Should the republicans LOSE the election?

[Shalamar]

I've been thinking (Somewhat naively) about the upcoming US elections, and the consequences there in of. While I can not vote in the election, I am a resident of the USA, so I have been keeping some interest.

My thought is that the Republicans should lose the election, if they are smart.

Why? Well, the country is in a bit of a mess at the moment. Low popularity polls for the president, the majority of people want the troops out of the mid east, the aftermath of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the insane debt of the country, and the weakening dollar.

The next president has a hell of a mess to clean up. I sure as hell wouldn't want it. Sure the people want the troops out of the mid-east, but I'm sure thats not quite as feasible, or likely to happen soon. Reductions? Sure. But the area is still a powderkeg.

With the insane debt, caused by the war, the next president will likely have to fix the issue. That may mean cuts in some areas, and increased taxes. The citizens won't like it.

There are others, but I'm still an outsider looking in for the most part. The US electoral system mystifies me, but I never took US history, so my background is sketchy at most.

Frankly, I think the republicans will make a 'show' at running, and let the Democrats win it, and have them attempt to clean up the mess. Then in another 4 - 8 years, the republicans can swoop in, say 'Look! They did nothing! We'll fix it!" and re-take the presidency.

Am I off base? A loon? Or what?

[BPSCG]

Am I off base? A loon? Or what?All three, I'd say... :p

[Mister Agenda]

Whoever the next president is will have a rough row to hoe, but if they clean up some of the messes of the current administration, they'll get the credit. Don't look for anything like that from any of the Neocon candidates.

[madurobob]

Am I off base? A loon? Or what?

Well, some loons suggested the same for the Dems 3 years ago. The idea being that everything was such a mess that it made sense to leave the mess with the current administration for four more years.

The reality, though, is that only an idiot would give control of the country over to someone of a very different ideology simply in hopes of the mess sticking to them. Anyone who suggests such a strategy is simply attempting to rationalize a pending defeat.

[Shalamar]

Well, some loons suggested the same for the Dems 3 years ago. The idea being that everything was such a mess that it made sense to leave the mess with the current administration for four more years.

The reality, though, is that only an idiot would give control of the country over to someone of a very different ideology simply in hopes of the mess sticking to them. Anyone who suggests such a strategy is simply attempting to rationalize a pending defeat.

Hmm. A good point. Then again, the way things are going, I'm thinking only an idiot would want the job!

[Oliver]

If the Reps want to win, they better chose Paul to have a chance.
Anyone else will fail anyway.

And no matter if Ron gets the nomination or the Reps lose - I'm
happy with both solutions - at least in this election.

[madurobob]

Hmm. A good point. Then again, the way things are going, I'm thinking only an idiot would want the job!

I'm not so sure. The actual time on the job no doubt sucks. Lots of people hate you no matter what you do, living under a microscope, etc... But, presidents tend to leave office pretty well off and can sometimes even do good things that impact lots of people. I'd take the job. I'd trade a few years of misery for being a bajillionaire afterwards when I leverage all the favors.

[Pardalis]

If the Reps want to win, the better chose Paul to have a chance.
Anyone else will fail anyway.

Do you honestly think that Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?

And no matter if Ron gets the nomination or the Reps lose - I'm
happy with both solutions - at least in this election.

Why don't you mind your own business then.

[Oliver]

Do you honestly think that Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?


It will once people learn about Paul and the Media spreads his
Ideas as well. It's not a coincidence that Paul's campaign isn't
about "lefties (Dem's and Co) vs. righties (Rep's and Co)" - it's
about right and wrong.

Why don't you mind your own business then.


...said the Canadian posting about/-and in American Politics. :D

[Praktik]

I think the answer to the OP depends on what kind of Republican you are. If you're a hard-line Giuliani supporter - there's no question that you want to win the next election. If you're a different kind of Repbulican that resents the direction of the party over the past 8 years - say, a paleocon like Patrick Buchanan or a "business wing" Republican, then you may very well want a very poor result in the Presidential and Congressional elections of 08 - anything to dilute the influence of the current gang running things within the party and make room for a new direction after the weird marriage of neocons and theocons "ran the party into the ground".

After all, its hard to kick out your party leaders when they have victories to bring you - even if they're douchebags. But once they stop getting results, its easier to bring out the broom.

As an aside, I think the issues that Romney and Giuliani are dealing with when it comes to religion are just one sign of the political difficulties you create when you emphasize religion as a major focus of your party. It can work in the short term - but in the long term it creates a whole host of problems, soon candidates are having to explain their faith in more detail than is "safe" or really necessary. If the religion thing continues to play out the way it is I can see a lot of Republicans looking to return to a little more of a "relaxed" approach from the Santorum/Delay approach to politics.

