Elections thread

Disneyphile · Post by **Disneyphile** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:29 am

I know it's still early in the season, but I'm sure a lot of people are going to want to talk about it. This thread is for discussion of any and all upcoming elections, including the 2012 presidential election.

Dr Frankenollie · Post by **Dr Frankenollie** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 7:29 pm

carolinakid · Post by **carolinakid** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:54 am

I will hold my nose and vote for whomever the Republican nominee is. I'm a gay conservative like Taylor on the A List:Dallas.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:25 pm

carolinakid wrote:I will hold my nose and vote for whomever the Republican nominee is. I'm a gay conservative like Taylor on the A List:Dallas.

A gay conservative? Is that something like a vegetarian butcher?

Besides, we already have a Republican president right now. That is, judging by his policies.

Lazario · Post by **Lazario** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 4:34 pm

Dr. F - there's no way in that video Ron Paul comes off looking that much better than Obama. Isn't it evil to try to force your opinion into deciding what rights women and gay people should have? To be blatantly sexist and say women should have no rights to their own body? Which he would likely try to do were he given any real Presidential power. Trying's enough for most people. Ron Paul isn't crazy. Except in our dream scenario where it strikes him as a shock when he learns that the American people aren't in love with the government telling them what rights they deserve and need.

Goliath wrote:
carolinakid wrote:I will hold my nose and vote for whomever the Republican nominee is. I'm a gay conservative like Taylor on the A List:Dallas.
A gay conservative? Is that something like a vegetarian butcher?

Something like.

Better still: it's like a pig laughing at the sight of other pigs being slaughtered.

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:26 pm

Lazario wrote:Dr. F - there's no way in that video Ron Paul comes off looking that much better than Obama. Isn't it evil to try to force your opinion into deciding what rights women and gay people should have? To be blatantly sexist and say women should have no rights to their own body? Which he would likely try to do were he given any real Presidential power. Trying's enough for most people. Ron Paul isn't crazy. Except in our dream scenario where it strikes him as a shock when he learns that the American people aren't in love with the government telling them what rights they deserve and need.

You don't think he's crazy? I think he kinda is.

Ron Paul does have some well good ideas but when it comes to foreign affairs, he suck hard at it, preferring we should be an isolationist...

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:53 pm

Super Aurora wrote:Ron Paul does have some well good ideas but when it comes to foreign affairs, he suck hard at it, preferring we should be an isolationist...

Actually, his foreign policy ideas are the only one I wholeheartedly agree with. Ron Paul proposes getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other (covert) wars the US is engaging in (e.g. Columbia) and to stop meddling with other countries' business. He says he wants to end the American empire and that the US should mind its own business, which is a good idea, because it cannot afford to be an empire anymore. Ron Paul is the only one in the Republican party who understands where anti-US terrorism stems from. He understands the motives and the reasons for it and he knows blowback from the US foreign policiy of the 20th century (including backing or organizing coups against democratically elected leaders) is the prime motive.

Ron Paul has horrible ideas when it comes to domestic policy. He's an extremist libertarian who will turn working and living conditions for the common people back to what they were in the 1890's, when government wasn't "intruding" on the rights of corporations of treating their employees like human cattle and exploit them to no ends --or, what libertarians call, the good old days. Ron Paul will cut all rights working people have fought for the minute he gets the chance, because he has this delusional idea that somehow charity can take over government's task to look after its citizens. His tax plans will ruin the US economy (or what's left of it) and it will devastate the middle and working class (again, what's left of it) and it will disproportionally benefit those of the top 1% of the country. His economic ideas come right out of Milton Friedman's textbooks, which are fine in fantasy, but in reality have zero value.

No, his foreign policies are sound. That's why I like him. He's the only one who states out loud all that's wrong with America's current military spending and how current policies only benefit war profiteers while ordinary Americans fight and die to make sure Blackwater and Halliburton continue to make record profits.

And one more thing you should like about Ron Paul: the laws like the Indefinite Detention law won't ever pass under him, because he believes that (and the Patriot Act, and Guántanamo, and SOPA etc.) are all violations of the US Constitution --which, of course, they are.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/WUYDt7kC3Z0" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 7:56 pm

That's great and all however, as great of an ideal that would be for us, it also wouldn't work as we are a super power now and that closing our self up could lead potential dangers ahead.(see WWII) He's right that we shouldn't do wars and such but to close our self completely from foreign affairs is a very very bad move. Foreign affairs does not only just means military affairs.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:22 am

Super Aurora wrote:That's great and all however, as great of an ideal that would be for us, it also wouldn't work as we are a super power now and that closing our self up could lead potential dangers ahead.(see WWII) He's right that we shouldn't do wars and such but to close our self completely from foreign affairs is a very very bad move. Foreign affairs does not only just means military affairs.

