If The Two-Party System Gave You Rick Perry And Ron Paul Who Would You Vote For?

I'm a conservitive

I think Ron Paul would fit you better. He's anti-war.

Maybe he'll pass a law to force people to goto church LOL

Ron Paul and I believe the government shouldn't be in the marriage bussiness. The government should treat each person like a # and not care 1 bit about religion/race/sex

Killing babys is kinda messed up. Life must be respected.

Huh? Who wants this?

So you like Perry because he won't end handouts? He called SS a ponsi sceem.

It's not the job of the federal government to pass out food stamps. This should be local/state by state thing. If Your state wants to run food stamps then go for it.

Most people wanna run SS till it's so broke the checks start bouncing. SS needs fixing. The retirement age needs to go up. SS should be for handi-cap people. It shouldn't be a retirement plan. We got private sector plans for retirement.

I think he wants a fair tax system, so everyone has skin in the game

Welfare should be a local thing

 

The cat would still win.
Paul would blame the litter..

and the fact that the election was un constitutional.

 

I love how everyone takes you seriously when you troll them.

 

True, I suppose everything comes down to perspective.

As for getting things done, Congress is already gridlocked and one giant monument to inefficiency. Having a president who changes the public discourse towards states' rights is what is needed at this stage.

Decentralization of the federal government will be the only thing that saves the concept of the "United" States. If we continue to centralize and concentrate power in Washington, you will only see further gridlock, corruption, and decline.

 

I'm not under any illusion that the GOP would nominate him. I'm simply saying he would easily defeat Obama and that is the dilemma of the GOP.

Nominate someone who has an excellent chance of winning but has an independent mind, or nominate someone with an uncertain chance, but is an obedient parrot.

Unfortunately I think they will go with obedient parrot and roll the dice.

 

Their own cat...

More disdain for the constitution from you. I don't get what peoples problem with the constitution is.

 

Don't just say it's untrue, Sable, but fix it for him.

Not all racists are liberal but all liberals are racist.

 

agreed the gridlock is scary but its neccessary to protect against radical use of power and with mainstream candidates like rick perry, bush, obama, clinton there would never be a point where the other side would be devastated

on the other hand with Ron Paul if he stood up for what he stands for in the white house which is unlikely because it would cause too much chaos it would be against his oath as president and he would be dangerous to society

 

That is a pretty (*)(*)(*)(*) good start no?

 

Against his oath as president and dangerous to society?

If you want to retain any shred of credibility on PF, you'll need to explain that one.

However, it appears this troll thread against Ron Paul has horrible backfired against you. With over 80% supporting Paul over Perry, the opinion of the PF intelligentsia is clear.

 

I'd vote for your Cat too if it got out the sitting embarrassing incompetent...
Obama has to go, whatever comes next has to be better...

 

Ron Paul is a danger to society because he is too radical and that is why he is not even a viable candidate in the polls.

The presidents main role in his duties is to promote the cohesiveness in society, that is why moderates determine elections and only mainstream candidates are elected like bush, obama, perry etc...

 

The role of the executive is to protect and defend the Constitution and to dutifully execute the laws of the nation, FYI. And, as you already probably know, Paul'd do the best job at that.

 

(pssst, Strom Thermond)

 

Ron Paul hands down. Ron has a tendency to spaz out when he talks, but other than that I love his policies. He is in the middle, like most of america is.

 

Thank You!!!

 

Liberalminotity: "The presidents main role in his duties is to promote the cohesiveness in society, that is why moderates determine elections and only mainstream candidates are elected like bush, obama, perry etc..."

I assume your "mainstream candidates" refers to Democrats or Republicans rather than the specific candidates being mainstream.

I would not consider President Obama "mainstream" in political philosphy.

 

Ron Paul FTW

 

I agree, this is far more accurate.

Nah, he's not original at all, let alone radical.

 

I disagree on the necessity.
The parliamentary procedures and practices that make it literally impossible for a mere majority to legislate are relatively new, except in very specific kinds of policy.
Note that other democracies do not go as nuts with these checks. Note that when we "nation-build", we tend to go with the so-called "parliamentary" system. That's because it's a superior system.
The Founders had every reason to create a series of checks and balances, and given their experiences with monarchy, going overboard made sense. And I really don't see a problem with separation of powers or even our bicameral congress... but the stupid rules that cripple the legislative branch are ridiculous!

People believe this prevents extremism only because the system was made by people who (forgivably) could not predict the future.
The actual behavior in systems wherein the majority rules is that a party may enact its goals and be reasonably held accountable for them.
The actual behavior in our system is for each member and party of the legislature to duck accountability, for all accountability to fall upon the executive, and for the court to be a political instrument. This is because politics have changed since the Founders.

And the catalyst to the new impenetrable gridlock: an extremist philosophy that relies on the failure of government. Such a philosophy wins when there is gridlock.
In an agrarian society, this probably wasn't an issue. But today it's madness.
AND NO ONE IS HELD REASONABLY ACCOUNTABLE.
Think back to George W. Bush. People (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about his activist executive powers. But think about how history set this up: the legislature has been trying to duck accountability for major decisions for decades.

 

accountability is good but the costs could be big since the system is fragile, if one group comes in like Ron Paul and had too much power they could destroy everything beyond repair, the slow system allows time for everyone to get on board with new policies

Ron Paul would be devastating to the national system, the libertarians are trying to fund an island based on their radical beliefs and it is predicted to implode and imagine if that system was applied on a national level it would be beyond repair.

in all the gridlock may not produce immediate fruits but it allows for cohesiveness so that not only the first people with the information can decide what happens but the whole country in the end.

 

That seems to be the main argument used against Ron Paul. Not very compelling.

 

Rick Perry!

 

The saddest thing is that such sentiments come from many, including those who hark back to the founding fathers for justification of their politics. Completely disgraceful.

 

THAT seems to be your ONLY reason to support Paul.
Talk about Compelling.

I'll use the football analogy again.
A football color announcer ( congressman ) watches and gives his opinion on why a team fumbles..has multiple turnovers and loses many close games.
His team has thrown x10 the league average in interceptions.
He invokes the theory about throwing the ball .. 5 things can happen ..3 are bad.
Other teams throw well and win..
But his team cant..

He talks daily about turn overs..and the theory about throwing the ball..
But still the team keeps on losing.
Now..


Was it the current coach( president )..the current Players ( congress and senate..) or the playbook ? (constitution )

He has straw polls among his fans and they all say.,...Make him the coach..he will win..He doesn't want to throw..and 3 things are bad..and the playbook isnt being followed.
So they convince the owners ( the people ) to make him the coach.
He runs the playbook word for word..players question why so rigid a playbook..and why other Defenses ( can read the play before it starts..)
He only has a ground game..and still the team loses..

But even worst than before.
The players dont want to follow him..the owners are pissed off they hired a NON experienced coach.. without a record to support his playbook and theory about the pass.

The game had passed him by. ( Paul )