04-2012, 09:18 PM
Full results from Iowa:

Mitt Romney 30,015 24.6%
Rick Santorum 30,007 24.5%
Ron Paul 26,219 21.4%
Newt Gingrich 16,251 13.3%
Rick Perry 12,604 10.3%


8 votes difference = 0.025% = 1/4,000

buddyholly
01-04-2012, 09:20 PM
INTRADE, an Irish betting company, puts Romney at 80% certain to be nominated, followed by Gingrich at 6%.

Irish betters picked the winner of 48 0f 50 states in the last presidential election and a mind-boggling 50 of 50 in the election before that. This race is over.

Irish betters know where to put their v-cash.

Jimnik
01-04-2012, 09:28 PM
Forget bookies, here's the Betfair market:

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=100982378&ex=1&origin=MRL

Romney 1.32
Santorum 17
Gingrich 17.5
Paul 26
Huntsman 29


Indeed, Romney is heavy favourite. I'm surprised Paul is so far behind and Huntsman didn't even get a result in Iowa.

buddyholly
01-04-2012, 09:45 PM
Forget bookies, here's the Betfair market:

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=100982378&ex=1&origin=MRL

Romney 1.32
Santorum 17
Gingrich 17.5
Paul 26
Huntsman 29


Indeed, Romney is heavy favourite. I'm surprised Paul is so far behind and Huntsman didn't even get a result in Iowa.

I thought Betfair was bookies.

Huntsman was not running in Iowa.

ibreak4coffee
01-04-2012, 09:58 PM
As long as Huntsman's bet on New Hampshire doesn't succeed, Romney will be the nominee. This has always been the case, media circus aside.

Its pretty amazing though that despite all the publicity, front runner status etc... Romney can't break the 25% barrier.

I'll miss the comedy aspect only Bachmann could provide to the campaign.

Jimnik put it very well on Grigrich's hypocrisy - guy comes out with as negative a speech as you could make after weeks of calling for civility in the campaign. Not sure why he thinks at this stage that's going to work.

I don't think Obama lost a minute of sleep last night.

Black Adam
01-04-2012, 10:37 PM
Ron Paul has to run as an Independent. It will succeed once people realize Obama and Romney are the same.

Jimnik
01-05-2012, 12:14 AM
There's no doubt Ron Paul is the odd one out in these debates, especially foreign policy. In Iowa, the Fox moderator labelled him more left-wing than Obama on the issue of Iran.

He'll run as Libertarian, Romney as Republican and Obama will win.

ibreak4coffee
01-05-2012, 01:39 AM
It will succeed once people realize Obama and Romney are the same.

:rolleyes:

That 16 hour time difference has clearly clouded your judgement. Or else you think this makes you sound smart - it doesnt.

Jimnik
01-05-2012, 03:55 AM
According to the markets, Del Potro has a better chance of winning the AO than Ron Paul has of winning the primary.

He should forget this republican nonsense and stand for his true party.

Jimnik
01-05-2012, 04:54 AM
Latest New Hampshire poll:

Romney 43%
Paul 16%
Huntsman 10%
Gingrich 9%
Santorum 5%
Perry 2%
Bachmann 2%
undecided 13%


http://www.suffolk.edu/50457.html

Stensland
01-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Well, the others are on a roller coaster of popularity, while Romney stays steady. I think this will tell in the end.

i know romney is gonna be the eventual nominee, i've stated that all along. but still, accepting john mccain was probably a harder task for the right-wing than accepting mitt romney - which is quite something. i smell a "rejuventating the campaign fire" like in 2008, some kneejerk reaction to talk radio ripping him a new one.

buddyholly
01-05-2012, 01:54 PM
Someone on TV just described Romney as a robot, marching slowly forward to the nomination at a steady pace, oblivious to everything that is going on around him. Sounds about right.

I am having a problem now with why Ron Paul is popular with university students and also with the Tea Party. That seems wrong.

shiaben
01-05-2012, 05:30 PM
Someone on TV just described Romney as a robot, marching slowly forward to the nomination at a steady pace, oblivious to everything that is going on around him. Sounds about right.

I am having a problem now with why Ron Paul is popular with university students and also with the Tea Party. That seems wrong.

Of course its wrong to you, you'd rather have the other war mongers in the Republican side become elected, perhaps if not, to have the current war monger Obama, become re-elected.

Jimnik
01-05-2012, 06:14 PM
It's very simple. Under Ron Paul, everyone wins.

University students want to legalize drugs and end the Afghan war.
Tea Party want economic freedom.

Libertarianism - you can't beat it. :rocker:

buddyholly
01-05-2012, 06:58 PM
Of course its wrong to you, you'd rather have the other war mongers in the Republican side become elected, perhaps if not, to have the current war monger Obama, become re-elected.

Thank you for telling me what I think. Did you post any opinions of Obama back before he was president? Of course you could always do a RonPaul and say they had nothing to do with you.

buddyholly
01-05-2012, 07:02 PM
It's very simple. Under Ron Paul, everyone wins.

University students want to legalize drugs and end the Afghan war.
Tea Party want economic freedom.

Libertarianism - you can't beat it. :rocker:Well that would make sense until the guy goes on TV and in answer to a question about nasty tweets on his Twitter account, looks blankly at the interviewer and, on being pressed, eventually says he knows nothing about tweets on his account. The man's ability to ignore things that he does, as if denying them is the end of the matter, is unsettling to me. Responsibility is not a word he seems to be familiar with.

Regenbogen
01-05-2012, 10:23 PM
Well, the others are on a roller coaster of popularity, while Romney stays steady. I think this will tell in the end.

I agree, and it's quite disappointing as Romney just seems so boring. I mean, I probably ought to hope for serious campaigns where everyone behaves rationally but this is American politics and I want to enjoy the show (from a safe distance) :p

As for Ron Paul, unless he magically wins the nomination then it's just going to be the same people talking about him, having the same conversation over and over about costs vs benefits of a theoretical Ron Paul presidency which is never going to happen.

Black Adam
01-05-2012, 10:54 PM
Would Paul run as an Independent?

Mjau!
01-06-2012, 02:01 AM
Tb5aGgQXhXo

soHAOVZzXtA

:lol:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/05/hot_mic_at_pentagon_presser_catches_reporter_see_t his_room_two-thirds_of_us_laid-off_when_ron_paul_is_president.html#.TwYP1wLOwhc.f acebook

Equal Time? Romney Records One Quarter of Face Time at New Hampshire Debate
By Eric Ostermeier on October 12, 2011

Time Allotted to Republican Presidential Candidates During the Last Three Debates
Candidate

% FL 1

% FL 2

% NH 2

Total time

Romney

15.8

19.9

25.0

41 min. 9 sec.

Perry

20.0

16.8

14.1

34 min. 12 sec.

Bachmann

12.5

10.5

12.3

23 min. 59 sec.

Huntsman

11.3

12.7

8.6

21 min. 47 sec.

