Korean Job Discussion Forums

[weso1]

Just curious, I know a lot of the posters that hang out on the current events forum are major Ron Paul supporters. I think many of them worship at the church of Paul. But frankly, I think it's a waste of time.

The GOP is going to nominate Romney. That's just reality. The big wigs and the money is behind him, so he's the guy. Ron Paul is too chicken and/or lazy to mount a rebel third party run, so once Super Tuesday is over, you're going to have two choices, Romney or Obama.

Who are the Paul lovers going to vote for? Obama would be their closest match, but by no means a "strong second." And anyone who supports Paul and then votes for Romney, is well, stupid. Are they going to throw their vote away with a write in or what?

[Kimbop]

[comm]

[Kimbop]

[sirius black]

Obama, for me at least, is clearly the lesser of two evils. I see very little that Romney offers other than the usual Republican mantra. The one little hope I have about him is that he may govern centrist in that he was governor of Massachusettes and you can't be too far right in that state.

His economic plan is no different than what you hear the typical Republican says..cut taxes for this and that, drill in the gulf or anywhere there is oil, cut spending, etc.

Its sometimes the case that Presidents spend their last 4 years worrying about their legacy and doing things they actually believe in. That may happen with Obama. Corporations will continue to get richer and more powerful under Romney I fear.

Not that I'm anti capitalism. Far from it. I'm a Gordon Gekko, 'greed is good' kinda person but the big money has too much influence in Washington. They write most of the laws that govern them.

I have voted for both parties but won't vote Republican unless its Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and possibly Huntsman. I don't see any way Ron Paul gets the nomination. I know its the people that vote but the Republican heirarchy can make it difficult enough that the people don't get a chance. They have their man in Romney and that's who Iexpect to get the nomination. I don't see Newt getting it. People have lost Iowa and still get the nomination. Its huge but its not the ultimate decider.

[Unposter]

If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination than a revolution will have happened. It would be the end of the Republican Party as we now know it.

[sirius black]

[Kuros]

[Unposter]

I think Obama's first two years were fairly progressive by previous American President's standards. I think Obama got into trouble because he tried to be a new kind of non-partisan politician. So, he tried to work with the Republicans in the house which significantly increased the conservativism of his administration and led to nicknames like "Captain Capitulation." Obama seems to get this. I think you will see less and less compromise with the Republicans if Obama gets a second term. His foreign policy successes shows that Obama can be an effective leader when the Republicans aren't trying to sabotage him. I suspect we will see a much different Obama administration if he is re-elected.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I'm all for a third party candidacy as well. The more, the merrier. Fourth, fifth, sixth....I don't really care. As long as they are all from the right wing, I think it's a good deal.

I can see a GOP establishment candidate: more war, more tax breaks for the 1%; a libertarian candidate: isolationism, turn power over to the corporations, more tax breaks for the 1%: an evangelical candidate...burn a few women at the stake and give the rich another tax break; a JBS candidate ranting about the dangers of floride and the Tri-Lateral commission...and a tax break for the 1%. And let's not forget a White Citizens' Council candidate who argues for the down-trodden white man...and a tax break for the 1%.

Let's see...1932 to 1968, umm, that's 36 years. At my age I don't need that long. To be safe, just give me until 2024...after that, you can burn the whole place down for all I care. (Given your anti-science view, that just might be what you will do.)

[sirius black]

[Unposter]

I have no problem with compromise (personally, I think i am quite good at it) but let the Senators and Representatives compromise. The President has to lead. He needs to show his vision of where the country needs to go. I think Obama's record on this has been spotty. Sometimes, he plays too much as a Senator and not as a President.

Obama has not been perfect. But, until I hear a better choice, he will be my candidate. I also think Obama is starting to get it. And, if given a second term, it will be better.

I worry Paul would be even worse. Can you imagine him addressing Congress and saying okay, let's end the Fed and not having even one member of Congress submitting the legislation? Okay, maybe that is a little far fetched but I think even if Paul won, which I doubt, he would have one huge uphill battle getting anything done. It would be a mess.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I agree with the two posters above. Compromise is almost always a better solution. After all, minority views need to be included. However, we find ourselves with an extremely radical faction that has captured control of the congressional GOP that does not believe in compromise.

That's a problem.

Our system is based on compromise and they reject it. There are only three alternatives: surrender to them, draw a line and refuse to give in--and risk civil disorder, or wait for them to do something so outrageous that they discredit themselves (and hope they don't capture the government before they do it and destroy the nation).

RP is just the Tea Party without the funny hat. Ideological purity is anathema to a system based on compromise.

[jangleton]

[bucheon bum]

I would like to see RP do well just to see how the media would react.