[madurobob]

Do you honestly think that Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?

If by "work" you mean "drive away a majority of Republicans, galvanize the Democrats, worry the hell out of the rest of the world, and relegate the Republican party to relative obscurity for the next few election cycles" then, yes, I for one think it will "work". I suspect Oliver feels differetly.

[Pardalis]

It will once people learn about Paul and the Media spreads his Ideas as well.

You're not answering my question.

[Rob Lister]

It doesn't matter who wins, the country will survive.

[Oliver]

If by "work" you mean "drive away a majority of Republicans, galvanize the Democrats, worry the hell out of the rest of the world, and relegate the Republican party to relative obscurity for the next few election cycles" then, yes, I for one think it will "work". I suspect Oliver feels differetly.


I have no Idea what you mean by that. On one Hand I don't
think that the majority of Republicans are Neo-cons - and
on the other Hand I honestly believe that major parts of
Pauls political stance are indeed classical conservative.

So why should Republicans be opposed to their own parties
roots? Are they still trying to be the better democrats instead? :


You're not answering my question.


Which question? - I care because interventions and literally bullying
the world sucks. I would think the same about any other country
doing that while lying to the world and their own citizen. I condemn
this behavior.

The question is - why DON'T you care?

[Pardalis]

Which question? - I care because interventions and literally bullying the world sucks. I would think the same about any other country doing that while lying to the world and their own citizen. I condemn
this behavior.

The question is - why DON'T you care?


You're not answering my question.

[Oliver]

You're not answering my question.




Argh! :mad: Which one? :blush:

[Cleon]

It will once people learn about Paul and the Media spreads his
Ideas as well.

What a silly argument.

Oliver, most people have bumped into a libertarian at some point, but libertarians (whether in the Libertarian Party or the Republican Party) remain a small, small minority.

This may come as a surprise, but Paul isn't losing because people haven't heard his ideas. Paul is losing because people don't agree with his ideas.

[Pardalis]

For crying out loud Oliver, you have the attention span of a three year old.

Do you honestly think having Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?

[Oliver]

What a silly argument.

Oliver, most people have bumped into a libertarian at some point, but libertarians (whether in the Libertarian Party or the Republican Party) remain a small, small minority.

This may come as a surprise, but Paul isn't losing because people haven't heard his ideas. Paul is losing because people don't agree with his ideas.


Source? A republican sponsored poll? *lol* At least you're funny.

[Cleon]

Source? A republican sponsored poll?

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes:

*lol* At least you're funny.

Aw, how cute, you're trying to be condescending. Pity you're not very good at it.

[Oliver]

For crying out loud Oliver, you have the attention span of a three year old.

Do you honestly think having Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?


No, I'm switching between 10 COMPLETELY different topics
right now. What is yur...Okay , I see...

Yes, I think it would work. As I said - Paul's campaign isn't
about "Me Republican, you stupid democrat."

That's pretty new to me that someone actually doesn't swim
WITH the parties stream. That's unique about Paul. That's why
I honestly think that Paul can UNITE America's Bi-Partisanship
instead dividing the country even more in Dem's and Rep's.

Dem's, Rep's, Liberals, Nationalists etc. are AMERICANS AS WELL!
That's what made America great. Doesn't America understand
that anymore? :confused:

[Oliver]

Yeah, that's it. :rolleyes:

Aw, how cute, you're trying to be condescending. Pity you're not very good at it.


No, despite sarcasm - I was serious:

Source? :confused:

[Pardalis]

No, I'm switching between 10 COMPLETELY different topics right now.

That's not my problem is it?

Yes, I think it would work. As I said - Paul's campaign isn't
about "Me Republican, you stupid democrat."

That's pretty new to me that someone actually doesn't swim
WITH the parties stream. That's unique about Paul.That's exactly my point. How is Paul going to be able to function within the Republican party, and inversily, how will the Republican party be able to function with Paul as its main man?

That's why I honestly think that Paul can UNITE America's Bi-Partisanship instead dividing the country even more in Dem's and Rep's. Dem's, Rep's, Liberals, Nationalists etc. are AMERICANS AS WELL!
That's what made America great. Doesn't America understand
that anymore? :confused:This has nothing to do with my question. Again, you're not answering it.

The primaries are not about who will be the next president, but who will be the front runner for each of the two parties.

[Oliver]

That's not my problem is it?

That's exactly my point. How is Paul going to be able to function within the Republican party, and inversily, how will the Republican party be able to function with Paul as its main man?