Cain

8.1

10.7

12.5

21 min. 6 sec.

Gingrich

11.1

9.8

9.7

20 min. 41 sec.

Santorum

10.4

12.0

8.5

20 min. 38 sec.

Paul

10.7

7.7

9.2

18 min. 47 sec.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/10/equal_time_romney_records_one.php

In case you wonder why Romney is the favourite.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150654687098574&set=a.10150622327538574.491087.828988573&type=1

Mjau!
01-06-2012, 02:08 AM
zGDisyWkIBM

Jimnik
01-06-2012, 06:19 AM
Prophet Paul - you are the chosen one. :bowdown:

Stensland
01-06-2012, 06:40 AM
you should buy that "ron paul revolution" sweater, jimmy. :D

Jimnik
01-06-2012, 06:28 PM
Indeed, soon as I get back to freezing Kansas. Also need the car sticker.

Would do anything for republicans to hold a debate here after Super Tuesday.

Har-Tru
01-06-2012, 09:39 PM
zGDisyWkIBM

I have to say that last quote from Paul is outstanding.

Jimnik
01-07-2012, 04:50 AM
zGDisyWkIBM
I'm going to ram this video down every republican throat if I have to.

Stensland
01-07-2012, 05:49 AM
what a fucking speech that is! while i don't believe his policies would do the world any good, paul is certainly the most interesting political figure i've come across in my whole life.

Jimnik
01-07-2012, 05:38 PM
Rainy, are you in favor of the Afghan war? The Iraq war? Guantanamo Bay? The currency war?

Prophet Paul wants to end it all. You of all people should love what he wants to do to the world.

fast_clay
01-07-2012, 06:53 PM
zGDisyWkIBM

thanks... great stuff from yoda here...

fast_clay
01-07-2012, 07:10 PM
i also find it beautifully ironic that the voice of reason that fully counters the global warmongering which has been endorsed by a notable few arrives from the very same state...

fast_clay
01-07-2012, 08:20 PM
cnn's shenanigans have really amazed me in recent months...

P_AQnegSXMw

Garson007
01-07-2012, 08:24 PM
BrhA0sEkuaM

buddyholly
01-07-2012, 08:28 PM
cnn's shenanigans have really amazed me in recent months...

P_AQnegSXMw

Incredibly stupid of CNN to go to Paul's HQ, find a soldier who just voted for Paul and then panic when he said something favourable about Paul? Heads will roll.

buddyholly
01-07-2012, 08:31 PM
BrhA0sEkuaM

Will Canadians be able to vote?

Garson007
01-07-2012, 08:49 PM
Rand has a better chance of becoming president in the future than his father will ever have.

I do however think that Ron Paul would be an interesting experiment. I don't agree with him on many things, but as an outsider it can't /really/ harm me. My scientific curiosity is at the very least piqued.

Gagsquet
01-07-2012, 09:08 PM
Pretty interesting race, for the second place though.

buddyholly
01-07-2012, 09:11 PM
It will depend on the flavour of the day each time there is a primary. People are running from one to the other because they like nobody.I am beginning to think Huntsman is the only possible ''statesman'' among them.

fast_clay
01-07-2012, 09:38 PM
Rand has a better chance of becoming president in the future than his father will ever have.

I do however think that Ron Paul would be an interesting experiment. I don't agree with him on many things, but as an outsider it can't /really/ harm me. My scientific curiosity is at the very least piqued.

yeah... i have a few sticking points of paul's that don't sit right with me... but, that's not the point as we are not looking for jesus - the perfect candidate just does not exist...

the job for voters is to correlate as many of the policies and stances of a candidate with the ills and strengths of a nations as they can...

this is where paul gets it for me right here... notwithstanding that he can encompass every issue at the drop of a hat effortlessly, and has done for decades...

on another note, i find it amusing in the extreme that the fear that was brought to the states by islamic extremists is the same fear that is now being employed by those in control upon the general population... bin laden is laughing right now at the erosion of civil liberties in the states 10 years down the road... being able to be thrown in jail indefinitely without access to a lawyer is not really in line with how a constitution was formed in order to build a great nation in the name of freedom...

the answers are in the constitution, as the theme of war and monetary freedom are the basis of it... and so what a perfect article from which to draw on when you have lost your way... right...?

fighting fear with more needless fear is a cycle with no end - except for the end that creates a greater cycle that includes more lives... freedom is the only way to combat fear... war is to be declared through systematically identifying a target - not a tool used at the drop of a hat to gain extras figures come polling time...

fast_clay
01-07-2012, 09:48 PM
Incredibly stupid of CNN to go to Paul's HQ, find a soldier who just voted for Paul and then panic when he said something favourable about Paul? Heads will roll.

massive f**k up indeed... interviewer didn't shape the dialogue as required :lol: didn't ask closed questions to a comparative noob... :facepalm:

a f**k up made tenfold bigger when paul turns cnn over completely by getting that very soldier out in a rally...

2lNbiIdraso

Jimnik
01-07-2012, 10:57 PM
yeah... i have a few sticking points of paul's that don't sit right with me... but, that's not the point as we are not looking for jesus - the perfect candidate just does not exist...

the job for voters is to correlate as many of the policies and stances of a candidate with the ills and strengths of a nations as they can...
For sure, I'm a libertarian and even I don't condone everything he stands for. But 90% agreement with a politician occurs once a decade.

In Europe once every 20 years if I'm lucky.

Johnny Groove
01-08-2012, 12:01 AM
After the Republicans choose Romney is when the real fun starts.

Jimnik
01-08-2012, 12:36 AM
New Hampshire debate starts in 20 minutes. Hopefully all six candidates will be present.

emotion
01-08-2012, 01:41 AM
Anyone else watching?
I'll be a couple months short of being able to vote though :(

noddzy
01-08-2012, 02:07 AM
Watching the debate- Ron Paul and John Huntsman are the only reasonable people on the forum (though I am far from being a Ron Paul fan). Rick Perry and Santorum actually want to send *back* troops to Iraq. WTF ?!

emotion
01-08-2012, 02:14 AM
Paul's views vary from incredible to insane (from a liberal point of view)
Huntsman would be an okay president. So would the real Romney, rather than the campaign one.
The word "fundamentally" has been used at least 10 times between Romney and Gingrich

noddzy
01-08-2012, 02:37 AM
OMG.. John Huntsman just spoke Chinese on stage while replying to Romney- you would think that would go down well with the Repub base ? :lol:
Romney keeps saying he will not let China manipulate its currency, and yet does not want to get into a trade war with China- typical Romney- have the cake and eat it too :facepalm:

emotion
01-08-2012, 02:40 AM
I thought Huntsman held his own there- but seems no one else did, and it's media perception that matters

emotion
01-08-2012, 02:41 AM
LOL Gingrich trying to appeal to voters and gets sport wrong

noddzy
01-08-2012, 02:44 AM
I thought Huntsman held his own there- but seems no one else did, and it's media perception that matters

Well.. *I* liked what he did too-- I wish more candidates did that. However, the Romney camp will spin it as "look he speaks Chinese, and he is one of them"

emotion
01-08-2012, 02:47 AM
Still, this is New Hampshire, one of the few states where the conservatives aren't necessarily uneducated evangelicals. I'm uncertain he's as big a loser as he's being portrayed as. In the Gingrich vs Santorum fight for conservatives, I think Gingrich won easily. Paul did well, but has little room for growth. Perry was just a disaster as always.

noddzy
01-08-2012, 02:51 AM
Still, this is New Hampshire, one of the few states where the conservatives aren't necessarily uneducated evangelicals. I'm uncertain he's as big a loser as he's being portrayed as. In the Gingrich vs Santorum fight for conservatives, I think Gingrich won easily. Paul did well, but has little room for growth. Perry was just a disaster as always.

