• Paul: Gingrich a "flip-flopper"; Cain should drop out due to policies, not sex scandals
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Portsmouth, New Hampshire (CNN) - [b]Ron Paul called Newt Gingrich a "flip-flopper" Thursday, doubling-down on a biting new line of attack against the former House speaker that began with a web ad released earlier this week.[/b] At a swing through a natural health foods store in Portsmouth, Paul likened the former House speaker to the long-time front-runner in the Republican race: Mitt Romney. "[Gingrich] is a flip-flopper, so he can hardly be the alternative to Mitt Romney," Paul said of his former congressional colleague. After admiring the health store's supply of raw, unpasteurized milk and yogurt, Paul told reporters the former House speaker's record was not being scrutinized enough as he surged in support in several early voting states. "I think he's getting a free ride," Paul said of his former congressional colleague. The 150-second web ad released by the Paul campaign Wednesday is a slickly-produced slam on Gingrich that suggests he has changed his views on some issues to win broader conservative support. Paul did not reserve all his criticism for Gingrich, however. [b]He said the media were preoccupied with sexual allegations against Herman Cain, adding said he had "no opinion" on whether the embattled candidate should drop out in the wake of allegations of sexual impropriety. "That's his own business," Paul said, explaining he differed with Cain on economic policy. "I wish he'd dropped out because he's proposing a national sales tax and he used to work for the Federal Reserve. That should have been enough for him to lose support and need to drop out."[/b] Cain served as deputy chairman of the board of directors of the Kansas City Federal Reserve bank in the early 1990s. [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01/paul-gingrich-a-flip-flopper/?hpt=hp_bn3[/url]
Gingrich is a flip-flopper? That's not news, that's olds. But I agree on the Cain statement.
Let's say that leaves Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Romny and Santorum. Yea, I still don't see any good candidates for the Republicans there.
Huntsman seems like the most decent GOP contender in my opinion.
If candidates had to drop out for having bad policies, the Republican party would disintegrate over night.
[QUOTE=mac338;33537036]Huntsman seems like the most decent GOP contender in my opinion.[/QUOTE] How is he a more preferable choice than Ron Paul?
[QUOTE=Elizer;33537003]Let's say that leaves Paul, Bachmann, Perry, Romny and Santorum. Yea, I still don't see any good candidates for the Republicans there.[/QUOTE] Paul is getting no media coverage whatsoever and would be destroyed if he makes it to the primaries. No one has heard of Bachman since the Ames Straw Poll. Perry dropped hard after a series of public speaking mistakes but still has a chance Romney has always been the top contender, the rest are fighting over second place. Santorum? Who is that? Hold on let me Google him because I don't really know his policies....
[QUOTE=Raidyr;33537100]Paul is getting no media coverage whatsoever and would be destroyed if he makes it to the primaries. No one has heard of Bachman since the Ames Straw Poll. Perry dropped hard after a series of public speaking mistakes but still has a chance Romney has always been the top contender, the rest are fighting over second place. Santorum? Who is that? Hold on let me Google him because I don't really know his policies....[/QUOTE] How would Paul get destroyed if he made it to the primaries? Also, I don't see eye to eye on everything thing with Cain, but I find it extremely distasteful for him to drop out merely because of "accusations". Until he's actually convicted of any shit, he should not be looked over because of "guilty until proven innocent". (By they way, how can you say he has no media coverage when this article is based on him?)
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;33537133]How would Paul get destroyed if he made it to the primaries? [/QUOTE] Maybe because he's a nutjob.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33537419]Maybe because he's a nutjob.[/QUOTE] Maybe if you're shallow-minded.
[QUOTE=semite;33537454]Maybe if you're shallow-minded.[/QUOTE]No, its more likely if you're an intelligent individual.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33537419]Maybe because he's a nutjob.[/QUOTE] How amazingly descriptive :downs:
[QUOTE=semite;33537454]Maybe if you're shallow-minded.[/QUOTE] His only redeeming quality is that he wants to end the wars. Other than that he's pro-life, anti-gay, wants to return to the gold standard which would ruin the economy, and he wants to gut the federal government.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;33537133]How would Paul get destroyed if he made it to the primaries? Also, I don't see eye to eye on everything thing with Cain, but I find it extremely distasteful for him to drop out merely because of "accusations". Until he's actually convicted of any shit, he should not be looked over because of "guilty until proven innocent". (By they way, how can you say he has no media coverage when this article is based on him?)[/QUOTE] Not even talking about his policies, public opinion could be easily turned against Ron Paul due to aforementioned media shadowing of him. Yes I understand the irony of that statement in a thread with an article talking about him but it's relative. His campaign just gets far less media coverage than it arguably should.
