republican voters

[cupocity303]

I'm sorry, I meant to say "protectionist".

But he isn't even that, quite the opposite (Wink, Wink Free Trade). Unless being opposed to any tariffs & import quota's is now considered Protectionist. I guess the thing is that he causes some confusion on this when he votes against all of the free trade deals. People look at that record and come to the conclusion that he's opposed to free trade. When he is opposed to managed trade.

[Spray_resistant]

hey everyone,
i have a brief question (I'm from from Europe): Why are especially the poor people (non-minorities) in the usa often prone to vote for the republican party? As far as I know the republicans support among others less governmental regulation and lower taxes for the rich. So how is this appealing to rather poor people?

They have an image as the party of the rich white man.

[squealpiggy]

But he isn't even that, quite the opposite (Wink, Wink Free Trade). Where do you get this stuff from?

Why is he an isolationist? He wishes to drastically reduce military spending and dissolve bases on foreign land, not get involved in international conflicts and to concentrate instead on patrolling the US borders. International politics and war can fuck each other in the eye, as long as we can crack down on illegals.

Why is he a protectionist? He claims to support free trade but he votes against any free trade agreement with the ludicrous excuse that free trade agreements somehow prevent free trade.

Why is he not in fact a libertarian? Because he supports the use of government resources to suppress women's reproductive rights and fully endorses religious proselytizing in schools. He subscribes to the usual US right wing religious fascist nonsense about morality.

Why is he a conspiracy theorist? NAFTA superhighways and armed healthcare bureaucrats?

The guy is a nut. The fact that he is the most principled and most consistent republican nominee says a lot more about the Republican nominees than it does about Ron Paul.

[cupocity303]

So now we're back to Isolationist. A play on semantics I suppose.

Why is he an isolationist? He wishes to drastically reduce military spending and dissolve bases on foreign land, not get involved in international conflicts and to concentrate instead on patrolling the US borders. International politics and war can fuck each other in the eye, as long as we can crack down on illegals.

Yes, and I'm in favor of all of that. But that's Non-Interventionism. More semantics. It doesn't matter what you wanna call it, but if we're being technically correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism

Why is he a protectionist? He claims to support free trade but he votes against any free trade agreement with the ludicrous excuse that free trade agreements somehow prevent free trade.

See my previous post on this, I edited something in.

Why is he not in fact a libertarian? Because he supports the use of government resources to suppress women's reproductive rights and fully endorses religious proselytizing in schools. He subscribes to the usual US right wing religious fascist nonsense about morality

This is dishonest rewriting of what he is actually for/against, using clever sarcasm. Just because he is against using drugs, doesn't mean he is for a law that prevents the use of drugs. He is against abortion on principle (which i disagree with him on) and against Public funded abortions. And since this is such a touchy, divisive, polarizing subject, he'd be willing to hand this responsibility down to the states, NOT outlawing Abortion completely on a Federal level. Seems fair enough to me, since there are Religious Bible belt states who don't want Abortion being carried out in their State.


But this isn't why I'm supporting him.

[cupocity303]

and to concentrate instead on patrolling the US borders

And WTF is this supposed to mean?

[squealpiggy]

So now we're back to Isolationist. A play on semantics I suppose.




Yes, and I'm in favor of all of that. But that's Non-Interventionism. More semantics. It doesn't matter what you wanna call it, but if we're being technically correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism[/quote]

It's isolationist. It's if an ally is attacked America does nothing. Paul favours economic nationalism in the interests of creating American jobs.

This is dishonest rewriting of what he is actually for/against, using clever sarcasm. Just because he is against using drugs, doesn't mean he is for a law that prevents the use of drugs. He is against abortion on principle (which i disagree with him on) and against Public funded abortions. And since this is such a touchy, divisive, polarizing subject, he'd be willing to hand this responsibility down to the states, NOT outlawing Abortion completely on a Federal level. Seems fair enough to me, since there are Religious Bible belt states who don't want Abortion being carried out in their State.


But this isn't why I'm supporting him.

[/quote]

He has voted against women's reproductive rights and voted for the rights of the religious to proselytize in schools. And it doesn't matter if that's not why you're supporting him. If in the unlikely situation he ever got elected he would cave to lobbyists and the house just like everyone else does on economic matters and concentrate instead on using government to police American morality.

[cupocity303]

It's isolationist. It's if an ally is attacked America does nothing. Paul favours economic nationalism in the interests of creating American jobs.



He has voted against women's reproductive rights and voted for the rights of the religious to proselytize in schools. And it doesn't matter if that's not why you're supporting him. If in the unlikely situation he ever got elected he would cave to lobbyists and the house just like everyone else does on economic matters and concentrate instead on using government to police American morality.

All of this is mischaracterization and spin job tactics, creating your own fallacy argument and then arguing against it. If he hasn't caved to lobbyists in 30 years and consistently voted based on pure Constitutionalism to the dislike of his Republican colleagues, then odds are he won't start doing it now.

I have no interest in dragging this out any further, so YOU WIN.

[F l i c k e r]

All of this is mischaracterization and spin job tactics, creating your own fallacy argument and then arguing against it. If he hasn't caved to lobbyists in 30 years and consistently voted based on pure Constitutionalism to the dislike of his Republican colleagues, then odds are he won't start doing it now.

I have no interest in dragging this out any further, so YOU WIN.

first thing I thought when finishing this.... you win.

[Enayze]

hey everyone,
i have a brief question (I'm from from Europe): Why are especially the poor people (non-minorities) in the usa often prone to vote for the republican party? As far as I know the republicans support among others less governmental regulation and lower taxes for the rich. So how is this appealing to rather poor people?

Don't be a fool along with majority of the other mamalukes on this forum. There is nothing wrong with being a republican. They primarily advocate to cut taxes for the people who create jobs, so that they can continue making jobs. In addition they are against the government taking their wealth and re distributing to schmucks undeserving of it, like its the Soviet Union.

[!! Shawn]

Couple of issues: Firstly I don't think that libertarianism is much to aspire to. Looks good on paper but in practise the market does not have the power to overcome human greed and willingness to break the rules. Secondly the US doesn't actually have any libertarians running. Ron Paul is all in favour of government intervention in a whole host of personal bugbears.

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian, he is a constitutionalists.