Yeah, but it's still the wrong audience to speak Chinese to. Romney it is then - though I thought he looked pretty clueless when Stephanopoulos asked him about states having the right to ban contraceptives.

emotion
01-08-2012, 02:53 AM
I thought he BSed his way out of that slip-up well. Analysts touting Santorum as a winner...what? He was miserable, they just want the story of miracle surge to continue

noddzy
01-08-2012, 02:58 AM
I thought he BSed his way out of that slip-up well. Analysts touting Santorum as a winner...what? He was miserable, they just want the story of miracle surge to continue

WTF ?! @ Santorum (apart from having a ton of make-up on). This is why I don't watch post-debate analyses from network pundits.

emotion
01-08-2012, 03:01 AM
Gingrich was the best anti-Romney by farrr- Only other good ones were Paul, who probably can't win and Romney himself

emotion
01-08-2012, 03:08 AM
Okay, they're seeing the backlash to declaring Santorum a winner and trying to back up on it now xD

orangehat
01-08-2012, 03:11 AM
I don't know ... Paul's policies might work well for the US beautifully ... maybe, I don't know.

But internationally it would be the biggest crash since 911. Dropping out of UN/WTO and going back to essential isolationism? + I'm sure the backlash will eventually extend back domestically as well.

Of course, if he does get elected (somehow) I'm sure none of these drastic actions will occur but still ...

And the video is impressive but there are some justifications for his predictions that are poor. (Arab spring is overthrowing of regimes by religious fundamentalists? WTF?)

emotion
01-08-2012, 03:12 AM
I think the world would prefer isolationism to our current policy of intervening in every Middle Eastern civil war. Paul has some great ideas on foreign policy, okay on social, horrifying economically. Cutting as much money from gvmt in 1 year as he wants to would murder economy

orangehat
01-08-2012, 03:24 AM
I think the world would prefer isolationism to our current policy of intervening in every Middle Eastern civil war. Paul has some great ideas on foreign policy, okay on social, horrifying economically. Cutting as much money from gvmt in 1 year as he wants to would murder economy

Sure, the current situation is terrible.

But what paul is suggesting would be simply swinging the pendulum from one end alllll the way to the other end.

Stensland
01-08-2012, 03:59 AM
i missed the debate, does anyone have a link for a stream or a re-run?

emotion
01-08-2012, 04:04 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/
Just clips though

Stensland
01-08-2012, 05:29 AM
man, what a tepid performance by gingrich and santorum. this is what the press touted a "kamikaze, all-in anti-romney thrashing"? romney has tons of weaknesses yet for some reason campaign advisors made the pack go after him on economics? good lord. that's pretty much the only place where his record is rock solid, plus he got the talking points to defend his past work routinely.

whatever comes his way, he brushes off critics easily, what a cakewalk in the first 15 minutes.

we've just witnessed the knock-out blow. romney will take on obama. time to kick back and enjoy the rest of the show.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1438/romneymccain.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/254/romneymccain.jpg/)

Jimnik
01-08-2012, 07:57 AM
I don't know ... Paul's policies might work well for the US beautifully ... maybe, I don't know.

But internationally it would be the biggest crash since 911. Dropping out of UN/WTO and going back to essential isolationism? + I'm sure the backlash will eventually extend back domestically as well.

Of course, if he does get elected (somehow) I'm sure none of these drastic actions will occur but still ...
He wants to take the US out of NATO (which probably won't happen) but not the UN. He'll treat it more as a forum for dialogue between nations but won't bow to its every demand.

You're right, many bills won't make it past the houses but it's the same with every candidate. The difference with Paul is you know he'll fight for his policies harder than the others. His impact will make more of a difference than all the others put together.


Sure, the current situation is terrible.

But what paul is suggesting would be simply swinging the pendulum from one end alllll the way to the other end.
Not necessarily. Paul commonly uses the examples of Sweden, Switzerland and Singapore foreign policy. They never get involved in middle-eastern civil war and aren't hated by anyone. Nor have they been isolated from the rest of the world.


Paul has some great ideas on foreign policy, okay on social, horrifying economically. Cutting as much money from gvmt in 1 year as he wants to would murder economy
Cutting spending is the only way out. Raising taxes scares the largest investors out of the country, discourages productivity and business growth, and halts recovery. Only thing more horrifying than short term cuts is Uncle Sam, the Godzilla of debt, romping towards the final destination of default. The global economy would unquestionably collapse. Think Lehmann Brothers only 1,000 times worse.

orangehat
01-08-2012, 11:49 AM
Not necessarily. Paul commonly uses the examples of Sweden, Switzerland and Singapore foreign policy. They never get involved in middle-eastern civil war and aren't hated by anyone. Nor have they been isolated from the rest of the world.

Cutting spending is the only way out. Raising taxes scares the largest investors out of the country, discourages productivity and business growth, and halts recovery. Only thing more horrifying than short term cuts is Uncle Sam, the Godzilla of debt, romping towards the final destination of default. The global economy would unquestionably collapse. Think Lehmann Brothers only 1,000 times worse.

Perhaps but neither Sweden, Switzerland nor Singapore is the leading superpower in the world either. Different situations call for different foreign policies. This in no way means I support the current US foreign policy - I too think it is way too interventionist and aggressive - but it would be thoroughly inappropriate and irresponsible to utilize foreign policies like those of Switzerland or Singapore.

(Irrelevant side note but I find it hilarious how you segued from foreign policy to taxes with Sweden as the first example and Sweden has the highest marginal tax bracket in the entire world - 48% last i checked)

I am all for spending cuts but I thoroughly expect spending cuts to be made in the right places. Spending has to be thoroughly reviewed and revised but proposed irresponsible cuts to education and the "shoot first ask questions later" approach to cutting medicare and medicaid is just ridiculous.

vucina
01-08-2012, 12:55 PM
There is no way Paul can win. He doesn't offer free stuff.

Jimnik
01-08-2012, 01:21 PM
Another debate on msnbc right now:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/01/gop-meet-the-press-debate-this-morning-on-nbc-at-9am-et/

Jimnik
01-08-2012, 01:33 PM
Perhaps but neither Sweden, Switzerland nor Singapore is the leading superpower in the world either. Different situations call for different foreign policies. This in no way means I support the current US foreign policy - I too think it is way too interventionist and aggressive - but it would be thoroughly inappropriate and irresponsible to utilize foreign policies like those of Switzerland or Singapore.

