Mitt Romney

[Pliny]

Harper doesn't offer smaller government, it may not grow as fast of a pace as it would if the liberals or NDP were in charge but it won't get smaller.

If he doesn't grow it as fast it is smaller than it would be.

Harper acts like he understands the economy but he doesn't, he will spend the money the NDP would spend on welfare on warfare and building up the police state.

I haven't seen a particular hard application of Keynesian economics. He has cut the GST by 2 percentage points but has admittedly bowed to global or US interests in providing a 30 billion dollar stimulus package. I think he did that reluctantly. With a minority government he would have been excoriated if he hadn't.

I do not like when people use the word realist. It tries to discredit other peoples views by using a single word.

I don't intend to discredit the views of Ron Paul or supporters of his concepts. More people need to understand them. Take a look at what people here are saying about his ideas.

I think Ron Paul has a better chance then people think. The biggest hurdle he faces now is the biased main stream media that consistently claims that his libertarian views are nonsensical.

The MSM needs a good education but governments are fodder for such great copy.

Even Fox news tends to ignore Ron Paul which kind of tees me off.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Even Fox news tends to ignore Ron Paul which kind of tees me off.

Why? Ron Paul is unelectable as the head of a presidential ticket...he has already proven that.

[Pliny]

Ya, that crazy Ron Paul...

Saying stuff in the 90's like if the US continues its foreign policy it may lead to terrorist attacks or in the early 2000's warning people that the US is in a bubble. Clearly he is crazy and knows nothing.

it's funny Michael doesn't see any value in the ability to predict the future from current circumstance.

You would think that would be a valuable asset to politicians given the responsiblity of planning society.

Somehow Ron Paul was able to correctly make these predictions you would think he would be curious about how someone with such insane policies might be able to do that.

[Pliny]

Why? Ron Paul is unelectable as the head of a presidential ticket...he has already proven that.

Right, but he is still a candidate. Fox will at least allow him somewhat of a platform to voice his views but seem reluctant to discuss them as a credible viewpoint. I believe he is gaining more support as people lose faith in the actions of governemnt to resolve socio/economic problems in the US. The internet and speed of information is astounding.

The millions and millions of viewers of this forum alone are getting a good dose of limited governemnt theory from the likes of mapleleafs and myself.

[Michael Hardner]

it's funny Michael doesn't see any value in the ability to predict the future from current circumstance.

You would think that would be a valuable asset to politicians given the responsiblity of planning society.

Somehow Ron Paul was able to correctly make these predictions you would think he would be curious about how someone with such insane policies might be able to do that.

I think there's value in those statements, sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right, but he is still a candidate. Fox will at least allow him somewhat of a platform to voice his views but seem reluctant to discuss them as a credible viewpoint. I believe he is gaining more support as people lose faith in the actions of governemnt to resolve socio/economic problems in the US. The internet and speed of information is astounding.

America has already been through that with Ross Perot almost 20 years ago. Ron Paul is not very original in that respect. Fox wants to highlight new opportunity, not past losers.

[Bonam]

Ron Paul wouldn't be able to implement much (or really any) of his Libertarianism even if he somehow was elected president, anyway. He'd still have Congress to contend with in trying to pass legislation.

[Shady]

Ron Paul wouldn't be able to implement much (or really any) of his Libertarianism even if he somehow was elected president, anyway. He'd still have Congress to contend with in trying to pass legislation.

He could always take Obama's example, and use executive orders and ignore the various courts that rule them unconstitutional.

[GostHacked]

Romney already has the same track record as Governor that Obama has as POTUS in that regard.

Ouch. Hmm then he might be perfect for the job.

[Shady]

Romney already has the same track record as Governor that Obama has as POTUS in that regard.

That's not a very accurate statment. Especially regarding economic and fiscal issues. Even Romney's health care law only dealt the uninsured, and left those who were insured alone. Obama's health care law changed things for everybody, regardless of whether one had insurance or not.

I thought Romney was particularly good when he asked why the Obama administration didn't try to contact him at all, if they were basing their Obamacare off of his legislation. He could have explained to them what worked, and what didn't. I'm gonna love seeing Romney ask Obama that during the debates.

[punked]

That's not a very accurate statment. Especially regarding economic and fiscal issues. Even Romney's health care law only dealt the uninsured, and left those who were insured alone. Obama's health care law changed things for everybody, regardless of whether one had insurance or not.

I think you are being dishonest in your assessment.

[maple_leafs182]

To assess the insanity of a particular candidate, one needs to look at all of his/her statements, not just the sane ones.

I think in order to assess the insanity of a particular candidate, it is more importants to look at ones actions rather then their statements which can easily be miss interpreted.

Which policy or policies of his do you disagree with?

