tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post9184670873783418765..comments2023-11-15T05:18:01.454-07:00Comments on This roller coaster we call life: Primary Season and My Favorite CandidateZachary Freierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01237772291522797744noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post-67924247952301203532008-01-03T13:17:00.000-07:002008-01-03T13:17:00.000-07:00It's ok. I'm older, and I'm still impressionable....It's ok. I'm older, and I'm <I>still</I> impressionable. :D<BR/><BR/>Ron Paul would certainly make the most interesting Republican candidate, and probably the one with the most sincere convictions. <BR/><BR/>They say he'll still be alive if he gets 10 percent of the count in Iowa. We'll soon find out.Rainier96https://www.blogger.com/profile/05738064037420802826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post-50912102944253296352008-01-03T12:45:00.000-07:002008-01-03T12:45:00.000-07:00No, all that I've really proven here is that I'm s...No, all that I've really proven here is that I'm still young and impressionable. These ideas all sound good to me now, but I think it will pass, and indeed it has already begun to pass. :P<BR/><BR/>Like I said, I don't share the faith in the free market that these people have...and that's pretty much prerequisite for believing in the things that they do. And I think there are a few powers <I>not</I> expressely granted to the federal government in the Constitution that it indeed ought to have.<BR/><BR/>But I think Ron Paul would make a good president for a couple reasons:<BR/><BR/>Firstly, the ideas that he has that may actually take sufficient hold in America to actually go through are mostly good things. End the war in Iraq, close down unnecessary bases overseas, reduce unnecessary government spending, abolish the Federal Reserve, and reduce or eliminate the patently unconstitutional federal income tax. I would like to see these things happen.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, it would ignite the most useful political debate this country has seen in some time. For the first time since the Republican party and conservativisim were hijacked by social conservatives a few decades ago, we would actually have a true <I>conservative</I> in a prominent position. And any discussion about whether to take his positions seriously could only be good for America.Zachary Freierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01237772291522797744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post-29017688016157980862008-01-02T19:58:00.000-07:002008-01-02T19:58:00.000-07:00It'll be very interesting to see the results of to...It'll be very interesting to see the results of tomorrow's Iowa caucuses. <BR/><BR/>I could argue with you on the meaning of "constitutional," but you probably already know the arguments from your history classes. Most lawyers consider the constitution to be an ambiguous document, in places, whose meaning evolves as society evolves, etc., etc. <BR/><BR/>You're more of a strict constructionist. (Or a "fundamentalist," if you were talking about the Bible, LOL.) It's a legitimate approach, but hasn't been seriously considered by the Supreme Court for maybe 150 years or so.Rainier96https://www.blogger.com/profile/05738064037420802826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post-7431162799358467782008-01-01T14:26:00.000-07:002008-01-01T14:26:00.000-07:00I started writing this blog on the 17th. It took t...I started writing this blog on the 17th. It took two weeks for me to complete it, and about two thirds of it was written yesterday. Over the course of writing about all his views yesterday, I found myself slowly becomming less and less sure about them. My misgivings about him are certainly very strong.<BR/><BR/>I think the major selling point of his platform for me is his foreign policy. It's so simple, yet it makes so much sense. Why should the United States account for half of the world's military spending? He openly refers to America as striving to maintain "an empire", and openly denounces this fact. That sort of blatant honesty and pursuit of sensible alternatives, I think, could only be a good thing for America to have in the presidency for a few years.<BR/><BR/>I like that he promotes the <I>Constitution</I> too. America has moved so far away from the original intent of the Constitution. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion; but I seriously think that if the federal government wants to do something that's unconstitutional, they ought to amend the constitution to make it constitutional. Instead, they just skirt around it for long enough, and eventually somehow it enters the consciousness of the people that things like the Federal Reserve and the federal Department of Education are perfectly constitutional, which actually they aren't.<BR/><BR/>And I really like the idea of making the federal government smaller. I wouldn't mind doing away with a third of it. There are so many things that could easily be cut off, or cut back. And there are things like the Department of Education that, while it exists with good intentions, it is simply not effective. I would love to see an education system that's completely under the control of the states.<BR/><BR/>My biggest problem with him is his undying faith in the free market. I think the free market can do some great things, but if it goes unregulated it can do some really bad things, too. The free market allowed slavery to continue for as long as it did. It brings about sweat shops in third world countries. And often it doesn't even do what's best for itself, causing stock market crashes, recessions, and depressions. And there are things, like healthcare, that I don't think the free market should be involved in at all. A little bit of socialism never hurt anyone.Zachary Freierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01237772291522797744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074782257223056999.post-5450662609426350092008-01-01T12:23:00.000-07:002008-01-01T12:23:00.000-07:00Hi Zachary ... very glad to see that you're writin...Hi Zachary ... very glad to see that you're writing again.<BR/><BR/>Your post is well thought out and written, as usual. I agree with some of your points, and disagree with others and with your choice of Ron Paul. But I can understand your position.<BR/><BR/>You obviously understand some of my misgivings, which you hit on in your last paragraph. I'm not sure that it's possible to pay for the programs we both support and still eliminate the federal income tax. Or that it's a good idea. It's one of the few taxes that is progressive, although it's less so than it used to be, because of the Republicans' amendments since Bush took office.<BR/><BR/>Like you, I'm not overly enthusiastic about any of the available candidates. I guess I've been so shell-shocked by the Bush presidency that I could just be happy with "anyone but Bush." <BR/><BR/>Although I've been very happy with certain Republicans elected in the past at our state level, I don't think I could ever support a Republican for president -- he'd bring too much baggage with him to office. And, if by a miracle he was nominated and elected, he would be fighting most of his own Congressional party as well as the Democrats.<BR/><BR/>But thanks for a thought-provoking article. I'll look forward to hearing more!Rainier96https://www.blogger.com/profile/05738064037420802826noreply@blogger.com