(Irrelevant side note but I find it hilarious how you segued from foreign policy to taxes with Sweden as the first example and Sweden has the highest marginal tax bracket in the entire world - 48% last i checked)

I am all for spending cuts but I thoroughly expect spending cuts to be made in the right places. Spending has to be thoroughly reviewed and revised but proposed irresponsible cuts to education and the "shoot first ask questions later" approach to cutting medicare and medicaid is just ridiculous.
Medicare and medicaid should be cut, no question. He hasn't mentioned cuts in education but, if necessary, I'm sure they'll come. Military spending will be halved first without doubt.

(Irrelevant side note but I find it hilarious how you mix foreign policy and taxes. Sweden's taxes are too high and foreign policy very passive but they're not isolated from the world last I checked.)

orangehat
01-08-2012, 03:00 PM
Medicare and medicaid should be cut, no question. He hasn't mentioned cuts in education but, if necessary, I'm sure they'll come. Military spending will be halved first without doubt.

(Irrelevant side note but I find it hilarious how you mix foreign policy and taxes. Sweden's taxes are too high and foreign policy very passive but they're not isolated from the world last I checked.)

Well I'll see Paul's plans first before I comment then. All I know is the other Republicans have unrealistic cuts.

(When I meant isolationism I was referring to the USA pre-Pearl Harbor and never in my posts did I mention Sweden as being isolationist. In fact if 1 of the three countries were to be isolationist it would probably be Switzerland rather than Sweden. And I did clearly state SEGUED, which according to dictionary.com is a smooth transition from 1 topic to another, which by my count clearly means I accepted they were different topics. I was just commenting at the inconvenient coincidence of your choice of example :lol:)

Jimnik
01-08-2012, 07:48 PM
My bad, I read it wrong, not perfect obviously. Sweden was Ron's example, blame him. :p

The other republicans haven't really discussed spending cuts in adequate detail. They talk about balancing the budget and cutting taxes - an obvious contradiction. Classic politics, none of them will keep their promises once in power.

Dr Paul on the other hand talks about nothing but SPENDING cuts. He hasn't even mentioned cutting a single tax in any debate. He doesn't promise low taxes for the rich and subsidies for the poor; just pure simple liberty.

Ozone
01-08-2012, 07:54 PM
If we could combine Paul's economic policy and social views with Romeny's foreign policy, the Repubs would have the perfect candidate, imo. I also like Huntsman's ideas on taxes, strongly eliminating all loopholes which is what is the problem with taxes and why it's not fair.

vucina
01-08-2012, 10:05 PM
If we could combine Paul's economic policy and social views with Romeny's foreign policy, the Repubs would have the perfect candidate, imo. I also like Huntsman's ideas on taxes, strongly eliminating all loopholes which is what is the problem with taxes and why it's not fair.

It's impossible to combine those two, because Paul's economy doesn't allow you to wage wars 15000 km from USA. America simply doesn't have the money to attack Iran or anyone else.
In fact, even if Paul was elected, it's already too late to save America from economic disaster.

Stensland
01-09-2012, 06:13 AM
last night's debate sucked, but this one seems pretty lively so far. i'm watching the first 20 minutes and already the candidates go at it much better than yesterday.

i like huntsman btw. very humble, down-to-earth, very sane.

fast_clay
01-09-2012, 07:45 AM
In fact, even if Paul was elected, it's already too late to save America from economic disaster.

a better than good chance you are right here...

buddyholly
01-09-2012, 12:55 PM
last night's debate sucked, but this one seems pretty lively so far. i'm watching the first 20 minutes and already the candidates go at it much better than yesterday.

i like huntsman btw. very humble, down-to-earth, very sane.

I am starting to hope the voters will get to him by a process of elimination. But I fear Romney is already untouchable. If only his six other wives would show themselves.

Time Violation
01-09-2012, 01:01 PM
Pure ownage :D

C6drYuIRErY

Har-Tru
01-09-2012, 01:21 PM
I am starting to hope the voters will get to him by a process of elimination. But I fear Romney is already untouchable. If only his six other wives would show themselves.

That would only motivate Huntsman's wives to show themselves in turn.

buddyholly
01-09-2012, 02:20 PM
Mmm, hadn't thought about that. Maybe they should just bring back Sarah.

Gagsquet
01-09-2012, 03:23 PM
A bit old Ronnie but this is not his main problem. He rejects abortion and gay marriage. US doesn't need a retrograde.

Jimnik
01-09-2012, 04:26 PM
Pure ownage :D

C6drYuIRErY
Short and to the point. Vintage Ron. :worship:

Jimnik
01-11-2012, 12:27 AM
New Hampshire primary - 20% of votes counted:


Romney 36%
Paul 25%
Huntsman 17%
Gingrich 10%
Santorum 10%
Perry 1%

Jimnik
01-11-2012, 07:17 PM
New Hampshire Republican Primary - Final Results:


Mitt Romney 39.3%
Ron Paul 22.9%
Jon Huntsman 16.9%
Newt Gingrich 9.4%
Rick Santorum 9.4%
Rick Perry 0.7%
Michele Bachmann 0.1%
Other 1.3%


Great results for Rom and Ron. Looks like a two horse race.

Garson007
01-11-2012, 07:57 PM
Great results for Rom and Ron. Looks like a two horse race.
Romney has already won. Unless he does something retarded before Super Tuesday.

fast_clay
01-11-2012, 11:16 PM
its funny... you don't get much more conservative than a constitutionalist

Stensland
01-12-2012, 06:32 AM
Romney has already won. Unless he does something retarded before Super Tuesday.

...or palin pops up and the rest of the hapless amateurs drops out. then we have a race.

btw the last republican silver lining will be lost once ron paul announces his third party run. there's just no way he will just let it go, not this time, with all the buzz he's generating. unlike his son ron's truly third party anyways, nothing about his campaign or his political positions seem to have a place in the gop in the year 2012. plus i believe he doesn't really give a shit if the current republican politicians won't make it to the white house.

Garson007
01-12-2012, 06:40 AM
its funny... you don't get much more conservative than a constitutionalist
Nah mate. That's called being a reactionary.

btw the last republican silver lining will be lost once ron paul announces his third party run. there's just no way he will just let it go, not this time, with all the buzz he's generating. unlike his son ron's truly third party anyways, nothing about his campaign or his political positions seem to have a place in the gop in the year 2012. plus i believe he doesn't really give a shit if the current republican politicians won't make it to the white house.
Unless he can win a state it won't mean much. Obama is expected to win anyhow. Double terms are the norm.

Stensland
01-12-2012, 06:50 AM
it means he'll snatch votes left and right and eventually turn out to be the ultimate party pooper for romney (if there ever was a chance for a romney party in the first place).

