Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

The thing is... assume, for a minute, he is a racist, he wants to destroy several vital government programs, and he's not a terribly good manager. That could all well be true.

Personally, I still think that's worth it to deal some damage to the military-industrial complex and end the war on drugs. There's definitely a bunch of trade offs involved, of course, but I think its worth it. I can also see how other people would disagree, mind you.

[Leafsnail]

The thing about "vital government programmes" is that they are vital.  You can't "trade them off".

[Montague]

The thing is... assume, for a minute, he is a racist, he wants to destroy several vital government programs, and he's not a terribly good manager. That could all well be true.

Personally, I still think that's worth it to deal some damage to the military-industrial complex and end the war on drugs. There's definitely a bunch of trade offs involved, of course, but I think its worth it. I can also see how other people would disagree, mind you.

He also wants to get rid of drug laws, minimum sentencing and a dozen other government policies which are racist in implimentation.

I'm wondering which of these things are vital government programs. The war on drugs?

[GlyphGryph]

Department of Education and other social programs, mostly, plus shutting down the federal reserve.

Thing is, "vital" doesn't REALLY mean vital, as in impossible to get rid of - very few government programs are that. It just means it would suck a lot for a lot of people if they got slashed. You can, very much, trade them off.

And Paul has stated multiple times he'd pretty much immediately end the war on drugs (or at least as quickly as possible), while most of his more insane plans would be things he'd introduce gradually.

[Aqizzar]

I enjoyed that interview Bill Maher had with somebody, big fan of Paul that he is.  Posed obvious question, the one coming up here too.

Is Medicare, the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and essentially the entire existence of interstate commerce laws worth trading away for legalizing pot and withdrawing from Colombia?

[GlyphGryph]

There are other factors:
Some of those CAN be covered by the states, if not as well - the government has made it quite clear the states can NOT unilaterally end the drug war within their borders.

None of those things are guaranteed, or even likely, to be lost with a Paul presidency. Obviously, its impossible to know for certain which way the chips will fall.

I WOULD trade any one, maybe two, of those to end The War on Some Drugs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are other factors:
Some of those CAN be covered by the states, if not as well - the government has made it quite clear the states can NOT unilaterally end the drug war within their borders.

California and a good deal of other West Coast states have done so to a degree anyway, though. In fact, medical marijuana and marijuana decriminalization laws in generally are basically both this, and then the only thing left to enforce the federal government's mandate is the DEA. As I recall, the DEA is actually fairly overburdened right now (don't quote me).

[G-Flex]

I WOULD trade any one, maybe two, of those to end The War on Some Drugs.

If drug legalization is more important to you than civil rights or public education... I'm not really sure what to say.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It would at least be an interesting social experiment to see what would happen to the nation if things like the Civil Rights Act were suddenly gone. Would people stay tolerant even without the influence of the law, or not? I have no idea. It's probably better if that never comes up in reality, but it is an interesting question.

[Montague]

Is Medicare, the Department of Education, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, and essentially the entire existence of interstate commerce laws worth trading away for legalizing pot and withdrawing from Colombia?

Department of Education and other social programs, mostly, plus shutting down the federal reserve.

Thing is, "vital" doesn't REALLY mean vital, as in impossible to get rid of - very few government programs are that. It just means it would suck a lot for a lot of people if they got slashed. You can, very much, trade them off.

And Paul has stated multiple times he'd pretty much immediately end the war on drugs (or at least as quickly as possible), while most of his more insane plans would be things he'd introduce gradually.

Yeah, he could never do hardly any of that if he was actually elected. What he is selling is a philsophical ideal, not so much a plan for what he'd do if elected. Like any other philosophical idea, it sounds really good, makes a lot of sense untill you actually get down to the business of trying to actually impliment them as government policy, where it then turns into a tragic disaster, like how communism turned out.

Thing is presidents don't have that much power in our system of government. Like how even if Obama was as much a leftist commie pinko as he's advertised, he could never succeed in his obvious ambitions to turn the USA into a communist, agrarian worker's paradise anymore then Ron Paul could bring back the gold standard and close down all the orphanages or whatever.

So I imagine if by some incredible set of circumstances he was elected, he would likely simply sit at his desk and veto every single bill that had the government take some sort of action that landed on it. He'd then introduce a few moderate bills that he thinks might actually get passed through congress. He'd probably also badly mismanage the routine functions of the office and have some racist cabinet member who'd say inane stuff on camera and make for funny youtube videos and fodder for TV pundits.

Anyways, even if he could create some Randian minarchist regime, in theory, it'd all work better then the system we have now. Anything is possible if you believe hard enough, right?

[Zrk2]

Aqizzar, I would like to hear your opinion on the Civil War, as I haven't been in American History for a year, all I remember is a series of crises over where slavery could be followed by the South going "Fuck this shit" and trying to leave. Actually, the buildup to it reminds me of imperial Europe and World War One.

[GlyphGryph]

If drug legalization is more important to you than civil rights or public education... I'm not really sure what to say.

I said drug legalization was more important to me than the Department of Education and the Civil Rights Act, which is not the same thing.

If it was "abolish public education" or "roll back civil rights to the 1940s", abolishing the drug war wouldn't be worth either of them, no. But thats not what we're talking about.

[G-Flex]

Anyways, even if he could create some Randian minarchist regime, in theory, it'd all work better then the system we have now. Anything is possible if you believe hard enough, right?

My state or town being able to label me a second-class citizen for being the wrong religion or sexual orientation does not strike me as "working better than the system we have now".

It would at least be an interesting social experiment to see what would happen to the nation if things like the Civil Rights Act were suddenly gone. Would people stay tolerant even without the influence of the law, or not? I have no idea. It's probably better if that never comes up in reality, but it is an interesting question.

Sad fact is, even with the laws, plenty of people and businesses aren't tolerant, and when it comes to business, employers will often act with prejudice simply because it's in what they see as their best interest, without thinking of the consequences: For instance, someone not wanting to hire a black or latino person for their coffee shop because it might inexplicably ruin their upper-crust image. There will always be intolerance of various sorts, and protections need to exist... and in the case of the US in particular, the whole race issue is very far from over, although how serious it is really depends on where you live.

[mainiac]

If the country was conservative enough to elect president Paul then they would be conservative enough to elect a GOP Senate and house.  What would they and President Paul agree on?

Legalize drugs?  Are you shitting me?

But make huge cuts to social services?  Eliminate the capitol gains tax?  Well that's already on the GOP agenda.

[kaijyuu]

Politics aren't a linear progression from "conservative" to "liberal."


If the country agreed with Ron Paul's views enough to elect him, they probably wouldn't agree with many of the GOP's policies. Maybe enough to have a majority in the house/senate, but not by a huge margin.