This has nothing to do with my question. Again, you're not answering it.

The primaries are not about who will be the next president, but who will be the front runner for each of the two parties.


No, it's not your problem - but you may allow me to answer
whenever I have some air left to breath.

Concerning your point: America isn't about Dem's and Rep's.
People who think in categories aren't Americans. The whole
"me Rep, you fanatic" or the other way around is stupid.
Therefore your whole argument doesn't make much sense
since Paul isn't strictly Rep or Liberal - his support is based
on his Ideas - which coincidently are classical Republican
Values - Constitutionalism.

[Pardalis]

Concerning your point: America isn't about Dem's and Rep's. People who think in categories aren't Americans. The whole "me Rep, you fanatic" or the other way around is stupid. Therefore your whole argument doesn't make much sense since Paul isn't strictly Rep or Liberal - his support is based on his Ideas - which coincidently are classical Republican
Values.

You're not answering my question.

And btw, I don't need you to tell me who the Americans are.

[Pardalis]

I see we've derailed this thread, maybe a split would be in order? (Paul and the Republican party)

[Oliver]

You're not answering my question.

And btw, I don't need you to tell me who the Americans are.


I obviously fail to understand your question. Can you elaborate? :confused:

[Oliver]

I see we've derailed this thread, maybe a split would be in order?


Feel free to do so - even if we're still talking about republicans here.

[Pardalis]

Oliver, this is about the Republican party and whether it will win or loose. If you are rooting for Paul to win, therefore you are rooting for the Republican party (because that's the party he's affiliated with). I'm asking if you think Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party could work, and ultimately, if it will lead the Republican party to win the 2008 elections.

In my opinion, I see too much differences between his views and the views of his party. In other words, I don't think it could work.

The only way Ron Paul could work would be that he leaves the Republicans and presents himself for the Libertarian party, IMO.

[Oliver]

Oliver, this is about the Republican party and whether it will win or loose. If you are rooting for Paul to win, therefore you are rooting for the Republican party (because that's the party he's affiliated with). I'm asking if you think Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party could work, and ultimately, if it will lead the Republican party to win the 2008 elections.

In my opinion, I see too much differences between his views and the views of his party. In other words, I don't think it could work.

The only way Ron Paul could work would be that he leaves the Republicans and presents himself for the Libertarian party, IMO.


I disagree. I'm completely opposed to the Neo-Cons Ideology,
which is republican as well. I'm not rooting for those Idiots,
I'm rooting for Ron Paul.

And I have no Idea why many other Democrats like him...

Concerning the discrepancy between his and his parties
stance: While I agree that he isn't in line with the other
republican candidates nor neo-conservatism, I disagree
that he's out of step regarding traditional republican or
conservative values...

Why the Heck do you think otherwise??? :confused:

[Brainster]

This concept of "losing to win" has never succeeded in the past. Many Republicans thought that losing in 1992 wouldn't be so bad; after four years of the Democrats they'd sweep back into power. Of course, it turned out to be eight years, and realistically if Bill Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped it would be 16 years and counting. Many Democrats thought in 1980 that four years of Ronald Reagan would have the country clamoring for their services; that one didn't work out either.

[Praktik]

This concept of "losing to win" has never succeeded in the past. Many Republicans thought that losing in 1992 wouldn't be so bad; after four years of the Democrats they'd sweep back into power. Of course, it turned out to be eight years, and realistically if Bill Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped it would be 16 years and counting. Many Democrats thought in 1980 that four years of Ronald Reagan would have the country clamoring for their services; that one didn't work out either.

I mostly agree that it hasn't panned out - but couldn't the Repub's point to their "moral majority" of '94 and the congress that laid the path for the party that gave us Dubya in all his splendour?

[Oliver]

This concept of "losing to win" has never succeeded in the past. Many Republicans thought that losing in 1992 wouldn't be so bad; after four years of the Democrats they'd sweep back into power. Of course, it turned out to be eight years, and realistically if Bill Clinton had been able to keep his pants zipped it would be 16 years and counting. Many Democrats thought in 1980 that four years of Ronald Reagan would have the country clamoring for their services; that one didn't work out either.


But what is Democrat?
What is Republican?

The whole discussion sounds like if there is just Black&White.
What about Grey?

"Grey" isn't allowed to get their word out. Why is that?

Don't you see that the whole 2-party system and it's stronghold is flawed?


I argue this way because I honestly give a **** about Rep's and Dem's,
I tend to have an opinion in between. But there is no major party that
would represent my opinion - at least no party of one of the 2 major
ones.

