2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

reply to post by TKainZero


There are several problems with the line-item veto.

One, it makes the Executive Branch a lawmaking body by allowing the President to alter laws without consulting the Legislative branch. Together with the "signing statements" loophole, a grant of line-item veto would allow the Executive branch to completely re-write bills that pass through the House and Senate, and then pass them in their new form.

It is blatantly unconstitutional. In the body of US law, if the President does not like the bill that landed on his desk, he sends it back. He can put a sticky note on it saying just what parts he doesn't like, but that is the extent of his power in the lawmaking process.

Instituting line-item veto effectively turns our system of government into two branches - Executive and Judicial. The President could, in theory, line-item veto everything except his own signing statements, thereby turning, say, an EPA funding bill into a go-ahead for war with Brazil, or perhaps a statement granting full dictatorial powers to said president and his descendants. And the Judicial? Well, as it stands now the Judicial branch is already a partisan pawn of the Executive branch. Whoever is in the white house is also in the Supreme Court.

More temporally - since it's my understanding that constitutional law and ramifications tend to float by people - there is absolutely no guarantee that the line-item veto will be used for it's supposed intent - cutting "pork". I think you will find that the only pork that will be cut is that which does not benefit the president or the ruling party, along with, well, everything else that falls under that category. The phrase "Do you want Hillary Clinton to have _________?" comes to mind.

[edit on 24-10-2007 by The Walking Fox]

The Walking Fox I have a couple of questions for you.
Since you don't support a line-item veto what measures do you think should be taken to reign the out of control US budget ?
Which candidates in either branch of government do you think would implement your policy ideas ?

Originally posted by xpert11
Since you don't support a line-item veto what measures do you think should be taken to reign the out of control US budget ?

Cut Military and defense spending.

And the crowd gasped in horror!

No, seriously. A popular meme among the people who want to cut spending to social programs is that "throwing money at a problem does not fix it." Such is the case with our defense budget. It's grotesque. For 2008, it's nine hundred and fifty-three billion dollars. We spend more on this than the next 15 countries in the world, combined. What do we get for that price?

Waste, mostly. The problem with spending that much is diminishing returns. Money can only do so much, as frequently noted. Any money spent past that upper limit has less and less impact - we are far beyond the point where more money spent on defense is worthless.

We could cut the hell out of defense spending. I mean, absolutely maul it. Cut it down to the size of say, the Department of Education, and we would still have the most effective military force in the world. Well, assuming our military establishment can ever stop dry-humping the corpse of WWII and get with the times. But that's another topic.

Which candidates in either branch of government do you think would implement your policy ideas ?

Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul would as well, but he would kill everything else first, so screw Ron Paul.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Cut Military and defense spending.

And the crowd gasped in horror!

No, seriously. A popular meme among the people who want to cut spending to social programs is that "throwing money at a problem does not fix it." Such is the case with our defense budget. It's grotesque. For 2008, it's nine hundred and fifty-three billion dollars. We spend more on this than the next 15 countries in the world, combined. What do we get for that price?

You're onto something here. I read an article in the September issue of Scientific American about the state of affairs in Africa. We keep throwing them money, but officials in Africa are even saying that isn't going to fix the problem. They need irrigation systems for example, so they can actually farm on their own land. Once they have an agricultural base that they can depend on, progress starts.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul would as well, but he would kill everything else first, so screw Ron Paul.

Let's keep in mind that we're not electing a dictator. Ron Paul won't be able to implement a lot of things he would like to. Military spending is one thing he should be able to decrease, social security is another thing, and he would cut taxes if not eliminate federal taxes.

reply to post by The Cyfre


We'll be electing a dictator if Conservatives continue to give the current administration carte blanche to re-write the constitution.

But I just hate Libertarians, is the main reason I dislike Paul. Does nobody notice the irony of a career politician promising to cut back on government? That and he's a racist twat.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


I haven't heard about how Ron Paul is a racist. Is this opinion or a matter of fact? I'm interested! Skeletons in the closet and all...

I can understand your hesitation in the face of a politician who wants to minimize government. I think true patriots have become so unfamiliar that lots of people don't recognize them for what they are. We let the administration and the media tell us what a patriot it, just like we let hollywood and the media tell us who is popular. I mean, really. How else can Paris Hilton be a singer, club owner and actress and suck at ALL of them?

reply to post by The Cyfre


My hesitation isn't a consequence of media brainwashing. It's simply that by nature, a politician is the one creature least interested in shrinking government. Or at least shrinking his particular area of government. They're in the business for power and for wealth, and Ron Paul is no different.