Jaz
01-12-2012, 08:02 PM
South Carolina is close.

Hopefully Romney will pull through, otherwise we will have Gingrich or Santorum :/

Jimnik
01-13-2012, 09:20 PM
Gingrich is the 2nd best choice after Paul. Romney, Santorum, Huntsman and Perry are just right-wing populists.

buddyholly
01-13-2012, 10:35 PM
Gingrich is making an idiot out of himself with dumb negative ads at the moment. What a whiny bastard. Loser!

What is the point of an ad that thinks it is good politics to point out that Romney speaks French very well? It's un-American?

Lopez
01-13-2012, 11:58 PM
Gingrich is making an idiot out of himself with dumb negative ads at the moment. What a whiny bastard. Loser!

What is the point of an ad that thinks it is good politics to point out that Romney speaks French very well? It's un-American?

You'd be surprised :lol:

Jimnik
01-16-2012, 07:53 PM
Interesting. Ron Paul chose to campaign in Nevada instead of participating in Huckabee's forum on Saturday. He'll do well to finish top 4 in South Carolina but Nevada (Vegas etc.) is known to be very libertarian. He might even win the caucus out there.

Hopefully he'll show up to the debate tonight. He needs at least 10% in SC, IMO.

Nevada will be the 5th state in the republican primary:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/

Har-Tru
01-16-2012, 07:54 PM
Mormon 2.0 pulled out.

Jimnik
01-16-2012, 08:06 PM
Never in doubt. The old political smiles and bullshit speeches routine doesn't work in America anymore.

buddyholly
01-20-2012, 01:39 AM
Not very uplifting, but definitely entertaining tonight.

Gingrich has denied that he offered wife #2 an open marriage, once he took up with #3. So either wife #2 or Gingrich is lying. I hope there is some definitive proof forthcoming.

Stensland
01-20-2012, 11:54 AM
i find it astonishing that romneycare is barely an issue so far. you'd think the remaining candidates would hammer romney on his massachussetts record yet for some reason they chose to go down the bain route - and make him look like he's the last capitalist standing. perfect sparring for what's about to come in the next few months on top.

what a freebie for the mittster.

buddyholly
01-20-2012, 12:22 PM
Last night I dreamed that Gingrich was being interviewed on TV by Wolf Blitzer. He was getting ready for a debate, so was in a dressing gown. Slowly he let the dressing gown fall open and exposed himself on camera.

What does this mean? (About Gingrich, not me).

The emperor has no clothes?

Stensland
01-20-2012, 03:15 PM
you're just developing a man crush. remember that feeling you had when you saw al gore for the first time? same thing.

buddyholly
01-20-2012, 08:27 PM
And Al Gore has certainly been feeling crushed lately.

I wonder if Newt would be open to a menage-a-trois? Oh wait...........

Jimnik
01-20-2012, 08:30 PM
Missed the debate but watching it now:

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/01/video-watch-the-full-cnn-southern-republican-debate/

@ 10-11mins
All I can say is: God bless you Gingrich!
Definitely my 2nd favourite candidate after Paul.

Jimnik
01-20-2012, 10:12 PM
Great debate. One of the better ones.

buddyholly
01-21-2012, 02:33 AM
All I can say is: God bless you Gingrich!
Definitely my 2nd favourite candidate after Paul.

He was hellbent on impeaching Clinton and now his ex-wife says that around that time he wanted to stay married and have a mistress. I think for now, I believe the ex-wife.

And I laugh at his criticism of rich candidates, while he keeps open credit at Tiffany's for $500,000.

orangehat
01-21-2012, 02:35 AM
He was hellbent on impeaching Clinton and now his ex-wife says that around that time he wanted to stay married and have a mistress. I think for now, I believe the ex-wife.

And I laugh at his criticism of rich candidates, while he keeps open credit at Tiffany's for $500,000.

Gosh I agree with buddyholly for once, the world must be ending.

Stensland
01-21-2012, 05:30 PM
buddyholly must be the most frustrated voter out there. his standards are just out of this world, i don't believe any candidate has EVER matched his benchmark.

not only does he need to have very specific credentials regarding actual policies, on top buddyholly doesn't accept any foul play, in any way, shape or form. no personal baggage, no misleading campaigning etc.

such a hard man to please.

Har-Tru
01-21-2012, 05:39 PM
I have to say I would have a hard time bringing myself to vote for any of these candidates. They are all monumentally appalling.

Jimnik
01-21-2012, 06:47 PM
buddyholly must be the most frustrated voter out there. his standards are just out of this world, i don't believe any candidate has EVER matched his benchmark.
Unfortunately this is the case with everyone. Idealism is the only philosophy that covers all political spectra.

Jaz
01-21-2012, 07:10 PM
Gingrich means a 100% certain win for Obama.

Stensland
01-21-2012, 07:25 PM
seems like noot is about to take south carolina.

Newt Gingrich heads into South Carolina election day as the clear front runner in the state: he's now polling at 37% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Rick Santorum, and 14% for Ron Paul.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/

Jimnik
01-21-2012, 07:54 PM
Was hoping Ron could get 16-18% in SC. Looks like this will be his worst result.

He'll have to do much better in Florida.

Stensland
01-21-2012, 08:02 PM
paul is destined to get a major slot at the republican convention if he keeps his mojo. sure results haven't been fantastic but unlike in 08 people won't be able to ignore him anymore.

his speech will be quite a pain in the ass for the republican establishment. for him it's all about the message and chances are he will deliver it on the big stage this time.

buddyholly
01-21-2012, 09:56 PM
I have to say I would have a hard time bringing myself to vote for any of these candidates. They are all monumentally appalling.

Who'd have thought another Bush would be better than any of the candidates?

Jimnik
01-22-2012, 12:19 AM
21% votes in SC counted:


Gingrich 41%
Romney 26%
Santorum 17%
Paul 13%


Big big swing for Newt, happy for him. But bad result for Ron. Can't believe he's behind Santorum here.

fast_clay
01-22-2012, 12:24 AM
when ginrinch's warmongering cry of 'Kill them!' goes down a treat with the crowds in SC you already know it's not gonna be a happy hunting ground for Paul...

personally speaking, i would not piss on the state of south carolina even if it were on fire

Jimnik
01-22-2012, 12:28 AM
I suppose the good news is this is only the beginning. These first three states make up 2% of the delegates.

Jimnik
01-22-2012, 12:32 AM
Actually Ron got just 4.4% in 2008 South Carolina Primary so this is a big improvement.

Allez
01-23-2012, 06:42 PM
Ron Paul can only do well in open primaries where anybody can vote. Republican voters do not want a peace candidate who also does not want to regulate people's private lives.

orangehat
01-24-2012, 12:12 AM
Ron Paul seems to be skipping Florida altogether, and supposedly Gingrich has taken the lead in Florida. (though Romney leads among those who voted early)

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 05:13 AM
Ron Paul seems to be skipping Florida altogether, and supposedly Gingrich has taken the lead in Florida. (though Romney leads among those who voted early)
What makes you say that? He just took part in the Tampa Bay debate, 3 hours ago (started 1 hour after you posted this).

