Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party XII

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by Superman

Yeah that's typical, The Republicans had a fit over Obama's so called "Inexperience" but they are all for Rubio who's had the same amount of time in DC.

I take it those on your side of the aisle wouldn't mention lack of experience in campaign ads.

I personally think someone like Portman would suit Romney better.

[Kelly]

True....but Ron Paul as he gets older is going to find that the things he hates the most, will probably be keeping him alive.

I like the guy, I really do.....but having NO social security and medicare is kind of a mute point at this time.

He made his bed, he has to sleep in it now.....and he can, he's a big boy.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Superman

Yeah that's typical, The Republicans had a fit over Obama's so called "Inexperience" but they are all for Rubio who's had the same amount of time in DC.

I do think that a person running for President with no executive experience, and a "possible VP pick" are somewhat different....don't know that we can intelligently compare those two.....but we can try.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

That's not hypocritical for him to collect insurance benefits or pension that he was forced to pay through tax system. You can't opt out of paying social security and Medicare tax.

It would be hypocritical if he never paid into the system, argued against the system, and was now milking the benefits.

How dare you inject logic into this attack.

[DACrowe]

Is he still going to rail against as he gets benefits from it, though? I bet so. That will look awkward in the future.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

That's not hypocritical for him to collect insurance benefits or pension that he was forced to pay through tax system. You can't opt out of paying social security and Medicare tax.

It would be hypocritical if he never paid into the system, argued against the system, and was now milking the benefits.

I think it's hypocritical for him to preach that it's "Unconstitutional" and we should get rid of it and then turn around and take the benefits. He may have had to pay into it by law but there is no law that says he has to apply for and take SS benefits. No one is forcing him to take the money.

If he really was so concerned about the money of tax payers like he says he is he would lead by example and pass on applying for and taking SS benefits. It's not like he's poor and needs the money.

I guess that's to much to ask for out of a great leader that libertarians try to make him out to be though. He's just another hypocritical politician like the rest of them in DC and no amount of spin from his fans is going to change that fact.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by SentinelMind

I take it those on your side of the aisle wouldn't mention lack of experience in campaign ads.

I personally think someone like Portman would suit Romney better.

Why not? Your side did. Like the man said... "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

[Kelly]

or...."two wrongs don't make a right"

When you base your entire campaign on "Hope and Change" and say....you will have the most transparent administration in history. Well, its a loooooooong way down off of that pedestal, cause doing the "same thing" and your disciples saying "hey the Repubs did it...." kind screws up that "change" part....

Kind of like Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism"

Both, sounded really good in a campaign...

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Superman

I think it's hypocritical for him to preach that it's "Unconstitutional" and we should get rid of it and then turn around and take the benefits. He may have had to pay into it by law but there is no law that says he has to apply for and take SS benefits. No one is forcing him to take the money.

If he really was so concerned about the money of tax payers like he says he is he would lead by example and pass on applying for and taking SS benefits. It's not like he's poor and needs the money.

I guess that's to much to ask for out of a great leader that libertarians try to make him out to be though. He's just another hypocritical politician like the rest of them in DC and no amount of spin from his fans is going to change that fact.

Except it isn't hypocritical when he was forced to pay into the system to begin with. It's not hypocritical when you're getting back what you put in. There are many other instances in systems where Paul is not forced by the government to pay for where he gives back money to the taxpayers (again, need I remind you, these are things that he did not put money into like Social Security) such as hundreds of thousands of dollars in office funds.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Superman

Why not? Your side did. Like the man said... "What's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Except Rubio has had quite a bit more political experience than Obama did. That said, Rubio would be a poor choice. His choice would come off as nothing but pandering to the Hispanic community to most voters, the Democrats would use the exact same attack you just did, and he has a few controversies that would bog the Romney campaign (like the forclosure on his house or the fact that his parents left Cuba before Castro took power).

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Except Rubio has had quite a bit more political experience than Obama did. That said, Rubio would be a poor choice. His choice would come off as nothing but pandering to the Hispanic community to most voters, the Democrats would use the exact same attack you just did, and he has a few controversies that would bog the Romney campaign (like the forclosure on his house or the fact that his parents left Cuba before Castro took power).

Except in the case of his Cuban exile thing, he never claimed his parents were forced, in the middle of the night, to sail for Florida under fear of political pressures; he only said that they were exiles because they could never return to their homeland due to the the repressive nature of the Castro regime.

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Is he still going to rail against as he gets benefits from it, though? I bet so. That will look awkward in the future.

Not if he show instances where diverting funds from SS into other options show a better return on "investment." Take the three Texas counties that aren't participating in Social Security.

Those who retire under the Texas counties' Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security. According to First Financial's calculations, based on 40 years of contributions:
• A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.
• A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
• And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan

Paul could say, "Here I'm getting X amount of return on the Social Security system I'm forced to pay into, but if I had options of putting my money elsewhere, I could be getting an even higher return."

