Saturday, November 17, 2007

That pretty much sums it up.

12 comments:

brent said...

What? Where did this amazingly profound political conclusion come from? And whence this antagonism towards Ron Paul?

Sherpa said...

It's not amazing or even real profound. It's just over. ;) Okay, that sounds a little harsh. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul or his platform, and have had some run-ins with the Revolution. But we can still be friends. 'mkay?

brent said...

'Mkay. :) Sounds good.

Steve said...

I actually enjoy the Paultards. And when it comes down to it, I think he is more honest and "sane" than most of the other Republican candidates. Plus he is right on a lot of issues. Would I vote for him over a Dem., most unlikely, but representing clear and basic Republican ideals, he most certainly does. And as a President, who would be in check by Congress, thus not able to do all his sweeping "crazy" ideas, I think he has some fantastic foreign policy ideas and understands the role of a President, unlike the current one. Honestly, anyone that voted for Bush can't say anything to knock this guy, haha.

Sherpa said...

A vote in 2004 disqualifies me for criticizing a Presidential Candidate? Best logic ever! Besides, the only person who knows who I voted for was me, and that's between myself and the eletronic voting machine.

Paul uses the Constitution as a tool, I'll give him that. I also believe that the future of the Republican Party can be found in the Ron Paul Camp. That being said, he represents simplistic, Republican Ideals.

That being said, have you read his platform? It really is emotional tripe. You read it and its like, wow, that's dilluting the issues, sounds good when you glance at it and then go, oh that's not completely accurate and just appeals to my emotions.

I've had too many run-ins with the Paultards. Glad you've had good experiences but the Paultards are much more obnoxious to me than even the Romney Camp.

Steve said...

I think all the Republican candidates pander the lowest common denominator with everything they say; it's all scare mongering!!! Although, the Dems. also reduce everything. It's the whole idea that voters are dumb and need a "bumper sticker" ideal to vote on. Sad, but I tend to agree. Although, one good thing I can say that has come from the "questionable" voting pattern from 2004 is that the populace as a whole seems to have learned that there IS such a thing as a bad President and your vote DOES matter, thus we all must become more informed when pressing the button. BTW, I was criticizing you for your hypothectical vote of Bush, if you even did. I just hear lots of crazy talk about Paul coming from diehard Bushies. And you are also right that his REAL platform IS crazy, haha. As a Libertarian (what he really is), I agree with his civil liberties concerns, but his economic ones are absurd. Not to mention his governance theory. But for better or worst, he scares me less than Mr. 9/11 and Mr Torture Romney. Sleepy is pretty boring and should go back to Law and Order. And then there is the the whole Build a Wall Around Us candidate. So pick your crazy, haha.

Steve said...

Ooops, should say "NOT criticizing you of your vote of Bush". Again, I just hope whomever voted for his has learned their lesson of voting for a one issue, emotions based candidate.

Sherpa said...

Of course almost all the candidates pander and practice bumper sticker politics. Its the slogans that people remember. The type of pandering varies from candidate to candidate however. I don't necessarily agree with bumper sticker politics, especially when the slogans are those that cheapens the process or changes it. Flip-Flopper? You're either with us or against us? Both are slogans that I absolutely abhor. Candidates need to keep it more or less simple, but not make it so simple its absolutely ridiculous.

When you look at his issues on the Ron Paul web-page, all I can say is holy.......

And yes, the Republicans probably started it and the Democrats are following their lead.

Yeah, I caught the criticsm, and frankly your logic there was, well--a classic logical fallacy.

There's a fairly large slice of the conservative arena that is listening to Ron Paul. They are the ones who've stayed with Bush and tend to be traditionalists for lack of a better word. He's not a libertarian though. He's a conservative with libertarian leanings, and there's a lot of rightwing libertarians who follow him, but he's not actually a libertarian.
As far as civil liberties go, I agree with him, but that's about it.
Ron Paul would be hilarious as president, but he's dangerous. His policies would lead the country down even a more dangerous path than it already is.

As far as the Republican Candidates go, Giuliani would be a disaster, Romney is very similar to Bush, Thompson is running half-hearted, and McCain is finally having fun being McCain.

A 1 issue emotion based candidate? There was that on both sides of 2004.

Steve said...

Again, my swipe at the electorate was excluding the present company. :)

How can you say Paul isn't a Libertarian? He ran on their ticket for Pres. in the late 80's! Plus he has all the key beliefs. Just like Dems and GOPs, they have shades of gray. And I agree 100% with you on his policies. Seriously, gold standard? Does he actually believe we even have THAT gold anymore. It was sold/given to Arab states YEARS ago. Fort Knox is more or less empty.

Your summation is dead on regarding the Repbulicans. So much so I almost spit my coffee onto my keyboard, haha. Sadly, I wish McCain could turn it around. If I was ever going to vote for a Rep. for President, it would be him.

Sorry to hijack your post. :) Even though I know you usually avoid talking politics on here, I always enjoy your insight. :)

Sherpa said...

Sorry, I feel about logical fallacies about how some people feel about abortion or torture. But in jest, logical fallacies are tons of fun.

Just because Paul was a libertarian 20 years ago, doesn't mean he is now. Its shades of gray, and he's actually moved a little towards the middle and could be called a republican with strong libertarian leanings rather than the other way around. This way he's getting republicans and the right libertarians. That being said, he's about a ride away from being the commander of the Black Helicopter Militia Crowd.

McCain being McCain is my man. I still don't agree with everything, but he's the only one of the Republican candidates I'd even think about voting for also. McCain pretty much has it right. Its a shame Boyfriend Rove took him out in 2000.

Thanks.

I actually decided 6 months ago to start talking politics on here. If people don't like me because I disagree with them politically, then well that's just lame. I just haven't gotten around to it much. The post I was working on before I heard that Paul passed away was actually a political post. I'll probably post it on Friday unless I change my mind.

Steve said...

The reason Paul is a Republican now is b/c it's called "electablity". You have a snowball's chance on the Mall today if you think you will win a major office as a Lib, Green or SD in this country. Besides, we could call Hillary a right leaning Communist, but it doesn't mean much. :) I always hated the terms/parties b/c I can never find one that works for me. :)

Sherpa said...

Well yeah, The "electability" thing was a given in my last comment. I thought that was all but spelled out in my last post since I knew you knew that, but I guess not since you spelled it out for me. Whether or not he's swung more to the center because he's running, which happens all the time, or because he's had a change of heart, the fact of the matter is he's a republican now with libertarian leanings. He's picked up the far right of the main-line republican party and a lot of libertarians and other third partiers who are past the fringe of the mainline party. Personally I think its pointless to speculate whether or not its a "true" swing since we can't read his brain--
Terms are useful to a point in political science, when they're accurate. Simplification and categorization works to a point-however, you have to be careful because people rarely are simple.