TGP Republican Primary Vote

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Just thought it would be interesting to get a gauge as to which candidates the people of TGP support. Closed poll so you can vote anonymously, though feel free to share your vote and get some debates going if you're feeling up to it.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Santorum would get everyone killed, Gingrich is a monster, and Romney is a big slice of sleaze pizza (oh ho ho puns). While Ron Paul may be certifiably insane, he still does the best job when it comes to representing the people and being consistent with his platform.

[CARDINAL 205]

Newt Gingrich.

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

Paul is the only one of the four I don't despise.

[Turry 755]

lol @ whoever voted for Newt

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Just got back from the library, cast my vote for Ron Paul in real life.

Edited January 28, 2012 by SteVo

[Thanatos 2,847]

Idk why this is even worth a poll.

 

I mean, unless someone wants to try to defend one of the other three, we are essentially preaching to the choir, pretty much everyone here loves Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

 

Santorum- wants to go to war to Iran. Uses Lord of the Ring metaphors to try to justify that.

Romney- Don't trust him to stay consistent, he has flip-flopped on way too many issues.

Newt- A guy who leaves his wife when she has cancer for another girl doesn't have the character I want in a man I'd vote for to be president, and that's not even touching his political positions.

 

So that leaves Ron Paul. The only one of the four who remains consistent to his platform, understands the Constitution, and doesn't want to go to war with everyone. He's also the only one who would leave things like abortion up the states, because he understands that if you want a small government, then you need to be able to *truly* want a small government, not just the current Republican philosophy of "We want a small government, unless wanting that conflicts with what we want people to do."

Edited January 28, 2012 by Thanatos19

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Romney may be a sleezy politician like the rest of 'em but his economic expertise is undeniable. I would be fine with him getting the nomination.

[KeVo 176]

Ron Paul or GTFO.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Honestly it scares me that all these guys want to de-regulate. It's the reason why we had this collapse. Should we sign a law that says it's legal to break into houses and rob banks too? A lot of people consider being a theif their profession but in reality they have nothing on Hank Paulson and Tim Geihthner.

 

I disagree with so much of Ron Paul's politics but he's the only that is consistant and trust worthy. I'm just worried that if he becomes president he'll allow wall street to destroy our country. De-regulation to an extent undermines any kind of democracy we have. Money always trumps money and when you have to pay to play the game you can't compete against people who are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe that without some form of regulation like the Bretton Woods System that our country will become even more of an Oligarchy than it is now.

Edited January 28, 2012 by seanbrock

[NaTaS+ 958]

I think you have to go Ron Paul.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Honestly it scares me that all these guys want to de-regulate. It's the reason why we had this collapse.

 

Care to explain that one?

[seanbrock 1,684]

Care to explain that one?

That would take an incredibly long time and I'm not sure I can properly explain myself but the deregulation allowed borrowers of Mortgages to borrow like 300% on their homes which meant that they had no money in these homes, couln't afford to pay the mortgages and all those bad mortgages were thrown in a bag with all the good mortgages and mixed together and sold. I'd be like if I was selling bottles of Vodka making ten bucks a bottle just straight up but then I go and pour most of the Vodka out and fill it with water and make 30 dollars off it instead. But the rating agencies didn't make this known. All the loans were rated Tripple A which is the highest grade you can get. Bear/Sterns was rated A2 a month before it went bankrupt. The de-regulation basically made these guys above the law and they robbed not only us blind but litterally billions of people world wide indirectly.

 

I don't fully understand the derivitives and CDS portion. I'm actually just started to read up on this I'm ashamed to say. Wish I could have explained myself better but I didn't just want to quote something off a website. If you want to you can look up Sub Prime Mortgages, Derivitives and CDS if you want to know more.