Where the heck is the rest?
Did you ever asked this yourself? - And if so: What's your answer?

[Darth Rotor]

If they retake the House or the Senate, it is a win for the GOP. That allows enough room to block any severe a change of course, in all areas of policy, which given the last seven years of policy formation, is likely pending. Pendulum swings, again.

If they win the White House, some in the party will see it as a war mandate. We then have to estimate who in the GOP will be on the ticket, so this thread ought to be shelved until June.

DR

[Pardalis]

But there is no major party that would represent my opinion

Of course not, you're German.

[Oliver]

Of course not, you're German.


I was speaking on behalf being an American Voter living in
America. Sad but true - German politics isn't that divided
to actually pick a party of choice and go out and vote,
meaning that there isn't a political course over here that
is convincing to me.

[Mister Agenda]

For crying out loud Oliver, you have the attention span of a three year old.

Do you honestly think having Ron Paul as the head of the Republican party will work?

The POTUS isn't actually the head of his party. How RP would work with the congress (and vice versa) would be the interesting part. The Dem side of congress would almost HAVE to support him in withdrawing troops from Iraq. The Dems and Repubs would have to work together in unprecedented ways to overcome RP's predictably frequent vetoes.

[Pardalis]

I was speaking on behalf being an American Voter living in America.

You are not an American voter living in America.

[Pardalis]

The POTUS isn't actually the head of his party.

I know, but he would have to be the head of the party in order to lead it to win the election. I just can't see all Republicans getting behind him, at some point this is what is going to have to happen.

[Oliver]

You are not an American voter living in America.


So I'm not allowed to have a political stance about another
countries policies? What are you doing in here then? :confused:

What's the point?

[Pardalis]

What's the point?

You constantly whining about how American politics are not what you want them to be?

[Oliver]

You constantly whining about how American politics are not what you want them to be?


No, I'm whining about the stupid human race in general.
Right now the "neo-republicans" deadly policies are my
favorites to whine about... :D

What is your opinion about the rep's? Should they lose
based on the lies we heard in the last two terms? Judging
from your arguments, they shouldn't ... :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

What is your opinion about the rep's? Should they lose based on the lies we heard in the last two terms? Judging from your arguments, they shouldn't ... :rolleyes:

I never said that. Stop it with your strawmen, you're acting like a three year old kid.

[Oliver]

I never said that. Stop it with your strawmen, you're acting like a three year old kid.


This thread is about: Should the republicans LOSE the election? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3234459#post3234459)
Your answer? :rolleyes: (Yes, you failed to do so...)

[Pardalis]

This thread is about: Should the republicans LOSE the election? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3234459#post3234459)
Your answer? :rolleyes: (Yes, you failed to do so...)

The OP is about a silly theory that the Republicans will intentionally loose. I don't agree. I personally wish the Democrats will win, but that's not up for me to decide.

[Oliver]

The OP is about a silly theory that the Republicans will intentionally loose. I don't agree. I personally wish the Democrats will win, but that's not up for me to decide.



But SHOULD they lose - being a "Canadian US-democrat"? :D

[Brainster]

But what is Democrat?
What is Republican?

The whole discussion sounds like if there is just Black&White.
What about Grey?

"Grey" isn't allowed to get their word out. Why is that?

Don't you see that the whole 2-party system and it's stronghold is flawed?


I argue this way because I honestly give a **** about Rep's and Dem's,
I tend to have an opinion in between. But there is no major party that
would represent my opinion - at least no party of one of the 2 major
ones.

Where the heck is the rest?
Did you ever asked this yourself? - And if so: What's your answer?

It's an artifact of "winner take all". Centrists (as you claim to be) are extremely well-served by the two-party system, since neither party can get too far from the center without paying the price at the polls. If you are a centrist and the country gets 8 years of Republicans and 8 years of Democrats, then you should be pleased. And yes, that sounds roughly like the old gag about how if you have one foot in a block of ice and one foot in a fire, on average you should be comfortable.

It's the people out on the wings who are poorly served, the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives. They never get what they want.

[Oliver]

It's an artifact of "winner take all". Centrists (as you claim to be) are extremely well-served by the two-party system, since neither party can get too far from the center without paying the price at the polls. If you are a centrist and the country gets 8 years of Republicans and 8 years of Democrats, then you should be pleased. And yes, that sounds roughly like the old gag about how if you have one foot in a block of ice and one foot in a fire, on average you should be comfortable.

It's the people out on the wings who are poorly served, the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives. They never get what they want.