[QUOTE=semite;33537454]Maybe if you're shallow-minded.[/QUOTE] I love how you are completely incapable of any statement that isn't smug 'hur hur yur dumb i am so much smrter than u', anti-semitic, or both.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33537509]Other than that he's pro-life, anti-gay[/quote] 10th amendment. [quote]wants to return to the gold standard which would ruin the economy, and he wants to gut the federal government.[/QUOTE] How is that bad at all? [QUOTE=Stradbong;33537693]I love how you are completely incapable of any statement that isn't smug 'hur hur yur dumb i am so much smrter than u', anti-semitic, or both.[/QUOTE] Calm down, child.
[QUOTE=semite;33537983]10th amendment.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the founding fathers kinda ballsed that one up. The ability for individual states to decide what rights people should get is a bad thing. We kinda had a civil war over that. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=semite;33537983]How is that bad at all?[/QUOTE]Making the economy even worse is a really bad idea.
[QUOTE=semite;33537983]10th amendment. [/quote] Yeah, let states decide what rights you get. Back in the day, most states didn't even let you have the right to free speech. Then the Supreme Court was like yeah, you can't do that. [quote] How is that bad at all? [/quote] Ron Paul doesn't have a degree in Economics, so as far as I'm concerned he doesn't know jack shit about how things work.
[quote]"That's his own business," Paul said[/quote] His affairs are everyone's business though if he's running for commander in chief. A lot of people don't want someone who is known to be a huge liar to be in charge of this country.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;33537085]How is he a more preferable choice than Ron Paul?[/QUOTE] He isn't decrepit, he has great foreign relations with China, and he would (probably) listen to what the left side has to say before shooting it down.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33538161]Ron Paul doesn't have a degree in Economics, so as far as I'm concerned he doesn't know jack shit about how things work.[/QUOTE] Obama doesn't either
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33538338]Obama doesn't either[/QUOTE] Obama isn't the one saying we should go back to the gold standard and end the Fed either. He's more in line with people who actually know economics.
[QUOTE=semite;33537983] How is that bad at all? [/QUOTE] lol i think you missed [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33537509]which would ruin the economy[/QUOTE]
ugh imagining Newt Gingrich in wearing flip flops.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;33537509]His only redeeming quality is that he wants to end the wars. Other than that he's pro-life, anti-gay, wants to return to the gold standard which would ruin the economy, and he wants to gut the federal government.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wonder if a modern nation, not necessarily the US, could use resource backed currency. Not gold, necessarily, but really any substance of reasonable value. Like I almost wonder if you could, for the sake of stability, tie two (or more) specific resources to each tier of currency. So like your one unit currency bills (like a one pound note, or a one dollar bill) would be backed by titanium and neon (just to pull two random resources out of my ass) while your twenty unit currency might actually be backed by gold and thorium. That way market fluctuation for each individual unit is stabilized to a certain degree by having two totally unrelated elements backing them. And the market as a whole is segmented in order to mitigate damage in the event of a severe drop in value of one of the resources. The current system simply doesn't work. Having the value of a nation be some nebulous idea about how well it is doing is fucking ridiculous. The fact that APPEARING to do well will make you do well right up until someone figures out you are a fat liar and your economy collapses, is the dumbest shit I have ever heard in my entire life. And yet the United States does it. Europe does it. Even China is doing it right now. As soon as enough people recognize that China's rapid expansion isn't actually supported by a proper economy, the house of cards is going to collapse. I don't even know what that will do to an economy. A resource backed economy certainly isn't the best choice, but it does seem to be the most likely to remain stable over time. The chosen resources would need to be something you could mine locally. The production and acquisition would need to be done by government workers in order to prevent something like China cockblocking everyone's access to rare earth minerals in order to drive up the prices. I am totally not sold on the idea or whatever, it just seems like a better idea at face value. Not that Europe or the United States could ever actually return to a resource economy in the foreseeable future. Nobody chew me out or whatever. I am not sold on the concept and I certainly don't support a straight gold standard. I'd gladly hear other alternatives.