Edited June 7, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul wouldn't be able to implement much (or really any) of his Libertarianism even if he somehow was elected president, anyway. He'd still have Congress to contend with in trying to pass legislation.

Ron Paul really doesn't want to implement anything...well he does but not directly. He wants congress to implement the policies while he would advice them on what he believes they should do.

Ron Paul really wants to take away a lot of the powers the executive branch has been given.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Ron Paul really wants to take away a lot of the powers the executive branch has been given.

That would be unconstitutional...not a good start for a "strict constitutionalist". Ron Paul will never be President of the United States.

[dre]

Just as socialism is progressivism and builds the State, Libertarianism must deconstruct the State. Ron Paul is ahead of his time. I applaud him for being in the forefront but the populace needs a lot more education before he could be elected. Would I vote for him? I would love to vote for him but I am more a realist - it is going to take some "progression" to downsize. So I would vote for the person who promises the least government and has the greatest chance of being elected.

I would vote for Harper because he offers the only opportunity for reduction in the size of government. A libertarian in Canada has absolutely no chance of being elected at this point.

In other words, there has to be more Plinys around.

How does Harper offer an opportunity to downsize government? He seems to be a heavy spender that will expand government.

[Pliny]

How does Harper offer an opportunity to downsize government? He seems to be a heavy spender that will expand government.

He cut the GST by 2%. Now, with a majority, he can probably get rid of the gun registry and cut a few other expenses.

True he has spent alot. I think that is part of the problem of a minority government. We'll have to see what he does with a majority.

Tell me what you believe a liberal government, or what you yourself believe, would have been a better action than a thirty billion dollar economic stimulus package in light of the global economic bust?

Keeping in mind, raising taxes is no guarantee of increased government revenues and only serves to remove capital from the economy if it does increase revenues. Perhaps if it could take more capital out of the economy it could make even larger stimulus packages to put back into the economy?

I myself would not have advised a stimulus package at all. Political suicide in this, the age of entitlement.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

America has already been through that with Ross Perot almost 20 years ago. Ron Paul is not very original in that respect. Fox wants to highlight new opportunity, not past losers.

Past losers like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin?

Ron Paul is not original at all. George Washington is original.

[Pliny]

That's not a very accurate statment. Especially regarding economic and fiscal issues. Even Romney's health care law only dealt the uninsured, and left those who were insured alone. Obama's health care law changed things for everybody, regardless of whether one had insurance or not.

I thought Romney was particularly good when he asked why the Obama administration didn't try to contact him at all, if they were basing their Obamacare off of his legislation. He could have explained to them what worked, and what didn't. I'm gonna love seeing Romney ask Obama that during the debates.

Not only that but the US government is not the government of Massachusetts. A national government cannot change as easily and generally turns to increased regulation rather than change as any system becomes "too big to fail". too many people would be adversely affected by a complete change so it won't change. I see the same signs in the US regarding Medicare as I do in Canada regarding Health care. the meassage is don't touch our entitlements.

[bush_cheney2004]

Past losers like Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin was nominated by her party to be Vice President....Ron Paul was not.

[scouterjim]

Why would anyone name their child after a baseball glove?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would anyone name their child after a baseball glove?

Mitt = Chicago Bears quarterback

[Oleg Bach]

Mitt = Chicago Bears quarterback

Even the most trival matter when brought to your attention brings out the professional apologist in you. His real name is NOT Mitt Romney....It is Shmitt Romel...just like Al Gore is Goring ---- and Bush is Bosh.

And while I am at it - there would be no NASA if it were not for all the old Nazi imports who founded the American Space program...makes you wonder who really won the second world war.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even the most trival matter when brought to your attention brings out the professional apologist in you. His real name is NOT Mitt Romney....It is Shmitt Romel...just like Al Gore is Goring ---- and Bush is Bosh.

Hi Oleg - hi real name is Willard Mitt Romney. He was named after "famous" individuals.

And while I am at it - there would be no NASA if it were not for all the old Nazi imports who founded the American Space program...makes you wonder who really won the second world war.

Go find out about Robert H. Goddard....he was not a Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

[scouterjim]

Hi Oleg - hi real name is Willard Mitt Romney. He was named after "famous" individuals.

Go find out about Robert H. Goddard....he was not a Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

WILLARD? Wasn't that the guy in a movie who had a pack of trained rats? Oh...wait...I see a similarity in that. Rats...GOP...yep. I can see it.

[Oleg Bach]

Hi Oleg - hi real name is Willard Mitt Romney. He was named after "famous" individuals.

Go find out about Robert H. Goddard....he was not a Nazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard

Just getting your attention - Hello BC...nice to hear your voice...I really am not interested in finding out who or what Robert Goodard was...more interested in finding out who you are....cheers BC - frankly I don't even know who Mitt Romney is. I was bluffing as usual.