Who should you vote for?

**deputyfestus** · 12-20-11, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

I generally use this as a litmus test too. As soon as someone says that they don't believe in evolution, or somehow act as if creationism/ID is comparable, then my opinion of their intelligence drops pretty low. No, I don't expect everyone to be a scientist, but understanding the difference between fact and fiction isn't too much to expect. And yes, evolution is a a basic, fundamental scientific theory.

I don't reject the scientific theory of evolution, just the one you accept (mainstream,current) as the most probable. I'm sure you're aware that there are yet to be explained problems with the current theory . I don't want to derail this thread any further so I yield to you until an appropriate thread is created.

**moving-target** · 12-20-11, 08:14 PM

if i were to choose a president it ethier be bill clinton or bill maher we did good under clinton and bill maher has always seemd to make good snese to me + hes funny

**Red_Lizard2** · 12-21-11, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

What the hell did you do to get it to suggest Bachman? Did you misspell your name?

I said we shouldn't destroy Pakistan, apparently she actually said something sane during one of the debates or something (oddly I'd have also likely agreed with Paul on one thing, and a couple others, but it picked Bachmann).

**Stephen Haddad** · 12-22-11, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Don't worry, comrade, I'm sure once you get out of the reeducation camps you won't feel that way any longer!

You talking about the public school system?

1) Ron Paul
2) Bachmann
3) Huntsman

About what I expected, though I would sooner not vote at all than vote for the second and third suggestions.

In regards to the "lesser of two evils" argument. This logic keeps us locked in a discussion of left and right politics when we should be having a MUCH deeper philosophical and political conversation. Vote for who you believe WOULD be a good elected official, not against who you think WOULDN'T.

**AetheLove** · 12-22-11, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by deputyfestus

Can one of you explain to me how Ron Paul can be lumped into the moron category. He's clearly more articulate and intelligent than any of the rest, Obama included.

I don't think any of them are morons. I find most of them to not be particularly bright either - but the vast majority of what I get is filtered through their press offices and TV. That makes it pretty hard to judge.

I think some of them hold crazy views, but crazy people aren't necessarily morons.

I think many have affected a public persona, and the character they play may come off in a way that plays their intelligence up or down (though that's not only true of politicians, I think we're all guilty of that to some degree).

That said, I think the nature of the US political system is such that it allows people of middling intellect to reach high office.

But you asked about Ron Paul. Personally, I find a lot to like about him and some of his positions. He's perfectly happy to step out of line and go against his party's check-list of issue stances. I like that. I'm a sucker for politicians who display some independence.

Some of his positions I strongly disagree with, though that doesn't mean I think he's a moron. Some of his positions strike me as quaint - interesting, but with no chance at all of ever going anywhere even if there were three Ron Pauls as president and both senators from Texas.

The things he says about the economy, and some of his economic proposals, are where he goes right off the rails. Some of the general stuff is standard - smaller government and lower taxes - and that's fine with me. The devil is always in the details with that, but it's the sort of thing that even most Democrats favour in principle. The actual tax proposals are crap. It's not that I disagree with lots of them (though I do), or that they're necessarily moronic (maybe, maybe not), but that the numbers simply don't add up. It's almost always like that for politicians who propose a flat-tax system. The tendency is to vastly overstate the revenue of such systems (because they have to sell the idea) and to obfuscate or outright lie about where the burden of such systems fall.

His position on the currency strikes me as - here we go - moronic. He's seems to have backed off from supporting a pure commodity based money (a gold standard currency), but the hybrid and parallel systems he talks about don't seem any better to me. His position on the Fed strikes me the same way. It's not that I don't think there are problems, but Ron Paul doesn't have the solution.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Stephen Haddad** · 12-22-11, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

The things he says about the economy, and some of his economic proposals, are where he goes right off the rails. Some of the general stuff is standard - smaller government and lower taxes - and that's fine with me. The devil is always in the details with that, but it's the sort of thing that even most Democrats favour in principle. The actual tax proposals are crap. It's not that I disagree with lots of them (though I do), or that they're necessarily moronic (maybe, maybe not), but that the numbers simply don't add up. It's almost always like that for politicians who propose a flat-tax system. The tendency is to vastly overstate the revenue of such systems (because they have to sell the idea) and to obfuscate or outright lie about where the burden of such systems fall.

His position on the currency strikes me as - here we go - moronic. He's seems to have backed off from supporting a pure commodity based money (a gold standard currency), but the hybrid and parallel systems he talks about don't seem any better to me. His position on the Fed strikes me the same way. It's not that I don't think there are problems, but Ron Paul doesn't have the solution.

We could go round and round about this, I could suggest that the opposing view is moronic. I think the important thing to point out is that there is more than one economic philosophy (no matter how hard you try to cover it up or marginalize it), and that people interested in understanding Paul's perspective should investigate this a little more. I include here two videos which are amusing on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/user/EconStor.../2/GTQnarzmTOc

http://www.youtube.com/user/EconStor.../0/d0nERTFo-Sk

**AetheLove** · 12-22-11, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stephen Haddad

We could go round and round about this, I could suggest that the opposing view is moronic. I think the important thing to point out is that there is more than one economic philosophy (no matter how hard you try to cover it up or marginalize it), and that people interested in understanding Paul's perspective should investigate this a little more.

I agree that it's important to point out that there are a number of different perspectives on (as you call it) economic philosophy. It's also important to point out that some of them suck. For example; some of them have descriptive or predictive power, and some of them do not. I think Hayek made important contributions and I don't see where I've covered anything up.

Originally Posted by Stephen Haddad

I include here two videos which are amusing on this issue.

EconStories's Channel - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/user/EconStor.../0/d0nERTFo-Sk

Thank you for sharing with me your introduction to macro theory. Allow me to return the favour:

Amazon.com: Dynamic Macroeconomic Theory (9780674218772): Thomas J. Sargent: Books

Cheers,

AetheLove