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 05:20 AM
Ron Paul can only do well in open primaries where anybody can vote. Republican voters do not want a peace candidate who also does not want to regulate people's private lives.
Best case scenario for him, he should stay in the republican race as long as possible, then run as a 3rd party candidate. The publicity he can gain from these high profile debates is invaluable. Much better than running independent from the start.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 05:31 AM
Watching the debate video now, Romney and Gingrich destroying each other. Long term it might not be a bad thing, democrats will grill the eventual candidate even harder. Need to be prepared for those cut-throat debates.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 05:41 AM
Latest odds:

http://sports.betfair.com/Index.do?mi=100982378&ex=1&origin=MRL

Does indicate a two horse race. Can change very quickly though. Gingrich was over 20/1 a week ago.

Allez
01-24-2012, 06:50 AM
Best case scenario for him, he should stay in the republican race as long as possible, then run as a 3rd party candidate. The publicity he can gain from these high profile debates is invaluable. Much better than running independent from the start.

He cannot run as a third party candidate mainly because it would probably hurt Rand Paul's chances of running for pres on a Republican ticket in either 2016 or 2020. Besides it is notoriously difficult to get on the ballot if you're not running as either a Democrat or a Republican. The system is just a set up. Both parties are controlled by the same people.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 06:59 AM
He cannot run as a third party candidate mainly because it would probably hurt Rand Paul's chances of running for pres on a Republican ticket in either 2016 or 2020. Besides it is notoriously difficult to get on the ballot if you're not running as either a Democrat or a Republican. The system is just a set up. Both parties are controlled by the same people.
Not true. Look at the 1992 election. Ross Perot ran as independent and was leading the polls in June. He only lost because he pulled out for several weeks and then returned barely a few months month before the election.

Allez
01-24-2012, 07:25 AM
Not true. Look at the 1992 election. Ross Perot ran as independent and was leading the polls in June. He only lost because he pulled out for several weeks and then returned barely a few months month before the election.

Ross Perot had tons of money. He was a billionaire. You don't believe me ? Read what Ron Paul has said about the obstacles encountered by prospective 3rd party candidates. If it were easy you'd have a lot more than just the billionaire Ross Perot to cite as examples. BTW just watching the debate and Mitt just doesn't do the "attack" thing very well. It doesn't suit him because it's not him. Newt is much better at it because he is just a nasty guy and I think he enjoys going after people. He'd be a formidable opponent at the presidential debates. Also I've noticed he is being rather nice to Ron Paul...a shrewd calculated move to court Paul's supporters in Florida especially given the fact that the Congressman is skipping the state.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 07:36 AM
Ross Perot had tons of money. He was a billionaire. You don't believe me ? Read what Ron Paul has said about the obstacles encountered by prospective 3rd party candidates. If it were easy you'd have a lot more than just the billionaire Ross Perot to cite as examples. BTW just watching the debate and Mitt just doesn't do the "attack" thing very well. It doesn't suit him because it's not him. Newt is much better at it because he is just a nasty guy and I think he enjoys going after people. He'd be a formidable opponent at the presidential debates. Also I've noticed he is being rather nice to Ron Paul...a shrewd calculated move to court Paul's supporters in Florida especially given the fact that the Congressman is skipping the state.
Obama was not a billionaire but he raised over a billion dollars for his campaign. Money helps and no two situations are directly comparable but running as a 3rd party candidate is certainly winnable with enough publicity. The probability of seeing a President Paul is not good but with such a tame foreign policy his chances are better running as a libertarian than a republican. Especially when the republican Bush era is still fresh in the memory of neutral voters.

I'm still waiting to see evidence that he's skipping Florida. No-one has shown it yet.

Allez
01-24-2012, 08:03 AM
Obama was not a billionaire but he raised over a billion dollars for his campaign. Money helps and no two situations are directly comparable but running as a 3rd party candidate is certainly winnable with enough publicity. The probability of seeing a President Paul is not good but with such a tame foreign policy his chances are better running as a libertarian than a republican. Especially when the republican Bush era is still fresh in the memory of neutral voters.

I'm still waiting to see evidence that he's skipping Florida. No-one has shown it yet.

Obama = Democrat and he raised just under 700 million in the last election cycle. Who is going to give Ron Paul positive publicity ? When it looked like he might win Iowa everyone rolled out the controversial newsletters which painted him as a nasty racist. Ron Paul is not winning anything I can assure you. He will not run as a third party candidate for fear of damaging his son's future within the Republican party. His inability to articulate his non-interventionist views is hurting him with the republican base.It's a shame because I think he would represent real and positive change not just for the US but for a lot of the world as well. As for him skipping Florida...well he won't even be in the state next Tuesday...http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/paul-skipping-primary-night-in-florida/

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 08:15 AM
Obama = Democrat and he raised just under 700 million in the last election cycle. Who is going to give Ron Paul positive publicity ? When it looked like he might win Iowa everyone rolled out the controversial newsletters which painted him as a nasty racist. Ron Paul is not winning anything I can assure you. He will not run as a third party candidate for fear of damaging his son's future within the Republican party. His inability to articulate his non-interventionist views are hurting him with the republican base.It's a shame because I think he would represent real and positive change not just for the US but for a lot of the world as well. As for him skipping Florida...well he won't even be in the state next Tuesday...http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/23/paul-skipping-primary-night-in-florida/
I already told you, the best reason to keep running as a republican is that he gets plenty of publicity and an army of supporters who can follow and promote his message. By now and especially by the end of this campaign as long as he keeps going he'll be well known by the public and in a position to receive major campaign contributions.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Ron Paul would win, in fact I said his chances were not good. But his best chance is to keep going in the republican race and then drop out towards the end. By then he'll have enough publicity to run as a well known 3rd party candidate and receive adequate donations.

Btw your CNN link indicates he won't leave until next week. By then most of the votes will have already been cast. He's staying for the two debates.

orangehat
01-24-2012, 04:29 PM
Well in skip altogether I didn't mean like physically skip but like essentially give up on it.

Here's a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0123/Ron-Paul-plans-to-skip-Florida.-Will-his-strategy-backfire

guess i could have phrased that better though

Allez
01-24-2012, 05:53 PM
I already told you, the best reason to keep running as a republican is that he gets plenty of publicity and an army of supporters who can follow and promote his message. By now and especially by the end of this campaign as long as he keeps going he'll be well known by the public and in a position to receive major campaign contributions.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say Ron Paul would win, in fact I said his chances were not good. But his best chance is to keep going in the republican race and then drop out towards the end. By then he'll have enough publicity to run as a well known 3rd party candidate and receive adequate donations.

Btw your CNN link indicates he won't leave until next week. By then most of the votes will have already been cast. He's staying for the two debates.

