Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying what? I asked you a serious question.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what planet would significant numbers of Democrats vote for a guy that is as far away from them on every conceivable social issue as we are from the moon?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath.

[ QUOTE ]
And where does "I won't vote for a guy that wants to let states criminalize gay sex again" magically transform into Democrats lacking integrity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, thanks for making my point. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
On what planet would significant numbers of Democrats vote for a guy that is as far away from them on every conceivable social issue as we are from the moon?


[/ QUOTE ]

The planet where he shares the position of most democrats on the most important issue of the election and the democrat candidate does not.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And where does "I won't vote for a guy that wants to let states criminalize gay sex again" magically transform into Democrats lacking integrity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, thanks for making my point. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

edit: I guess I should actually make it clearer, so here you go: you're entitled to think that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy (and a bunch of other rights Ron Paul doesn't believe in, either.) You are *not* entitled to think that there is no debate about it and that the other side is lacking integrity. That is, you might think that, but if that's how you're going to attract recruits to your cause, 1)you are acting no differently than Fox News, and 2)good luck with appealing to the vast majority of the country.

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or their interpretation of the Constitution is different than yours?

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or their interpretation of the Constitution is different than yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution isn't some obfuscated document written in Latin. It's in plain English and very clear, especially when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

[natedogg]

I disagree. I don't think americans are fed up with the way things work. They are simply fed up with the other side's special interests. Witness the majority favor for nationalized health care. People WANT to create bigger and more entrenched special interests: theirs.

When Ron Paul stands up and says he's going to fire all the DEA and Dept of Education employees, and other departments, he's attacking the public employees unions special interest.

When he says he wants to get out of Iraq now, he's facing off against all the employees of Halliburton, Lockheed, etc.

He threatens farmers who live on subsidies, the teachers union which lives on a state-run monopoly, and more.

All of these people are *not* sick of their handouts.

natedogg

[Bedreviter]

[ QUOTE ]
The Constitution isn't some obfuscated document written in Latin. It's in plain English and very clear, especially when it comes to the role of the Federal government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arent people still debating whether the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to carry guns? If it was as simple as you say it is I have a hard time understanding why the debate on the 2nd amendment can continue to be such a big issue.

And some people still argue that the income tax is unconstitutional even though the majority seem to agree that it is not, and even though the federal courts that are the ranking authority on the matter have consistantly interpreted the income tax to be in line with the Constitution.

If the Constitution is clear I think it is surprising that so many of the current issues arise from different interpretations of the Constitution, and also the fact that slavery, state approved racism and anti-gay laws were thoguht to be in line with the Constitution earlier, but not in later stages in the history of this country.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I don't think americans are fed up with the way things work. They are simply fed up with the other side's special interests. Witness the majority favor for nationalized health care. People WANT to create bigger and more entrenched special interests: theirs.

When Ron Paul stands up and says he's going to fire all the DEA and Dept of Education employees, and other departments, he's attacking the public employees unions special interest.

When he says he wants to get out of Iraq now, he's facing off against all the employees of Halliburton, Lockheed, etc.

He threatens farmers who live on subsidies, the teachers union which lives on a state-run monopoly, and more.

All of these people are *not* sick of their handouts.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

All of those people don't add up numerically to the number of people who want out of Iraq, are seriously affected by the real inflation that affects them, are anti-illegal-immigration, don't want a war in the Middle East driving up oil prices further, and who might in the near future say to themselves: "Wait a minute. If eliminating the federal income tax means the budget would only need to be cut to Year 2000 levels, I think just maybe that could be possible. ZOMG, wouldn't that be great?" I can think that that might possibly become the largest special interest group in the country.

People are starting to wake up and realize that the standard course of massively expensive overseas troops and interventions is just too expensive. If people draw a direct line to their taxes going to pay for all this crap, and realize that it may not be necessary to have those taxes in the first place if we just cut the budget deeply, and that this might really be possible, and that they could save $$$$$ each year personally, I think this could have the potential to have broader appeal or to mostly override the special interests to which you are referring.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that slavery ... was thoguht to be in line with the Constitution earlier, but not in later stages in the history of this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slavery was originally explicitly allowed by the constitution, which was later amended to disallow it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because the reasons he's "different" is because he actually follows the Constitution like he swore an oath to do. Every other member of Congress isn't interested in following their oath.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or their interpretation of the Constitution is different than yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution is simple and straightforward and the evidence for what Original Intent was is overwhelming. Other "interpretations" are based entirely on manipulating the law to get it to say what the politicians want it to do instead of what it actually says.