I don't think that I'm a centrist because even if I like some
democratic and republican Ideas - that doesn't mean that
the democratic or republican course is to extreme to me.
So I simply like some points of both parties the way they
are. But unfortunately, there is NOTHING in between.

Paul - on the other Hand - is the closest candidate to
my opinion. So should I condemn him for running as a rep?
Should I condemn him for NOT running as a dem?

I DON'T CARE!!! :)

I like Ron and I give a XXXX about the party he belongs to...
Yes, that sounds revolutionary. That's EXACTLY how I think:


**** Dem's
**** Rep's
Go Ron! :

http://250kb.de/u/071112/p/2f0ad490.png

[Pardalis]

Oliver, what you want is a king.

[Praktik]

argue this way because I honestly give a **** about Rep's and Dem's,
I tend to have an opinion in between. But there is no major party that
would represent my opinion - at least no party of one of the 2 major
ones.

Where the heck is the rest?
Did you ever asked this yourself? - And if so: What's your answer?


If you're interested in finding out a little history on the matter I can't recomment Louis Hartz enough. His books "The Founding of New Societies" (focus on US, Canada + Quebec, Australia and Latin America) "The Liberal Tradition in America " are considered classics in North American political science. Fascinating reads both of them, especially for Canadian like myself who has often wondered why, for example, there hasn't been many "red scares" in Canada, at least not nearly of the same intensity as in the US and why Canada is more comfortable with government intervention in the economy and America isn't. It also helps to answer why there hasn't been a serious revolutionary movement in America beyond the radical fringes and why these fringe movements have never gained any serious traction.

Essentially, the new societies of the America's were what Hartz called "fragments" of the European societies from whence they came. In America's case, the "fragment" was almost entirely made up of the bourgeois fleeing political strife in England. This fragment was devoutly liberal (in the classical, Lockian sense) and became even moreso as time went on. At the time of the Revolution, Loyalists escaped to Canada, adding to the "tory touch" there, but also purifying the liberal tradition in America. The decline of Whig politics prior to the Civil war was another step towards a more purely liberal consensus. But the final holdout, the feudal tradition of the South, based on slavery, suffered not just a military defeat, but almost a complete ideological defeat as well - they spawned no great thinkers or writers whose works influence American politics today in any way more serious than historical curiousity. This "purified" the liberal tradition in America.

The problem with this kind of homogeneous political makeup is that it does not contain the heterogeneous politics of the European homelands - feudalism was weak and defeated, so there was no serious threat that socialism would rise up in response to a feudal arrangement. In Europe, the varying political traditions influence one another, feudalism spawns socialism, aristocratic toryism spawns liberalism and so on. So part of the reason America "hasn't had a revolution" is because the pre-existing political ideas that created the environment necessary for a socialist revolution just didn't exist there.

The other problem with this kind of single-politics situation is that it created in America what Hartz calls "irrational Lockianism" or the "one true national myth" - in this case the "born equal", "everybody has a shot" aspects of liberal thought - what we now call "the American dream". This widespread acceptance and belief in "the national myth" is virulently opposed to anything that questions the fundamental tenets of liberal thought, like say, socialism. This is why America has had such intense red scares - first following WWI, and then again following WWII (both wars were fought ostensibly "for democracy" and "freedom" and further consolidated the "national myth" as well). The fear of the "other" is thus even more operative in America then say, in Canada - where a tory streak and the feudal remnant of Lower Canada created a more ideologically diverse country which was still very liberal, but not so liberal as America, and without the irrationality of the "national myth" of American liberalism. So nowadays you still hear people crying that so and so's policies are socialist - when at most they're probably center-left, there's still a fear of communism - and "the other" is seen more commonly these days in the form of muslims - and among conservatives, in the form of gays, "liberals" (in the pejorative, not classical sense) and other ne'erdowells... The "American dream", predicated as it is on "equality of opportunity" and other such things, is itself a stumbling block to revolution -> if everyone believes in this myth, why revolt? "We're born equal, we're born free" - so there's no need for a revolution.