He stayed the course in 2008 and received next to zero major publicity. He wasn't even given a platform at the Republican Convention. Of course he has more delegates this time around and therefore will be tougher to ignore especially if Newt takes the fight to Mitt and there is no clear winner when all is said and done. I didn't mean to imply that you had said he would win :) Like I said at the SC debate I could tell that Newt wants Ron Paul's supporters and delegates. He was being rather nice to him. I suspect that if he is the nominee Ron will get a prominent slot at the Convention. Newt is already parroting Paul's ideas re auditing the Fed and the US Monetary policy in general. They'll never agree on foreign policy as "Newt Romney" only serve the military industrial complex that has made them wealthy.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 11:41 PM
He stayed the course in 2008 and received next to zero major publicity. He wasn't even given a platform at the Republican Convention. Of course he has more delegates this time around and therefore will be tougher to ignore especially if Newt takes the fight to Mitt and there is no clear winner when all is said and done. I didn't mean to imply that you had said he would win :) Like I said at the SC debate I could tell that Newt wants Ron Paul's supporters and delegates. He was being rather nice to him. I suspect that if he is the nominee Ron will get a prominent slot at the Convention. Newt is already parroting Paul's ideas re auditing the Fed and the US Monetary policy in general. They'll never agree on foreign policy as "Newt Romney" only serve the military industrial complex that has made them wealthy.
He didn't do nearly as well in 2008 as he's doing now. Even SC (his worst result so far) he got three times more votes than 2008. He didn't even try to run as a 3rd party candidate in 2008 so it doesn't prove anything.

Fact is, 2008 was always an easy win for any democratic candidate. There were enough neutrals who believed all problems were caused by republican policy. Now the public is more aware that it's a bipartisan problem. There's never been a better time for 3rd party candidates.

Yes, foreign policy is the prime reason Dr Paul could never be a republican candidate.

Jimnik
01-24-2012, 11:49 PM
Well in skip altogether I didn't mean like physically skip but like essentially give up on it.

Here's a link: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0123/Ron-Paul-plans-to-skip-Florida.-Will-his-strategy-backfire

guess i could have phrased that better though
Shouldn't be a big issue in a state where citizens have 10 days to cast votes. The bigger problem is the lack of money and TV advertising.

fast_clay
01-24-2012, 11:52 PM
right before the polls indicated paul was top 3 in Iowa, questions of him running as a potential 3rd party candidate were levelled at him left right and centre...

uncle ron didn't exactly appreciate being rained on with the questions, but he never dismissed the questions and gave the answer that he does not 'talk in absolutes' but that he 'couldn't see it happening'... he gave a PC answer but never dismissed them because anyone who knows anything about american political history knows that the political climate is ripe for the first genuine 3rd party candidate in decades...

when the left looks like the right, and the right can't help but mirror the left... what choice are you left with...?

you don't get much more conservative than a constitutionalist, which will strip a lot of the vote from the republicans... and for sure the democrats disillusioned with the 'change' that never happened will have less problem than any republican will of turning on their own party...

i'd say paul running as a 3rd party candidate is a better than even money shot..

Allez
01-25-2012, 06:40 AM
right before the polls indicated paul was top 3 in Iowa, questions of him running as a potential 3rd party candidate were levelled at him left right and centre...

uncle ron didn't exactly appreciate being rained on with the questions, but he never dismissed the questions and gave the answer that he does not 'talk in absolutes' but that he 'couldn't see it happening'... he gave a PC answer but never dismissed them because anyone who knows anything about american political history knows that the political climate is ripe for the first genuine 3rd party candidate in decades...

when the left looks like the right, and the right can't help but mirror the left... what choice are you left with...?

you don't get much more conservative than a constitutionalist, which will strip a lot of the vote from the republicans... and for sure the democrats disillusioned with the 'change' that never happened will have less problem than any republican will of turning on their own party...

i'd say paul running as a 3rd party candidate is a better than even money shot..

And risk his son's political future ? We shall see.

Jaz
01-25-2012, 07:08 AM
Can be the GOP be as stupid as to have Gingrich as their nominee?

orangehat
01-25-2012, 04:26 PM
Now CNN's polls have Romney leading by 7%.

:confused:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/poll-romney-stays-in-top-spot-in-battle-for-florida/

Jimnik
01-25-2012, 04:43 PM
Whatever happens, PLEASE don't let this guy get re-elected:

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/01/20121252146464619.html

Jimnik
01-25-2012, 04:51 PM
right before the polls indicated paul was top 3 in Iowa, questions of him running as a potential 3rd party candidate were levelled at him left right and centre...

uncle ron didn't exactly appreciate being rained on with the questions, but he never dismissed the questions and gave the answer that he does not 'talk in absolutes' but that he 'couldn't see it happening'... he gave a PC answer but never dismissed them because anyone who knows anything about american political history knows that the political climate is ripe for the first genuine 3rd party candidate in decades...

when the left looks like the right, and the right can't help but mirror the left... what choice are you left with...?

you don't get much more conservative than a constitutionalist, which will strip a lot of the vote from the republicans... and for sure the democrats disillusioned with the 'change' that never happened will have less problem than any republican will of turning on their own party...

i'd say paul running as a 3rd party candidate is a better than even money shot..
Indeed, there's no question this is the best time to run as a 3rd party candidate.

As of this moment it's difficult to predict whether he'll do it. He'd probably have to attract some wealthy backers within the next 6 months. To do that, he might have to continue performing consistently in all republican primaries. So far, so good.

Jimnik
01-25-2012, 05:02 PM
Now CNN's polls have Romney leading by 7%.

:confused:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/poll-romney-stays-in-top-spot-in-battle-for-florida/
Think I can see why Dr Ron wants to leave before next week. If those polls are accurate Florida will be even worse than SC.

I suppose it isn't surprising considering it's the first closed primary. Foreign policy won't go down well with pure republican voters.

orangehat
01-25-2012, 05:02 PM
Whatever happens, PLEASE don't let this guy get re-elected:

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2012/01/20121252146464619.html

Let's see ... assuming you are right ... who shall we elect?

Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney / Mitt "I-am-unemployed" Romney / Mitt "I-only-pay-15%-tax" Romney?
Newt "I-trumpet-sanctity-of-marriage-yet-have-so-many-affairs-I-can't-count" Gingrich / Newt "I-am-middle-class-yet-I-have-a-$500,000-line-of-credit-at-Tiffany's"/Newt "make-poor-black-kids-janitors" Gingrich?
Rick Santorum? Gosh I don't even have to create a nickname for this one.

The only who isn't entirely ridiculous in this bunch is Ron Paul but of course there's a catch - his policies aren't enforcable or realistic enough.

Har-Tru
01-25-2012, 05:05 PM
You mean Ron "creationist" Paul? Ron "I-have-no-idea-what-is-published-under-my-name" Paul? Ron "why-did-we-bother-with-the-nazis" Paul?

orangehat
01-25-2012, 05:08 PM
Btw, this video is brilliant.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/indecision-2012---the-gingrich-who-stole-south-carolina?xrs=share_copy

orangehat
01-25-2012, 05:09 PM
You mean Ron "creationist" Paul? Ron "I-have-no-idea-what-is-published-under-my-name" Paul? Ron "why-did-we-bother-with-the-nazis" Paul?