[QUOTE=semite;33537454]Maybe if you're shallow-minded.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul is a die-hard Libertarian. That is why he is not a viable contender. That is all. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=semite;33537983] [quote=PvtCupcakes]wants to return to the gold standard which would ruin the economy, and he wants to gut the federal government.[/quote] How is that bad at all?[/QUOTE] How is it bad? For starters, there isn't enough gold in the planet to match the value of all the currency of the world with it. On top of that, a system backed by the gold standard is [I]horrendously [/I]prone to inflation, far more prone to it than fiat currency our economy is based on, and can very quickly lead into hyperinflation territory(look up Germany in the 1920s and more recently Zimbabwe's economic implosion for examples). Here, RationalWiki explains it much better than I ever could: [quote=RationalWiki]The largest problem in returning to the gold standard is that there is simply not enough gold in the world to cover the quantity of currency presently in existence. To put it another way, even if the US were somehow able to purchase the world's entire gold stocks (in itself an impossible proposition) there would still be nowhere near enough gold to cover the total value of dollars in existence. It is estimated that the total amount of gold that has been mined in the world is equal to about 142 000 metric tons.[2] Assuming a price of $32 500 per kilogram, that equals about $4.6 trillion; a little more than half of all circulating money and deposits in the United States. Another problem with a return to gold, is that government spending is often used to help stimulate the economy during a recession. With a gold standard the government would not have the ability to spend more money than it is taking in, to put money in the economy to help it recover. This would likely lengthen recessions as the government would lose one of it's most important tools to help a shrinking economy. [/quote] So yeah, the gold standard today is through and through [I][B]a bad idea[/B][/I]. And I'm not even going to start on the massive running joke that is Libertarianism, lest I blow a blood vessel.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33539413] So like your one unit currency bills (like a one pound note, or a one dollar bill) would be backed by titanium and neon (just to pull two random resources out of my ass) while your twenty unit currency might actually be backed by gold and thorium. [/QUOTE] That opens up the possibility of your 1 note being the same value as your 5/10/20 note since resource prices aren't always the same that'll be $20 sir Here's a 1 note And $5 is your change, have a nice day
[QUOTE=GunFox;33539413]Sometimes I wonder if a modern nation, not necessarily the US, could use resource backed currency. Not gold, necessarily, but really any substance of reasonable value. Like I almost wonder if you could, for the sake of stability, tie two (or more) specific resources to each tier of currency. So like your one unit currency bills (like a one pound note, or a one dollar bill) would be backed by titanium and neon (just to pull two random resources out of my ass) while your twenty unit currency might actually be backed by gold and thorium. That way market fluctuation for each individual unit is stabilized to a certain degree by having two totally unrelated elements backing them. And the market as a whole is segmented in order to mitigate damage in the event of a severe drop in value of one of the resources. The current system simply doesn't work. Having the value of a nation be some nebulous idea about how well it is doing is fucking ridiculous. The fact that APPEARING to do well will make you do well right up until someone figures out you are a fat liar and your economy collapses, is the dumbest shit I have ever heard in my entire life. And yet the United States does it. Europe does it. Even China is doing it right now. As soon as enough people recognize that China's rapid expansion isn't actually supported by a proper economy, the house of cards is going to collapse. I don't even know what that will do to an economy. A resource backed economy certainly isn't the best choice, but it does seem to be the most likely to remain stable over time. The chosen resources would need to be something you could mine locally. The production and acquisition would need to be done by government workers in order to prevent something like China cockblocking everyone's access to rare earth minerals in order to drive up the prices. I am totally not sold on the idea or whatever, it just seems like a better idea at face value. Not that Europe or the United States could ever actually return to a resource economy in the foreseeable future. Nobody chew me out or whatever. I am not sold on the concept and I certainly don't support a straight gold standard. I'd gladly hear other alternatives.[/QUOTE] This is actually worse than a gold standard. The problem with your theory is the simple fact that an item or commodity is valuable based on the value we ourselves put into it. If a resource is extremely rare, like gold or diamonds, it dramatically increases in value, enough to base an entire economy on, to an extent. However, you're proposing basing a currency on commodities that are remarkably common and having little value in and of themselves(for now, things like oil and natural gas and probably [I]trees too[/I] won't be around for much longer at the rate things are going), resulting in the said currency being equally worthless. Not a good idea at all, especially in today's economic climate. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;33540324]That opens up the possibility of your 1 note being the same value as your 5/10/20 note since resource prices aren't always the same that'll be $20 sir Here's a 1 note And $5 is your change, have a nice day[/QUOTE] Basically this, having two national currencies, with no clear and effective way to exchange between them.
[QUOTE=anti-semite;33537454]Maybe if you're not schizophrenic.[/QUOTE] Fixed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;33539413]Nobody chew me out or whatever. I am not sold on the concept and I certainly don't support a straight gold standard. I'd gladly hear other alternatives.[/QUOTE] It's not really all that economically unsound to say commodity currency sans external influence from market jiggling is superior to fiat currency when the entire point of fiat currency to begin with was to remove that external influence. The problem with suggesting you tie currency up twice is you just created two currencies. So let's say, sure, you decided to randomize that shit out and your low bills are tied to fruit baskets and tin and your high bills are tied to tea and rock salt- if one of those commodity baskets moves, you just dictated everyone who wants to toy with your currency just use that particular one. The other thing is that won't work because a huge amount of the money in our economy isn't actually "money" money. The bills in circulation are only about $1 trillion USD, if you want to count bank reserves and shit $2tril. All that electronic money will be in whatever damn form it pleases, and if you try to limit circulation of each type you'll actually [I]encourage[/I] value shifts because the players will just try to use one and not the other, and their swaps will cause weird shocks. And you can say "oh well then we'll mandate you own a certain amount of one synced to a certain amount of another", but then all you've done is make them one currency backed by several commodities baskets in a roundabout way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.