[Thanatos 2,847]

That would take an incredibly long time and I'm not sure I can properly explain myself but the deregulation allowed borrowers of Mortgages to borrow like 300% on their homes which meant that they had no money in these homes, couln't afford to pay the mortgages and all those bad mortgages were thrown in a bag with all the good mortgages and mixed together and sold. I'd be like if I was selling bottles of Vodka making ten bucks a bottle just straight up but then I go and pour most of the Vodka out and fill it with water and make 30 dollars off it instead. But the rating agencies didn't make this known. All the loans were rated Tripple A which is the highest grade you can get. Bear/Sterns was rated A2 a month before it went bankrupt. The de-regulation basically made these guys above the law and they robbed not only us blind but litterally billions of people world wide indirectly.

 

I don't fully understand the derivitives and CDS portion. I'm actually just started to read up on this I'm ashamed to say. Wish I could have explained myself better but I didn't just want to quote something off a website. If you want to you can look up Sub Prime Mortgages, Derivitives and CDS if you want to know more.

 

Oh I'm definitely not well-versed in this, but my best friend was a econ/finance major and is pretty damn good at it. So I knew about the loan situations, but I'm unsure what exactly you are proposing here.

 

That the federal government step in and tell private banks what they can and cannot do as far giving loans to people? Or am I totally misreading what you're saying here?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Hmm. Interesting opinion Sean. I don't see how your argument an feasibly turn you against deregulating in other areas. Even though its a thin line it more occurred because of the failure to regulate anything. Usually when you "deregulate" you just loosen up the belt some. Allow competition between businesses and what not.

 

As far as the financial crisis goes... There was simply NO REGULATION. Nobody stepped in and checked up on these things. Nobody stepped in and say "no, no". So, instead of loosening up the belt, it was just completely taken off.

 

But let's not just blame the lack of regulation as the main culprit. Let's look at FR banking for that. It's the system that failed.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[seanbrock 1,684]

Oh I'm definitely not well-versed in this, but my best friend was a econ/finance major and is pretty damn good at it. So I knew about the loan situations, but I'm unsure what exactly you are proposing here.

 

That the federal government step in and tell private banks what they can and cannot do as far giving loans to people? Or am I totally misreading what you're saying here?

Well obviously something nees to be done. What is to stop them from pulling the same shit? There were absolutely zero consequences for their actions the first time. Hardly any jail time, nothing because the laws we have actually made what they were doing legal.

 

As far as econ students go. High level academics like Larry Summers who was at one point the president of Harvard being paid to write papers and reports saying that these financial institutions and these bad investments were safe and sound. I'm not talking about just Harvard. Guys at Columbia, MIT etc. They're corrupting everything.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Hmm. Interesting opinion Sean. I don't see how your argument an feasibly turn you against deregulating in other areas. Even though its a thin line it more occurred because of the failure to regulate anything. Usually when you "deregulate" you just loosen up the belt some. Allow competition between businesses and what not.

 

As far as the financial crisis goes... There was simply NO REGULATION. Nobody stepped in and checked up on these things. Nobody stepped in and say "no, no". So, instead of loosening up the belt, it was just completely taken off.

 

But let's not just blame the lack of regulation as the main culprit. Let's look at FR banking for that. It's the system that failed.

The de-regulation that caused the financial crisis started in the early 80's. By the time 2002 rolled around you're right. There were no regulations. It didn't happen overnight. A lot of things had to happen.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The de-regulation that caused the financial crisis started in the early 80's. By the time 2002 rolled around you're right. There were no regulations. It didn't happen overnight. A lot of things had to happen.

 

And you think nothing had to do with the way in which our banks are set up? That FR banking is just peachy?

 

I mean.. come on bro. You want to attack deregulating and using this one example to demonize the act in its entirety, you are going to have to defend some... Not so great philosophies... Like FR banking.

 

I eagerly await your response on how awesome it is.

[seanbrock 1,684]

And you think nothing had to do with the way in which our banks are set up? That FR banking is just peachy?

 

I mean.. come on bro. You want to attack deregulating and using this one example to demonize the act in its entirety, you are going to have to defend some... Not so great philosophies... Like FR banking.

 

I eagerly await your response on how awesome it is.