As for his racism, back in the 80's and 90's, Paul had a newsletter that he basically used to espouse "Bell Curve" theories, such as the fact that 95% of black men are criminals, and are, to quote "very fleet-footed." Now, perhaps not the most damning racist comments our government has ever seen, but it puts him up there with Al Sharpton at the least. There's of course also the matter of his policy. Who does Paul-icy disaffect the most? It's not middle-class whites (though, they'll feel a sharp pinch as well)

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
My hesitation isn't a consequence of media brainwashing. It's simply that by nature, a politician is the one creature least interested in shrinking government. Or at least shrinking his particular area of government. They're in the business for power and for wealth, and Ron Paul is no different.

If you have one iota of evidence that Ron Paul is in the business of government for power and wealth, i'd like to see it. Plain and simply put.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
As for his racism, back in the 80's and 90's, Paul had a newsletter that he basically used to espouse "Bell Curve" theories, such as the fact that 95% of black men are criminals, and are, to quote "very fleet-footed." Now, perhaps not the most damning racist comments our government has ever seen, but it puts him up there with Al Sharpton at the least.

I think you're taking his comments out of context, to be honest. His indication that 95% of black men are criminals was actually, ""I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." This assumption of Paul's was made after reviewing statistical crime data in DC. It might have been out of line, but does that also mean that the geneticist who says Africans are generally less intelligent than Europeans is being a racist? He is also reviewing data and making points based on reflections of that data. I guess there is a fine line between academia and racism.

If you're going to quote, you should quote more than "very fleet-footed." Here is a more full quote. "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
I personally don't think this is a racist comment at all. They're not fleet-footed because they're black, they're fleet-footed because they're teenage criminals. If you're mugging people for a living, you should probably be able to run away, right? Another example of taking a mans words out of context, getting hung up on the emotion of a subject rather than the meat of it.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
There's of course also the matter of his policy. Who does Paul-icy disaffect the most? It's not middle-class whites (though, they'll feel a sharp pinch as well)

Well, everything seems to disaffect the poor black community, doesn't it? All policies. And it's not just about poor blacks, it's about poor people in general. Would no federal income tax disaffect America's poor? Would shrinking our military presence overseas disaffect America's poor? I don't think so. If Paul was able to move education to the private sector, i honestly don't think it will hurt the poor. I think it will free up education for everyone, ultimately.

If you're a Ron Paul supporter, you probably agree that rain must fall somewhere, some time. Not everyone can lead a comfortable and secure life, unfortunately, and some people will fall by the wayside. It's happening today, isn't it?

reply to post by The Cyfre


He's a politician, isn't he? Further, he compromises his "libertarian ideals" if it will keep him in office... thus why he suckles at the GOP financial teat, rambles against abortion, and introduced his retarded "We the People Act" - right down to it's jingo name. These are not the marks of a man who actually supports the ideals Ron Paul yabbers about on the campaign trail.

Using statistics for genocide and serial killings, we find that most of them are perpetrated by white people. Therefore, it's just common sense that the majority of white people are mass murderers, correct? That's the same logic Paul is using. "Group X is mostly race Y, therefore Race Y must be mostly made of Group X." Would you feel confident proclaiming your melanin-based intellectual superiority to a black co-worker? Probably not, but why - it's true, a geneticist says so, right?

And just what the hell is "semi-criminal"? You are or you ain't.

The problem with statistics is that they do not use real numbers. They're useful for math applications, but when being applied to life systems, they become pretty useless. All a given study tells you about, are the individuals studied. Given the wide range of individual variation, one cannot draw concrete conclusions from a "sample"

Are white teenage muggers slower, then? Given that when I did track I outran my black teammates handily, I suppose native muggers must be the hardest to catch at all (since naturally my teammates were probably 95% criminal, and not bright enough to dodge the lamp post!)

Oh yes, poor people of all races would be screwed. Ever been poor? Do you have a concept of how the bottom tax brackets work? Stripping away income taxes would actually take money away from the bottom level of wage-earners, which compounded with the absolute removal of all social services that Paul espouses, would absolutely ream this group. Given that Paul is so race-conscious that be breaks out his stopwatch every time he gets mugged by a new ethnic group, he should certainly be aware of the fact that the majority of America's poor are non-white.