At least he's not the only one in the Republican party to think those things.

Jimnik
01-25-2012, 05:34 PM
Let's see ... assuming you are right ... who shall we elect?

Mitt "Corporations are people" Romney / Mitt "I-am-unemployed" Romney / Mitt "I-only-pay-15%-tax" Romney?
Newt "I-trumpet-sanctity-of-marriage-yet-have-so-many-affairs-I-can't-count" Gingrich / Newt "I-am-middle-class-yet-I-have-a-$500,000-line-of-credit-at-Tiffany's"/Newt "make-poor-black-kids-janitors" Gingrich?
Rick Santorum? Gosh I don't even have to create a nickname for this one.

The only who isn't entirely ridiculous in this bunch is Ron Paul but of course there's a catch - his policies aren't enforcable or realistic enough.
As opposed to:

Barack "corporations are evil" Obama / Barack "let's blame the rich and wealthy on all our problems" Obama / Barack "let's copy inept European social welfare" Obama / Barack "let's give free money, education, housing to people who haven't earned it" Obama / Barack "let's reward failure and punish success" Obama / Barack "I'm black so everyone can feel PC voting for me" Obama / Barack "let's borrow $1 trillion from China every year" Obama / Barack "let's print $1 trillion every year to pay our debts" Obama / Barack "let's make Iranians angry" Obama / Barack "let's keep meddling with Afghan-Pakistan affairs" Obama


I like the way you tried to make your point. Very creative. :yeah:

Jimnik
01-25-2012, 05:36 PM
You mean Ron "creationist" Paul? Ron "I-have-no-idea-what-is-published-under-my-name" Paul? Ron "why-did-we-bother-with-the-nazis" Paul?
You watch far too much CNN, mate.

Har-Tru
01-25-2012, 06:30 PM
At least he's not the only one in the Republican party to think those things.

Exactly. That's why they all suck. With no exceptions.

You watch far too much CNN, mate.

I don't have a TV set.

orangehat
01-25-2012, 06:37 PM
As opposed to:

Barack "corporations are evil" Obama

First of all, I believe Obama has never ever said anything like that specifically, unlike "corporations are people" Romney.

Barack "let's blame the rich and wealthy on all our problems" Obama
Obama has only attacked income inequality, and actually, Obama doesn't even need to blame the rich and wealthy for all the problems. The populist poor are doing it enough already. If you want to blame someone, blame the 99%, not Obama.

Barack "let's copy inept European social welfare" Obama

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/08/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-barack-obama-socialist/

Politifact has repeatedly placed any claim of Obama as a "socialist" with the rating: Pants on fire

And, while we're at it. I'm so sick and tired of the word socialist being thrown at obama. I am offended in fact. If you want to go to extremes, I would be a socialist. Don't call Obama this phony-not-even-socialist president socialist.

Barack "let's give free money, education, housing to people who haven't earned it" Obama

:lol: I love rich arrogance and ignorance. I could go into a lengthy debate here about how Republicans often think each poor individual has never done anything to deserve success and how they think their "success", if any, is solely due to their conscientiousness but I'm not going to here (because that will take me like ten pages). Let me just point you to a very common fact quoted by sociologists: The biggest indicator of your success in life now is your class. If you are born rich, you are more likely to be rich and vice versa. This class factors outweights the importance of any other factor, even race.

If you are going to argue that it may be because poor people are just lazy/whatever, let me remind you this: How many rich second generations good-for-nothings have you seen? That's right, a lot. How many of them are rich? An Overwhelmingly majority. BUT WAIT A SECOND. I THOUGHT IF YOU WERE LAZY YOU WOULD BECOME POOR!

What I am going to say is: If you really don't want social equality, go live in a state/country/place by YOURSELF. that way, whatever you earn goes to you, whatever you do you get to keep. I don't understand how Republicans fail to understand that social redistribution is the fundamental basis of our society and necessary for it to function. If they had it their way, we would be having privatised police forces, fire departments etc. Please go to some far, conservative place, say Wyoming, declare independence, and live there by yourselves for the rest of your life. Thank You.

Barack "let's reward failure and punish success" Obama
Right, because taxation is a punishment of success, and food stamps to the poor is a "reward" of failure. That simple, that black and white. I hardly consider living on scraps to be a "reward" and Gingrich's 2 million left after his taxation to be a "punishment". Let's not forget that there are costs to success, and this cost has to be paid back to society via the form of taxation. How are you going to succeed if there are not others working for you?

Barack "I'm black so everyone can feel PC voting for me" Obama

Wait, so now it's Obama's fault he's black? What?

Barack "let's borrow $1 trillion from China every year" Obama

Obama actually does not borrow from China, China simply bought US debt. Obama didn't borrow money from anyone in particular. Furthermore, let's not forget that the fact that Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr expanded the deficit as much as (if not more than) Obama, whereas Clinton was the only president in the entire period to have a surplus (not that Clinton has anything to do with Obama), but I just find it hilarious how the Republicans think the debt crisis is the Democrats' fault.

Barack "let's print $1 trillion every year to pay our debts" Obama
On this point (and only this point) i agree with you.

Barack "let's make Iranians angry" Obama
Right, because hawkish, bellicose, right-winged Republicans are going to be so much nicer to Ahmadinejad.

Barack "let's keep meddling with Afghan-Pakistan affairs" Obama
Right, because Obama started the wars to get us there in the first place. Oh wait a minute ...

Bilbo
01-25-2012, 06:39 PM
I can only imagine how much worse it will be if Mitt Romney wins. That guy is a war lover like Bush.

Jaz
01-25-2012, 07:22 PM
I can only imagine how much worse it will be if Mitt Romney wins. That guy is a war lover like Bush.

Will you stop talking nonsense.

Romney has never said he wanted more war. He even said he would never put troops on the ground in Iran.

Gagsquet
01-25-2012, 07:35 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/422550_360736623955797_205344452828349_1345316_206 7638881_n.jpg

buddyholly
01-25-2012, 07:51 PM
That is insulting to Dwight.

buddyholly
01-25-2012, 07:54 PM
I can only imagine how much worse it will be if Mitt Romney wins. That guy is a war lover like Bush.

You should not lose any sleep over your own scenarios. Remember 4 years ago when you predicted Obama would solve the Middle East in a month?
Or was it Lena, I forget?

orangehat
01-25-2012, 08:00 PM
Barack "let's give free money, education, housing to people who haven't earned it" Obama

Oh and btw, I'm sure Romney earned every single cent of his 20 million. Wait ... he was, in his own words, "unemployed", no?

(cue Republicans attacking how poor people shouldn't receive unemployment benefits because they are too lazy to find a job/work)

(shifts glance to Romney)