Republican Presidental Debate Iowa

[pahnphoenix]

i know it's hard to understand, but if you change policy, it can sometimes cause the same problems only more severe. it's a difficult logical premise, i know, but if you work on it you'll get there. less regulation would mean more of the same problems. it would also mean more war. believe it or not.

[Eaglestrike]

i know it's hard to understand, but if you change policy, it can sometimes cause the same problems only more severe. it's a difficult logical premise, i know, but if you work on it you'll get there. less regulation would mean more of the same problems. it would also mean more war. believe it or not.

I can see how in some situations this certainly could be the case. But that's taking a broad action (less regulations) and picking out some of the bad cases for them and enacting them. Obviously you would go on a case-by-case basis and change things after careful thought/planning/research/etc.

I think the main thing I'm not following of yours is how it will lead to more war.

As well, most of Ron Paul's stances are less "less regulations" and more "less Federal regulations". Basically he wants to shift the policing of all sorts of things to the states, where it was originally done and envisioned to be done. He even makes an argument about this in the debate the OP is about.

[Rhinox]

Spoiler: show

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/a...4/294e1fe4.jpg

NSFW

[Drex]

Obviously you would go on a case-by-case basis and change things after careful thought/planning/research/etc.

This is the government we're talking about

Basically he wants to shift the policing of all sorts of things to the states

That's what worries me most

[Eaglestrike]

This is the government we're talking about



That's what worries me most

So you say "lol government doing things right" and then "we can trust the government to do things right"?

[Drex]

So you say "lol government doing things right" and then "we can trust the government to do things right"?

No, I'm saying what you expect from the federal government is unrealistic, but probably better than what we would get from state governments. In other words, what Paul considers a fix I consider "from bad to worse".

[Eaglestrike]

No, I'm saying what you expect from the federal government is unrealistic, but probably better than what we would get from state governments. In other words, what Paul considers a fix I consider "from bad to worse".

I think it would be spread out, some states would do it a lot better than the federal ever could and some will be much worse. However I think people will shift and media will report on how it works in other states and the good ways of enacting policies will move across to other ones. I think it'll result in a lot better than one big federal policy that each party tries to shift slightly closer to what they want it to be.

Edit: Obviously in this situation certain states will have it shitty and that sucks for those people. But considering how policies are far from perfect in the federal government and there are a ton of cracks to fall through with that, I don't consider this a con big enough to ruin the argument for them. Also, look at something like gay marriage. A long time big political thing, one state made it legal and then it's snowballing in to a bunch of other states. Much easier to pass that along one state at a time than trying to get all of the federal congress to agree on it.

[mightyg]

Spoiler: show

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/a...4/294e1fe4.jpg

NSFW

Cannot unsee....I bet that dude in the bottom left corner is storing that in the spank bank.

[Mazmaz]

I really can't figure out arguments for state control of stuff. Maybe it's because I don't know anything about your history that I think this, but isn't that like going back to pre-civil war?

[Plow]

Thing is, considering he's very anti-foreign-interventionalist, that's something that the president can directly control. If a president wants to end a war, he can. If he wants to not join a new one, he can (provided there's no invasion, lol @ invading America). These are things that Ron Paul would be able to do as president.

He couldn't do jack shit as far as passing laws, but yeah.

That's exactly the problem. People think that somehow he's going to jump in and just instantly pull us out of Iraqistan, and everything else is going to be just dandy.

He wants the deregulation and reduced taxes on the rich that made Bush so directly damaging even without the wars... but he wants them exponentially more.

And, with a tea party congress, he would get exactly that.

[Eaglestrike]

I really can't figure out arguments for state control of stuff. Maybe it's because I don't know anything about your history that I think this, but isn't that like going back to pre-civil war?

The principle is that the bigger you are / the farther you are from the specific people, the worse you can handle a situation. A state can make policy tailored to what their specific populace wants better than the federal government can because they have less people to consider.

You are right in that it is in a way pre-Civil War in a way, but most people on this side of the political spectrum believe the pendulum swung too hard post-Civil War. The Federal government needs the power to enforce major things like social injustices to the level of slavery for sure, but it doesn't need to take over every policy for every state. Everyone knows the major split we have in the US about south/midwest vs northeast/west and a good bit of that could be alleviated by giving states back some of their rights. There would be less issues for Federal government to handle and that could split up how some people vote right away. You have the Christian right that will certainly not vote a certain way about abortion/gay marriage/etc. but if you move those issues to a mostly state-run situation, they're free to vote in another manner and I think you'd have some more left-leaning votes for other things (like world peace for instance).

[Atreides]

not surprising after the straw poll results, but Tim Pawlenty is out. It'll be interesting to see if he throws his support behind romney/perry, since I always assumed he was running for VP and not Pres.

[6souls]

not surprising after the straw poll results, but Tim Pawlenty is out. It'll be interesting to see if he throws his support behind romney/perry, since I always assumed he was running for VP and not Pres.

And nothing of value was lost.

edit; lol, no longer running & still avoiding the "pressing" questions.

[Plow]

It's too bad these things are completely meaningless, Bachmann winning the nomination is by far the best thing that could happen.

[Senoska]

It's too bad these things are completely meaningless, Bachmann winning the nomination is by far the best thing that could happen.

Her or Palin have my vote. Best way to get the country to wake up is vote in the worst person possible, which is by far Bachmann.

[Elvis]

Her or Palin have my vote. Best way to get the country to wake up is vote in the worst person possible, which is by far Bachmann.

Same. I'm voting for Bachmann because she's a Christian Zionist, homophobe, racist, pro-War, etc. Although, if someone else crazier pops up I'll switch.

[avelle]

Did Santorum drop out yet? That guy is a nutjob too. Also Pawlenty was a terrible fucking debater.

[Atreides]

Pawlenty's downfall was his inability to go after mitt romney in that first debate, but he actually did pretty well in this past debate. He may not have killed Bachmann but he sure as hell wounded her, and showed the other candidates how they can go after her as well. I think Pawlenty dropping out means Bachmann is on top but only briefly, as I think Perry is going to tear her apart.

[Mazmaz]

Didn't see anyone post this yet

[Kerberoz]

Brilliant.