Moving eduction to the private sector would simply compound a preexisting problem wherein the more affluent a community is, the better an education their kids get, due to public schooling being funded from property taxes. The problem with fiscal conservatives such as Paul is that they seem to believe replacing something is cheaper than repairing it. Go figure.

I'm very far from being a Ron Paul supporter. I've spent enough time around both his type and his supporters to be absolutely disgusted almost to the point here I'd be willing to round them up for use as food.

[edit on 25-10-2007 by The Walking Fox]

IMO in the extremely unlikely event that Ron gets elected he would end up being a lame duck president because his policy's would never fly with Congress . So to implement many of his policy's other then withdrawing US troops from overseas Ron would have to take on more of the role of a dictator. Note I am not saying that Ron would become a dictator if elected.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
He's a politician, isn't he? Further, he compromises his "libertarian ideals" if it will keep him in office... thus why he suckles at the GOP financial teat, rambles against abortion, and introduced his retarded "We the People Act" - right down to it's jingo name. These are not the marks of a man who actually supports the ideals Ron Paul yabbers about on the campaign trail.

When has he compromised his libertarian ideals? If you're talking about running as a republican, that's fine. Republicans and libertarians generally have a lot in common.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Using statistics for genocide and serial killings, we find that most of them are perpetrated by white people. Therefore, it's just common sense that the majority of white people are mass murderers, correct? That's the same logic Paul is using. "Group X is mostly race Y, therefore Race Y must be mostly made of Group X." Would you feel confident proclaiming your melanin-based intellectual superiority to a black co-worker? Probably not, but why - it's true, a geneticist says so, right?

Okay, but you're trying to tell me two different things. If most genocides and serial killings were perpetrated throughout history by white people, then it is not safe to say that the majority of white people are mass murderers. Paul isn't saying the majority of black people are criminals; he's saying the majority of crimes are committed by black people. He is also referring to local statistics, which carry a lot more meaning in that locale.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
And just what the hell is "semi-criminal"? You are or you ain't.

Semi-criminals differ from career criminals in that they are not in and out of jail all of their lives.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Oh yes, poor people of all races would be screwed. Ever been poor? Do you have a concept of how the bottom tax brackets work? Stripping away income taxes would actually take money away from the bottom level of wage-earners, which compounded with the absolute removal of all social services that Paul espouses, would absolutely ream this group. Given that Paul is so race-conscious that be breaks out his stopwatch every time he gets mugged by a new ethnic group, he should certainly be aware of the fact that the majority of America's poor are non-white.

I was very poor for a pretty significant portion of my life. My dad used to trap squirrels in the back yard and grill them for dinner. I didn't have a microwave until 1993, and i just recently god rid of the 13" television my dad bought me at a rummage sale when i was 8. I was only homeless for about a year after high school. But i'm okay now. I understand how the bottom tax bracket works. Stripping away income taxes would increase paycheck amounts, giving the poor more money to pay their energy bills. Government funded social services would be organized by churches, charities, or other private entities that stand to gain a profit in some way. This would actually probably provide more jobs. So i'm not sure what you're talking about.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
Moving eduction to the private sector would simply compound a preexisting problem wherein the more affluent a community is, the better an education their kids get, due to public schooling being funded from property taxes. The problem with fiscal conservatives such as Paul is that they seem to believe replacing something is cheaper than repairing it. Go figure.

Who is fixing the educational system in this country? It was replaced when the government took it over, it worked for a little while, and now we are cleaning up the mess from years of neglect. The system is so bloated that nothing is going to get done. Education is another government business, and it's business as usual where nothing gets done. Nobody is voting on education Congress or the house. They're busy trying to push through another amnesty bill, or voting on whether or not to make a guy apologize for saying something stupid about Iraq. If you give education to the private sector, you'll find people with money making an investment in poor areas. Intelligence doesn't care if you're poor, but under the government, opportunity does! The private sector is about investment, direction, progress. The government is about the status quo.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
I'm very far from being a Ron Paul supporter. I've spent enough time around both his type and his supporters to be absolutely disgusted almost to the point here I'd be willing to round them up for use as food.

Unfortunate as it may be for his supporters, i think his candidacy will ultimate exist as a footnote to this election season. If he gets enough votes, it will hopefully serve as a wake up call that not all is fine here in America, and we need to start spending some time focusing on ourselves and getting back to being a beacon of hope rather than a school yard bully.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
When has he compromised his libertarian ideals? If you're talking about running as a republican, that's fine. Republicans and libertarians generally have a lot in common.