This homogeneous political environment is also something that I think, makes the "illusion of democracy" even more of an illusion in America than Canada. For if the national consensus - from which any deviation is decried as "un american" - exists solely within the narrow confines of Locke, then democratic outcomes will necessarily be confined to the consensus. This is why there's not much difference economically between the Republicans and the Democrats - and I would argue that that difference has narrowed even more recently with the rise of a neoliberal consensus across both parties (free trade, etc etc). Canada has that too - we went from Mulroney/Wilson to Chretien/Martin with not much change to the neoliberal program. But if you look at Canada, despite the consensus and the associated cutbacks and the rest, there's still things here that our "tory touch" allows for - such as red toryism, a social safety net, public medecine and a greater willingness to allow government intervention even in the days of "globalization" (though NAFTA does tie our hands in economic matters to a great degree - thanks Mulroney!). In America, I was watching CNN a little while ago when that health plan was moving through the House and Senate and I heard it described as "socialized medecine" by a Republican on the floor -> but the whole bill is supported by the insurance industry, and relies on the insurance industry to deliver the bill's promise to provide health coverage to some (but not nearly all) of the uninsured. Ridiculous to call something like that "socialized medecine" - but within the context of the American liberal consensus, it makes sense that the bill would be labelled as such by those who see it as a departure from "American values" (ie, deviation from the one true "national myth').

So Hartz represents a partial refutation of Marx. He doesn't doubt the thesis of Marx where Marx was living - in Europe. But the thesis is innapplicable in America because of its unique political history. Though economic pre-conditions to revolution like the concentration of capital exist there as they do in Europe, the political environment does not allow for the rise of socialism (no feudalism, no socialism), and so the revolution will not happen there as it did in Europe.

And this is part of the reason why there's only two "serious" political parties in the States. I would argue that even in a multi-party system, that the overall spectrum would still be narrow in America - you can't really change the fact that most politics in America is historically confined to a narrow spectrum.

Now the caveats: yes there's been home-grown socialists in America - but compare America to Canada where socialism has been a much stronger force, even getting its own political party (which has watered down its socialism, but still, take a look at the NDP party platform as an American and you'd probably be surprised to learn that the party has run a few of our biggest provinces!). So Hartz isn't saying there was NO socialism in America - just that it was marginalized and never a strong force like it has been in Europe. If you're interested in this topic run a google on the name Louis Hartz - his thesis has been refined by later thinkers and there's some good stuff out there if you care to look.

EDIT: there's probably a host of other reasons why there's only two parties - institutional lethargy, the outcomes of long-gone political battles, the structure of the constitution, the established parties working together to prevent the rise of third parties. But I think Hartz does help explain why the two parties we have now are so similar in some respects - even if Hartz alone can't explain everything...:)

[Oliver]

Oliver, what you want is a king.


No, I want a course - or an Ideology I can agree with.
That to me is Republican Ron Paul. And you might consider
that I was completely opposed to Republicans until I heard
his stance on traditional conservatism.

And no - I don't agree with him on all points since I prefer
some Governments responsibility concerning social issues
based of the German constitution.

Since the US-Constitution differs to the German one, I can
accept the way Ron promotes the US-version.

Anyway: His main point is that he speaks truth whenever
other candidates play the voters or parties Harp.

Didn't you notice that as well? (Please answer this one)

[Brainster]

I don't think that I'm a centrist because even if I like some democratic and republican Ideas - that doesn't mean that
the democratic or republican course is to extreme to me.
So I simply like some points of both parties the way they
are. But unfortunately, there is NOTHING in between.

In between the left and the right is the center. Is this some language problem? Ron Paul is NOT in between the Democrats and the Republicans. He's somewhere off on his own planet.

Paul - on the other Hand - is the closest candidate to
my opinion. So should I condemn him for running as a rep?
Should I condemn him for NOT running as a dem?

Only if you think all Dems are wonderful and and Reps are bad.

[SDC]

Anyway: His main point is that he speaks truth whenever
other candidates play the voters or parties Harp.

Didn't you notice that as well? (Please answer this one)

I gather you are addressing Pardalis, but this statement compels me to say: no, he doesn't speak truth. (Or even Truth.) He speaks his opinions.

I doubt, from where you sit, that you have more than a vague idea of what he and his views represent in the US context. Which is the appropriate context to judge him in. My experience is that Europeans often have very little idea of American realities, and very little interest in learning more. Americans are the same way toward Europeans, in general, of course. Such is human nature. But you are commenting on us, not we on you, at the moment.

[Oliver]

In between the left and the right is the center. Is this some language problem? Ron Paul is NOT in between the Democrats and the Republicans. He's somewhere off on his own planet.

Only if you think all Dems are wonderful and and Reps are bad.


No, you're wrong.

Centralist means to have a completely different opinion to
the other two mainstream opinions.

Now I don't have completely different opinions or a centralistic
opinion between both parties. My opinion INCLUDES both extremes,
it doesn't oppose them.

This means that I like some ideas from the left and some from
the right - NOT: "I',m opposed to both stances" (Which would
be the centralist's stance)

Is this a translational issue or are you capable to differ between
"being in between both opinions" and "accepting some opinions
from the left and some from the right".

