Ron Paul

[West491]

I'm probably not voting, unless I can get one of those take-home things.

[psychodiva]

VladTheImpaler wrote

Curious, how many of the RA regulars are looking to or considering voting for Ron Paul this year?

Also, if you're not considering voting for Ron Paul, why and who would you vote for instead?

I'm not looking for a debate, though debate amongst your selves if you please , just looking for atheist-based view points.

1) I am not considering voting for him
2) because I cannot vote in a USA election

[VladTheImpaler]

Oh I remember now why I don't really come here anymore.

[merkin]

VladTheImpaler wrote

Curious, how many of the RA regulars are looking to or considering voting for Ron Paul this year?

Also, if you're not considering voting for Ron Paul, why and who would you vote for instead?

I'm not looking for a debate, though debate amongst your selves if you please , just looking for atheist-based view points.

I am voting in next week's Super Tuesday primary, in Georgia.

I can't vote for Ron Paul, his economics is faith based, relying completely on the belief in the existence of the self-regulating, free market. As an atheist it is difficult to rely on faith in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. We don't do it in regard to theism, why accept it in politics?

His views on economics are much more important than they are for the other candidates because he believes that the free market can take over almost all of the functions that now are the responsibility of the government. That market forces can counter almost all of the worse tendencies in society and can do a better job of distributing resources.

The best that can be said for his social positions is that it is an eclectic mixture of libertarian and right wing ideas, some promoting individual freedom and the rest maximum government interference in our lives.

The absolute best that can be said about his racial views is that while he is not a racist personally, he reserves the right to pretend to be one in public in order to make money. The worse that can be said is that he is a racist and makes money by inflaming other racists. The difference for me is irrelevant.

His foreign policy views are attractive from a distance but close up they rely completely on the idea that increased trade between nations will paper over disagreements. The words hopelessly naive come to mind.

Typically people who self-identify as libertarians in the US are generally people who think that if being conservative is good then it must be better to be more conservative than the conservatives but the labels 'reactionary' and 'fascist' just really, really sound bad so they call themselves 'libertarian' which has to be good because it has liberty in it. I would classify Ron Paul as a reactionary with an active imagination because he wants to take us back to a past that never existed.

I will hold my nose, hoping that he is lying through his teeth, and vote for Romney.

As things stand though I will vote for Obama in the fall. I want the Republicans to field the strongest candidate possible. If they nominate one of the wack jobs, Paul or Santorum or to a lesser degree Gingrich they will have no chance to defeat Obama and the massive amount of money that the Republicans have raised will be diverted to the down ballot races to completely take over the Congress and other state and local offices.

Is this what you were looking for?

[Eva]

VladTheImpaler wrote

Oh I remember now why I don't really come here anymore.

yes. it was because we called you out when you made threats of rape to a member, douchefuck.

[Professor Chaos]

Bye bye, Donna.

[VladTheImpaler]

Eva wrote

yes. it was because we called you out when you made threats of rape to a member, douchefuck.

What?

[VladTheImpaler]

merkin wrote

Is this what you were looking for?

Yes, thanks for your insight and opinions.

[Irreligious]

VladTheImpaler wrote

I'm not looking for a debate, though debate amongst your selves if you please , just looking for atheist-based view points.

Just curious, Vlad, but what do you think being an atheist has to do with whom one chooses to support as a candidate for president of the United States?

I don't understand this notion of atheists having to agree on anything, apart from not subscribing to a belief in a God or gods.

P.S. And if you haven't noticed already, this forum has become dominated by contentious, U.S.-centric political debates as of late. Not that there is anything wrong with that if you don't mind pushing people's buttons and leaving our non-U.S. posters out of the mix.

Otherwise, there are copious threads on this forum where various posters' points of view on the U.S. presidential candidates can be found. Be warned: It's an incendiary topic, even more so than religion.

[VladTheImpaler]

Irreligious wrote

Just curious, Vlad, but what do you think being an atheist has to do with whom one chooses to support as a candidate for president of the United States?[/i]

Very little, probably a stupid way to formulate the question by me. At least atheist views on politics won't be colored by faith in any particular religion though.

[Eva]

ah, so you don't remember when you talked about violent rape to the douchecow some years ago.
nice.

we don't forget.

[VladTheImpaler]

Eva wrote

ah, so you don't remember when you talked about violent rape to the douchecow some years ago.
nice.

we don't forget.

I know what you're referring to now after a search, but you wrote "threat of rape" which is absolute bollocks and thus did not resonate in my memory.

[Eva]

you forgot 'cause you are a douche.

[VladTheImpaler]

Eva wrote

you forgot 'cause you are a douche.

I did not forget you simply misrepresented the event.

Oh wow that hurts! A douche? Amazing. I see posting over 9000 one-liners in this forum have sharpened your wits considerably. Bravo!