Since when ?
Sure there a few Libertarian minded Republicans out there but they have felt the squeeze ever since the Republican party was hijacked by the corrupt and hypercritical religious right.
The party that is more interested in controlling who can get married rather then fiscal sanity and creates bureaucracy has nothing to do with the Libertarian ideology. Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he knew how idealogical bankrupt the Republican party has become.

On another note I have a question for Ron Paul supporters .
without Federal income tax how do you pay for the US military ?

Sometimes i double post

[edit on 10/25/2007 by TKainZero]

Originally posted by xpert11
On another note I have a question for Ron Paul supporters .
without Federal income tax how do you pay for the US military ?

With the perfectly legal taxes, the Tax on coperate profits.

A total that was over 300 Billion this past year.

However, Dr. Paul would Drasticly reduce ALL goverment spending.

(And not to mention that research shows that 100% of the FIT goes towards paying of the intrest on the national debt)

PS, welcome the new blood to this nice little thread we got going.

TKainZero doesn't congress rather then president control spending ?
Do you mean that Ron would veto any bills that contain to much pork ?
Or put another way Ron would earn the Respect of Congress by being assertive with them and that way Ron will go from having no chance of Congress adopting his policy's to very little.

Bush has shown that if you are passive with Congress they will be spend like mad and still blunt your policy goals.

Originally posted by xpert11
Since when ?
Sure there a few Libertarian minded Republicans out there but they have felt the squeeze ever since the Republican party was hijacked by the corrupt and hypercritical religious right.
The party that is more interested in controlling who can get married rather then fiscal sanity and creates bureaucracy has nothing to do with the Libertarian ideology. Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he knew how idealogical bankrupt the Republican party has become.

I am actually in agreement with you, believe it or not. Traditionally, Republicans are for a small centralized government the right of the state to decide how to carry on. This is why Paul won't get the christian vote, because while he is pro life, he understands that deciding on social issues like that is beyond the scope of the federal government. Thus, he isn't going to be championing any causes to repeal current laws.

Originally posted by xpert11
On another note I have a question for Ron Paul supporters .
without Federal income tax how do you pay for the US military ?

honestly, this is a tricky part for me. I actually don't mind taxes as long as i am okay with where the money is being spent. I think it would be ideal to be able to choose on your IRS form which areas you would prefer your taxes be spent for that year, but i don't exactly trust our government to do it in a timely fashion, or keep it organized, so that's not realistic for me.

Keep in mind, no federal taxes does not mean no state taxes. States could decide to keep taxing income, property, etc or have a blanket sales tax (which i think is the best idea over all for the time being). They could then pay into the federal government for things like the military, those federal agencies that really can't be disbanded. Moreover, we could tax items being imported into our country to be sold. This might raise the prices of things at Wal-Mart for example, which might actually let the US in the door in terms of competition again.

A big con against imposing taxes on trading countries is that people will trade less with us. But we have to remember that we are still a nation of consumers. If the demand is here, China will continue to trade with us.

Lastly, the government will have to come up with far less money if agencies are reduced, because the overall cost of the government goes down.

The former Massachusetts governor is at 36 percent in the University of Iowa Hawkeye poll. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the GOP front-runner in most national polls, places second at 13 percent and is in a virtual tie with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is in fourth place at 11 percent and Arizona Sen. John McCain trails with 6 percent. The Republican survey carries a margin of error of plus or minus 5.8 percentage points.

Source

Romney strategy seems to be win Iowa and use the momentum to over take Rudy and win the nomination. Its not a bad strategy considering that Rudy has a healthy lead in the polls.
If Romney doesn't gain momentum from an Iowa win will he be able to raise enough cash to continue the TV ad blitz ?

For those who haven't heard Rudy has sold his soul to Pat Robertson and if he is elected he will have sold out his social views and given the religious right the revival it has been looking for. If Rudy pulls off an upset and beats Hillary his presidency would be held to ransom by Pat and the Christian Taliban .
See this thread for more on this matter.

reply to post by xpert11


Definitely a frightening thought to say the least.

It really begs the questions of who else is left to really get behind in this election. Honestly at first I was rather excited about our candidates for this election, but the closer we get to the Primaries, the less excited I get.

Well the GOP is certainly in a quagmire of its own making. Between Iraq , the religious right being shown for what they are and there being no effective counter policy's to Hillary health care plans its no wonder that the Republican party isnt inspiring anybody.

Who ever loses to Hillary isnt going to be popular.