I don't know that he's advocation isolation. Just not meddling in other countries' internal affairs (rigging elections, staging coups, murdering elected leaders etc.) because those are the things that definitly "leads to potential dangers ahead" --like how Reagan/Bush's support for the Afghan Mujahideen ultimately came back to bite you in the ass in the 9/11 tragedy (among other things).

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:49 pm

Why would that person even waste his time making a video arguing. The answer as to who he should vote for is obvious given his positions. The issues he diverges from Paul on he [Paul] would have no control over (outside of his power to veto, it’s all in the hands of Congress) but the issues he comes together with Paul on he [Paul] would have immediate control over through executive power (foreign policy). As much as executive power has been expanded under neo-cons Bush and Obama, people need to realize that the president is still limited in what they can accomplish (even with them making Congress more and more irrelevant) and that mostly lies in foreign policy (so people who don't like Paul's domestic stance need not worry).

Super Aurora, you’re confusing non-interventionism with isolationism. Ron Paul would still have open trade and open dialogue with these countries, he just wouldn’t occupy them, meddle in their affairs and impede on their sovereignty. An isolationist would cut off all trade and all communication with the country, which is pretty much an act of war in itself (what do you think will happen when a poor country is cut off from food and medical supplies because of a trade embargo?). Like Goliath said, we need to consider the consequences of our actions in other countries, the blowback. For example, here’s the consequences of our actions in Iran, the blowback:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fy3KDYE5KQE" frameborder="0"></iframe>

We bring down elected officials and prop up ruthless dictators who benefit us (see above video on Iran). We form terrorist organizations in these countries to accomplish our goals (al-Qaeda was created by the CIA, working with Osama bin Laden, to fight the Soviets occupying their land) but then get mad when we can’t control them. We occupy and bomb these countries (many times holy land) and then when they retaliate (not without warning, Osama bin Laden warned us of 9/11) we act surprised and blame it on everything but the truth. Our government's foreign policies have been detrimental to our freedom and safety, it needs to change drastically. To believe that our government's actions overseas have no consequence is just crazy.

Americans claim to support our troops, by waving a flag or by putting a bumper sticker on their car, but they don’t listen to them. Our troops agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy:

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:39 pm

Don't get me wrong, Paul is better than most of those wackos in republican nom, but he wouldn't be the #1 choice if I had choose. Huntsman is much better candidate if only people realized this and kept him in the running. unfortunately he'll never win the nomination in the current political environment of the Republican party.

He's only republican I recall that isn't insane and has logical and reasonable policies.

Also,

Super Aurora, you’re confusing non-interventionism with isolationism. Ron Paul would still have open trade and open dialogue with these countries, he just wouldn’t occupy them, meddle in their affairs and impede on their sovereignty.

Usually those two go hand in hand especially when dealing with foreign economic trading. If you're going to make trade and open dialogue with countries, it still essentially going to someway or another going to intervene with other countries.

For example, We didn't get involve directly in Afghanistan's war against Soviet Union, but we did supply them military weapons. And look what that did years later. foreign trading is a part of political foreign intervention as you called it. Ron Paul's idea of avoiding foreign intervention, is essentially also saying to avoid all foreign trade as well. the two just work hand in hand.

Not intervening in other countries could affect our economic trade and relationship. It's only a matter of handling how you do it or address it. With Paul, he's saying don't do shit with them at all cost.

Also let's say Iran or any of those other wackjob countries goes apeshit and start attacking Israel who are our close ass allies. By not intervening to helping them in any way or form by Paul's policy of avoiding all outside conflict, you are essentially not only leaving Israel and other countries around area in deep danger but also you are also breaking or losing foreign ally relationship with Israel too.

As I said before, we are a super-power now and that by avoiding any foreign relation outside our own is bad move. His policy on not invading, occupying etc, I agree with is an important thing as many others i'm sure are too, but that's not the only picture that should focus on. I'm looking at this at a bigger picture here.

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:13 pm

Israel wants their sovereignty back:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/51-KA-Nc3_k" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:37 pm

I don't trust Benjamin Netanyahu one fucking bit.

Dr Frankenollie · Post by **Dr Frankenollie** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:51 am

That video on Iran is fascinating, jpanimation, thank you for posting. Even though I'm starting to like Ron Paul, one of his ads is a bit silly:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XESux7oFMDY" frameborder="0"></iframe>

My favourite bit is when it criticises politicians for criticising other politicians.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:39 pm

Ron Paul is, unfortunately, also a racist and homophobic and mysogynist bigot and his son is a teabagger idiot.