It seems to me that your understanding of centralism is flawed.

[Pardalis]

And no - I don't agree with him on all points since I prefer some Governments responsibility concerning social issues based of the German constitution.

Small government isn't just a small detail in his political ideology.

Since the US-Constitution differs to the German one, I can
accept the way Ron promotes the US-version. Of course, why would you care? You only care about his foreign policy (or lack there of).

[Oliver]

Small government isn't just a small detail in his political ideology.

Of course, why would you care? You only care about his foreign policy (or lack there of).


You really think that diplomacy isn't foreign policy??? :D
I just thought you're the funniest Canadian I ever met... :)

But seriously.

A. A smaller Government doesn't hurt a country that gives
a **** about the rest of the world including their own
citizens - as long it serves their own interest in contrary to
the "We the peoples" opinion.

A moral Government based on the citizens moral standards
is great - and I appreciate that. But a Government lying
(WMD, Iran, NIE, Plame, Saudis, Saddam, August 6th etc...)
isn't serving the people - IS IT?

And if so .... Why?

What the heck is your stance? Do you even have one????

[Pardalis]

This is completely unintelligible.

[Oliver]

This is completely unintelligible.


As long you dodge my honest questions: Yes, I agree.

[KoihimeNakamura]

You really think that diplomacy isn't foreign policy??? :D
I just thought you're the funniest Canadian I ever met... :)

But seriously.

A. A smaller Government doesn't hurt a country that gives
a **** about the rest of the world including their own
citizens - as long it serves their own interest in contrary to
the "We the peoples" opinion.

... can you actually clarify that?

[Brainster]

No, you're wrong.

Centralist means to have a completely different opinion to
the other two mainstream opinions.

Ah, so it is a language problem then. A centralist is a believer in centralism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/centralist), which is defined as:

a centralizing system; centralization.

A centrist, on the other hand, refers to a moderate political (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/centrist) position.

Now I don't have completely different opinions or a centralistic
opinion between both parties. My opinion INCLUDES both extremes,
it doesn't oppose them.

Then you are not a centrist or centralist. You're not in between the two parties, you're very much on the fringes. Which of course does not surprise me, given your support of a fringe candidate like Paul.

This means that I like some ideas from the left and some from
the right - NOT: "I',m opposed to both stances" (Which would
be the centralist's stance)

Is this a translational issue or are you capable to differ between
"being in between both opinions" and "accepting some opinions
from the left and some from the right".

It seems to me that your understanding of centralism is flawed.[/QUOTE]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think.

[Oliver]

Ah, so it is a language problem then. A centralist is a believer in centralism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/centralist), which is defined as:

A centrist, on the other hand, refers to a moderate political (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/centrist) position.

Then you are not a centrist or centralist. You're not in between the two parties, you're very much on the fringes. Which of course does not surprise me, given your support of a fringe candidate like Paul.

Is this a translational issue or are you capable to differ between
"being in between both opinions" and "accepting some opinions
from the left and some from the right".

It seems to me that your understanding of centralism is flawed.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think.


Then this might be a language-based thing.

While a centrist does oppose the two or more other opinions,
having an own opinion in between - a person having opinions
based on several major streams isn't a centralist at all, he
literally has an own opinion which differs from a centralist's
point of view being in between.

So where is my personal party if the only chance I have in
the US is DEM or REP?

Even if I was a centralist - I would have the same problem:
Dem or Rep?

Are you saying all people are pure Dems or pure Reps? - That
doesn't sound plausible in the world I was raised in... Does it
makes sense to you?

[Oliver]

... can you actually clarify that?


Clarify what? Formulate the question the way it came to your mind...

[Pardalis]

Anybody got an aspirin?

[Oliver]

Anybody got an aspirin?


Ron Paul actually IS a doctor .... he surely does have some... !!! :D

[Pardalis]

BTW, Praktik's post was very interesting and insightful, I'm sure Louis Hartz's book will be very informative.

I hope you'll take a look at it as well Oliver, since you've been whining for months about the US's two party system.

[Oliver]

BTW, Praktik's post was very interesting and insightful, I'm sure Louis Hartz's book will be very informative.

I hope you'll take a look at it as well Oliver, since you've been whining for months about the US's two party system.


I'm whining about your personal stance for months now. And
you still are too shy to publish it:

Should the republicans LOSE the election? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3234943#post3234943) :confused: ...and why?

[Matteo Martini]

If the Reps want to win, they better chose Paul to have a chance.
Anyone else will fail anyway.

