Print

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

[Bauglir]

Alternatively, they don't select candidates based on their "viability", but because of the policies they support. A voting practice I respect, even if virtually all their policy preferences are not mine. At least, it is if that's an accurate assessment.

[Deadmeat1471]

Alternatively, they don't select candidates based on their "viability", but because of the policies they support. A voting practice I respect, even if virtually all their policy preferences are not mine. At least, it is if that's an accurate assessment.

I'm not saying they shouldnt vote for him, voting for who is 'viable' is absolutely retarded. But the Ron Paul guys seem to think hes going to win, and this has been going on for years...

Personally I think Ron Paul is a purist. It's nice to be so rigid, but in reality the world doesn't work that way. He lives in fairyland where an unregulated private sector fixes every problem for every citizen and leaves no one behind. It is absolutely nonsense.

'Socialism doesn't work' - Ron Paul

The NHS, free healthcare for all without prejudice since the 1940's. Enough said. All polls i've ever seen state the NHS as Britains greatest institution, it is also cheaper per person than the American private healthcare.

[G-Flex]

Personally I think Ron Paul is a purist. It's nice to be so rigid, but in reality the world doesn't work that way. He lives in fairyland where an unregulated private sector fixes every problem for every citizen and leaves no one behind. It is absolutely nonsense.

I wish I could believe that, but judging from his actual policies and legislation that he has much more of a personal agenda than he lets on. He's no purist; he has his own clear prejudices and hot-button issues like all/most other politicians.


Regarding why he's popular in the US: In the United States, individualism is very overrepresented as a value. In an ironic twist, the fact that the rich pay into the system so little means that the middle class has a heavy burden the lower class gets nothing terribly good, meaning people look at the system and think that taxing and providing social programs is good for nothing, which winds up being even better for the rich because people are convinced that taxes are just plain bad. This feeds into the belief that people should basically sink or swim and survive by their own merits, however that's supposed to work. It's no surprise at all that libertarianism has become more popular recently.

[alway]

The problem I've found with most Ron Paul supporters I've talked to is they take things for granted which happen to be the same things they want to do away with. I brought up how removing the EPA would result in massive health risks from unregulated pollution to one supporter; his response was "I'm sure someone would do it [ensure pollution wasn't too bad]."

[Sirus]

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

[Flying Dice]

The problem I've found with most Ron Paul supporters I've talked to is they take things for granted which happen to be the same things they want to do away with. I brought up how removing the EPA would result in massive health risks from unregulated pollution to one supporter; his response was "I'm sure someone would do it [ensure pollution wasn't too bad]."

This has always been my issue with libertarians as well; they assume that if they get rid of government, some benevolent people will step in and take care of everything it does, only better.

[Montague]

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

The argument is that without federal management, federal protections go out the window too. If an industry's pollution causes a problem then they can have their asses sued off. So, you have a market incentive to control pollution- or at least conceal it or find some other way to cover their own asses from the threat of litigation.

[Sirus]

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

The argument is that without federal management, federal protections go out the window too. If an industry's pollution causes a problem then they can have their asses sued off. So, you have a market incentive to control pollution- or at least conceal it or find some other way to cover their own asses from the threat of litigation.

Aside from something overt like an oil spill, how are you going to prove that pollution causes any problems? I don't know if you've noticed, but we still have people denying global warming in the States. At least one of the candidates (Santorum) is one of them.

[Frumple]

... because there's places in the world that are basically unlivable due to pollution, right now, and there's areas where pollution from previous generations still have heavy impact. Pollution being bad isn't exactly something that's really debatable by anyone even remotely sane. We have a lot of examples of how it screws things up.

E: The refusal to recognize global warming is at least understandable -- it takes a long-term (20+ years) and heavily statistical (global warming is global; local environments don't necessarily warm up across the globe) view, which many people refuse to engender. Especially politicians who tend to be heavily focused in a very short-term period (election and re-election).

The refusal is g'damn stupid, yes, but it's understandable. Wrong, foolish, and deadly shortsighted, but understandable.

[Loud Whispers]

... because there's places in the world that are basically unlivable due to pollution, right now, and there's areas where pollution from previous generations still have heavy impact. Pollution being bad isn't exactly something that's really debatable by anyone even remotely sane. We have a lot of examples of how it screws things up.

All that ocean is uninhabitable by everything except Jellyfish.

[Sheb]

Montague, how can you sue them off if polluting isn't illegal, hence regulated? I just don't get it.

(And since when does the Federal Government protect polluter from prosecution?)

[Sirus]

You guys are preaching to the choir here. I know that pollution is bad, and should be kept in check, global warming or no global warming. It's some of the politicians who either act like pollution isn't anything to worry about, or believe that industry will police itself. Some companies might, but there are more than a few that would sell their mothers for an extra dollar or two.

[Loud Whispers]

As I recall it, the European Union is getting pissed about pollution. Not so sure about America though. Illegal dumping going on - literally entire ships sunk in European waters illegally :/

[Flying Dice]

Not to mention that the common method of disposal for old oil rigs is just to collapse them into the sea.

[nenjin]

Pretty sure those get done with environmental impact statements though. And properly sealed, old tankers shouldn't be leaking into the ocean for several hundred years at least.

It's when rigs sink that really damage happens.