But, like I said, his foreign policy ideas are good. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:51 pm

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Even though I'm starting to like Ron Paul, one of his ads is a bit silly:

It's an ad specifically targeted towards Iowan voters (aka. the super partisan religious right who’s not looking for discussion). Just look at how well that douche nozzle Santorum - giggles at name - did in the Iowa caucus; a man who was quoted saying it’s the government's job to enforce morality [his twisted version of it] on the people, and who was voted most corrupt politician in 2006. This state even nominated a former minister [Huckabee] in 07. It's obviously aimed at thier...level of thinking. Shine a flashy light on the ground and they’ll go after it. Just look at the crap the competition is running:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IZ_6l3zznKY" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Goliath wrote:Ron Paul is, unfortunately, also a racist and homophobic and mysogynist bigot

Really? Besides the newsletters thing that the MSM has been propagating, I can't find a single shred of evidence that backs up these allegations (well, unless you count his unfortunate pro-life stance as misogynistic, which I find hypocritical for someone claiming to be libertarian, but it's understandable for a obstetrician to be against abortions - even if the conception crap isn't a science based stance). If anything, his well documented actions, speeches, principles and voting record only prove he didn't write those newsletters, but like I said when discussing Walt Disney and Steve Jobs, I don’t know the guy, so I'm not going to argue the point.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:54 pm

jpanimation wrote:Really? Besides the newsletters thing that the MSM has been propagating, I can't find a single shred of evidence that backs up these allegations [...] If anything, his well documented actions, speeches, principles and voting record only prove he didn't write those newsletters,

Really? He allowed a newsletter with his name on it to circulate for years and years and he never once bothered to look into it, to see what "others" were writing under his name? You really believe that sorry excuse? Would you have believed it, had any other politician come up with such a story? Isn't it too much of a coincidence that the premise that he's pushing, that companies/stores should be allowed to refuse entrance to anybody if they want to, including based on someone's race, is a throwback to the times of 'segregation' (= Apartheid)? And doesn't such a stance match exactly the racist rhetoric in his numerous newsletters? What about the endless attacks on homosexuals and AIDS patients in those letters? Paul obviously is someone whose ideas on domestic policy would set the US back to the 1950's and that matches those letters. And even if he really was oblivious to the content of those newsletters all those years, doesn't that at least render him naive and incompetent?

jpanimation wrote:but like I said when discussing Walt Disney and Steve Jobs, I don’t know the guy, so I'm not going to argue the point.

That's just the problem with you: you never finish any political discussion you've started.

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:31 pm

Goliath wrote:That's just the problem with you: you never finish any political discussion you've started.

Sorry but work can have me away from the forums for a week or two at a time. If the topic remains inactive and drops off the front page, then I tend to forget about it. When it's not unintentional, then I'm avoiding it because I'm sensing it's getting too heated and too personal.

Anyway, here is Ben Swan doing some objective investigative reporting on the newsletters:

<script type='text/javascript' src='http://www.fox19.com/global/video/video ... '></script>

While I'm at it, I might as well throw some more of my propaganda on here:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zGDisyWkIBM" frameborder="0"></iframe>

In latest news, Huntsman drops out and endorses the guy he spent 6 million dollars trashing. What integrity. So I wonder what positions Romney offered him? Unfortunately with him out, it leaves Ron Paul alone against the neo-con establishment.

Goliath · Post by **Goliath** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:56 pm

Even if Ron Paul ever got the nomination (which I don't think will ever happen because TPTB* wouldn't allow it) and somehow managed to win the elections and become president (again, highly unlikely, because TPTB don't want him), he would not serve very long and before he would have gotten the chance to implement his policies, he would have been JFK'ed by TPTB. You see, Paul is a very good candidate for the corporations when it comes to domestic policies. He's for as little taxes as possible and as little restrictions on big business as possible. That means he's an ideal candidate for the 1% of the country (despite what regular people think who think he's somehow an enemy of the corporations and the banks, which he certainly is not on domestic policies), but not when it comes to foreign policy. "War is a racket" is a saying with a lot of truth in it, and ending the US empire would cost TPTB very much. And that could do them much more damage than they would benefit from Paul's domestic pro-business stances. If they didn't tolerate it from a left-wing Democrat back in '63, why the hell would they tolerate it from one of 'their own' (= conservative right-wingers)?

* The Powers That Be

jpanimation · Post by **jpanimation** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:29 pm

^That reminds me of the animated short I posted a little while back called The American Dream, which suggested the very same thing (I believe you were the only person to watch it). I wish you were wrong but I know you are right. It'll be Obama vs Romney, both bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. It won't matter who we vote for, Wall Street wins again.

For those who missed it, here's a link to the video I'm talking about:

http://www.dvdizzy.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 589#555589

Also, Perry dropped out of the race and endorsed Newt. Birds of a feather...

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Elections thread

Elections thread