And no matter if Ron gets the nomination or the Reps lose - I'm
happy with both solutions - at least in this election.

Would you be that happy to have Hillary as the next President?

[Elizabeth I]

Whoever the next president is will have a rough row to hoe, but if they clean up some of the messes of the current administration, they'll get the credit. Don't look for anything like that from any of the Neocon candidates.

[off-topic but heartfelt]Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing "a hard row to hoe," not "a hard road to hoe" or "a heart row to hoe," or any of the other illiterate alternatives I have heard for that phrase.[/off-topic but heartfelt]

[Elizabeth I]

Who taught Oliver the phrase "Neo-con"?

Can we have him or her executed?

[Cleon]

[off-topic but heartfelt]Thank you, thank you, thank you for writing "a hard row to hoe," not "a hard road to hoe" or "a heart row to hoe," or any of the other illiterate alternatives I have heard for that phrase.[/off-topic but heartfelt]

It's a mighty hard row that my poor hands has hoed,
My poor feet have traveled this hot, dusty road.
Out of your dust bowl and westward we rolled,
Through deserts so hot, and through mountains so cold."

- Woody Guthrie, Pastures of Plenty


(Sorry, couldn't resist. One of my favorite songs.)

[Shalamar]

*grumble*

That was a horrendous de-rail...

[Oliver]

Would you be that happy to have Hillary as the next President?


Not really since she doesn't draw a line between:
"We are Americans - You are Israelis".

On the other Hand, a women or a African-American would
be cool to see in the White House. But since Paul is the
best choice for America and the World, I think it's time
for a constitutional republican. :)

[Pardalis]

I think it's time for a constitutional republican. :)

Says the German who never voted. :rolleyes:

[fuelair]

Fortunately, though the Shrub unpresidency argues against this, I think there are still enough rational, voting Americans that Paul and equivalent incompetants are unlikely to win more than votes from fringers who want one or two things so badly they would put up with say Mussolini or Stalin (just to avoid Godwining here) or even that old car expert Nader (the slimeball) if they were promised those one or two things.
Additionally and obviously to most of us who find it funny though annoying that so many of the red-staters would/do not recognize their potential benefactors in the Democrats because it comes with "baggage" that would have no functional effect on
them like gay marriage (if their kid(s) are gay they'll be gay whether they can marry or not), abortion rights (there will be abortions - and should be- whether there are laws against it or not and there are few of them who do not know that and a good number who know directly -it's what we call hypocrisy on their parts) so for lip service to their deepest, most pointless fears they elect Republicans who want to take their money for Halliburton, Saudi Arabia, Blackwater etc. to feast and grow on.
Great thinking there!!!

[Oliver]

Says the German who never voted. :rolleyes:


True. I didn't - but I would vote for Paul. Is this wrong to
be optimistic and having hope concerning the stupid human
race as a whole? :blush:

[Matteo Martini]

Not really since she doesn't draw a line between:
"We are Americans - You are Israelis".

On the other Hand, a women or a African-American would
be cool to see in the White House. But since Paul is the
best choice for America and the World, I think it's time
for a constitutional republican. :)

Basically, I think Hillary looks little bit like a power-hungry, who does not have a foreign policy that different from W ( I may be wrong, though )

[WildCat]

True. I didn't - but I would vote for Paul. Is this wrong to
be optimistic and having hope concerning the stupid human
race as a whole? :blush:
Yeah, Paul will attack that NWO that is secretly taking over the country and the world! Go get 'em Ronny!

[Brainster]

Who taught Oliver the phrase "Neo-con"?

Can we have him or her executed?

I always go with David Brooks' rule: Whenever a liberal uses the word neocon in a sentence, the rest of the sentence is false.

[NeoRicen]

I don't think that I'm a centrist because even if I like some
democratic and republican Ideas - that doesn't mean that
the democratic or republican course is to extreme to me.
So I simply like some points of both parties the way they
are. But unfortunately, there is NOTHING in between.

Paul - on the other Hand - is the closest candidate to
my opinion. So should I condemn him for running as a rep?
Should I condemn him for NOT running as a dem?
You say you'd vote for Ron Paul because he's in between the Republicans and Democrats? Get real, he's firmly in amongst the Republicans, if not to right of them. The closest candidates to the center are Democrats.

From observation the candidates closest to the center are Obama, Edwards, Biden and Clinton. The ones to the left are Gravel and Kucinich, to the right are basically all the Republicans, maybe minus Giuliani and McCain who are closer to the center.

Also Oliver, your support for both Paul and Kucinich is bizarre, the two are pretty much on opposite sides of the political spectrum.