Like hippie said, there's no hypocrisy in wanting to get your money back from a system that forcibly took it from you in the first place. And getting it back isn't a sign of approval for the existence of the system.

[Handsome Rob]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1yCrjdZUt




Way I look at stuff if money is speech, then people should be able to speak with their money knowing when they buy stuff where the money goes(and if they want to continue support that or not). That would be the libertarian idea that the market dictates how business works. If a business ahd to worry about how the public would react to them donating money to any given candidate, then they might think twice how they use their money.

Do you believe in anonymous speech? You've made political speech on here, yet I don't know who you are or what you do. Shouldn't you then disclose your real name, location, and place of work to me, so that I can not have any interaction with you (since we disagree on certain issues)?**

If I do a tax return for you, should you have the right to then demand by law to see what I do with your money after you pay me?

Would you have insisted the American Revolutionaries identify themselves by name in their pamphlets? Common Sense was identified as having been written "By an Englishman," rather than Thomas Paine.

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

**I wouldn't stop doing business with you just because of that.

[Schlosser85]

From 2002, Mitt Romney being for gay rights, before he was against it...

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Handsome Rob

Do you believe in anonymous speech? You've made political speech on here, yet I don't know who you are or what you do. Shouldn't you then disclose your real name, location, and place of work to me, so that I can not have any interaction with you (since we disagree on certain issues)?

I think an argument could be made anybody who gives 1 penny to a campaign should be public knowledge. I do believe money can corrupt the election so it's good to make things like campaign donations open to the public so they have a good idea who is paying for the campaign.

I do think the public has the right before they vote to get an idea who the campaign is taking donations from(especially large one that they might owe something to) and let that factor into their choice who to pick. If money = speech, then let that money speech freely and openly.

[Kelly]

I for one, who gives to campaigns, see that it is absolutely no one's business how much I give, or why I give it.....it is my business, and mine alone.

NOW, if I were taking someone money, and not just my own....then yes, I think the person that gave their money either willing or through dues, should know where the money is going, and why it is going there.........but if it is my personal money? No....

[Schlosser85]

I for one, who gives to campaigns, see that it is absolutely no one's business how much I give, or why I give it.....it is my business, and mine alone.

I agree with this. It is no one's business at all what I do with my own money.

[Marx]

I really don't think smaller donors like you and I should be made public knowledge.

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Schlosser85

I agree with this. It is no one's business at all what I do with my own money.

If you want to buy a computer or TV or gamble or throw money at strippers I agree, but if you are hypothetically a billionaire who owns a company that disposes of toxic chemicals and donates millions of dollars to a campaign and are pushing for regulations to be decreased as a major issue, I do believe the public needs to know who is buying that campaigns ads(but that is just me).

I can live with laws stating under a reasonable amount might not have to be made public, but I do believe when people are donating over a certain amount(say 100k) we as the public have the right to know who is pushing for the candidate to win(and what there key issues may be since they are putting a big stake into the fight)

Option 2 of coarse and the one i prefer is let everything be quiet but only allow any candidate a certain amount they can raise(and not a cent more and stop 3rd party ads that support that one candidate) before they can't ask for anymore money. In this case you set the limit to a reasonable amount(say 100M in a Presidential election) and you could either have 1M people give you 100 dollars or 1 person give you 100M without knowing who gave that 1 large donation.

[Paradoxium]

I hate how slimy rich *******s directly/indirectly corrupt politics.

*Reads MediaMatters.com*

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

Except in the case of his Cuban exile thing, he never claimed his parents were forced, in the middle of the night, to sail for Florida under fear of political pressures; he only said that they were exiles because they could never return to their homeland due to the the repressive nature of the Castro regime.

Even so, that is still going to be far too easily misinterpreted by the opposition to manipulate. It's best just to avoid it.

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by hippie_hunter

Even so, that is still going to be far too easily misinterpreted by the opposition to manipulate. It's best just to avoid it.

I think that his parents' story as Cuban exiles helps him quite a bit in dealing with the Cuban ex-pats down in Florida. Him being a first-gen US citizen who's made something of himself outweighs anything the Left can throw at him.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Webfoot Hero

I think that his parents' story as Cuban exiles helps him quite a bit in dealing with the Cuban ex-pats down in Florida. Him being a first-gen US citizen who's made something of himself outweighs anything the Left can throw at him.

Probably, but it's still best a fight to just be avoided. Why divert time and attention to something that doesn't need to be fought to begin with? It's best just to go with a Tim Pawlenty, Rob Portman, or even Chris Christie, avoid the controversy and get someone who can connect with voters that Romney has a hard time with.

[Marx]

UPDATE: REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN FACING ACCUSATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ce-violations/

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by Marx

UPDATE: REPRESENTATIVE BUCHANAN FACING ACCUSATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATIONS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ce-violations/

Wonder what he did wrong to be singled out(I am guessing there is many guys on both sides equally guilty of campaign finance violations)