Whether you agree with Federal Reserve bankng or not I think it's still pretty much bullshit that White Collar crime is essientially legal. I mean, Hank Paulson didn't break into anyone's home and steal their money. But he robbed you, me and everyone either one of us know's and it was fucking legal. Right before Goldman Sach's was bailed out Paulson was named Treasury Secretary and he had to sell all his stock which he didn't pay a damn dime on. Saved him 50 million just in taxes and he already made 450 million in bonuses, that's not counting his exorbitant anual salary. So he made 500 million dollars not counting his salary and HE was the one who orchestrated the bailouts and just continued to shovel shit down the throats of the American people.

 

Again, I don't have a great understanding of this yet. I'm taking a legal environment of business course atm and am like 4 classes in but I've learned a lot. Basically what this rash of de-regulation did was to make it actually legal for financial institutions to sell stocks and derivitives they KNEW would fail. I didn't matter to them because they just took their cut off the top. They took peoples retirement funds with their life savings took their fee off the top in invested them in risky to doomed investments because it just didn't effect them in anyway. They took no risk and again, it was all completely legal.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Whether you agree with Federal Reserve bankng or not I think it's still pretty much bullshit that White Collar crime is essientially legal. I mean, Hank Paulson didn't break into anyone's home and steal their money. But he robbed you, me and everyone either one of us know's and it was fucking legal. Right before Goldman Sach's was bailed out Paulson was named Treasury Secretary and he had to sell all his stock which he didn't pay a damn dime on. Saved him 50 million just in taxes and he already made 450 million in bonuses, that's not counting his exorbitant anual salary. So he made 500 million dollars not counting his salary and HE was the one who orchestrated the bailouts and just continued to shovel shit down the throats of the American people.

 

Again, I don't have a great understanding of this yet. I'm taking a legal environment of business course atm and am like 4 classes in but I've learned a lot. Basically what this rash of de-regulation did was to make it actually legal for financial institutions to sell stocks and derivitives they KNEW would fail. I didn't matter to them because they just took their cut off the top. They took peoples retirement funds with their life savings took their fee off the top in invested them in risky to doomed investments because it just didn't effect them in anyway. They took no risk and again, it was all completely legal.

 

Fractional-Reserve Banking.

 

The system allows the banks to loan out more money than they have. And get this.. They actual charge INTEREST on that money that they loan out and which they don't have.

 

Which, in the absolute simplest terms possible... Allows them to create currency out of thin air.

 

Talk about regulation all you want, but there is a major systematic issue when we have banks who are allowed to create their own currency.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Fractional-Reserve Banking.

 

The system allows the banks to loan out more money than they have. And get this.. They actual charge INTEREST on that money that they loan out and which they don't have.

 

Which, in the absolute simplest terms possible... Allows them to create currency out of thin air.

 

Talk about regulation all you want, but there is a major systematic issue when we have banks who are allowed to create their own currency.

I think fractional reserve banking can work when bankers are forced to take the same risks as their investors and they're held accountable for their decisons. Also part of the reason why the fed is so fucked is because they regulate themselves. There is absolutely no oversight of the Fed so guys like Bernanke and Greenspan can be bought which is EXACTLY what happened. Financial institutions also regulate themselves. The reason why our political system worked before the financial sector got out of control was checks and balances. Sure it wasn't perfect and there was still certainly corruption but there was still a sense of accountability. Checks and balances and the rule of law could at least help keep corruption down and allow for competition. There was no regulation at the turn of the 20th century because up until that point we were agricultural. Once we started to get booming businesses without regulation people like you and I would be living in Shanty Towns owned by Robber Barrons. Then we had the Trust Busts and the Bretton Woods system. I think the trend of stagnented wages and the widening of the gap of wealth and the destruction of the middle class in this country over the past 30 years shows that de-regulation is decidedly bad.

[blotsfan 2,112]

So...this is interesting

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/01/ron-paul-exposed-as-white-supremacist-by-anonymous/

 

If you dont feel like clicking the link, anonymous claims to have found a link between Ron Paul and a white supremacist group. If its really true I don't think I could support him personally, but I hope even if it is, it won't kill all his good ideas.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

They said they had proof of Ron Paul himself being a part of the group.. They go on to mention no such thing and that high ranking members in this group are Ron Paul supporters and that Paul has met with some of them.

 

Even if the two sentences above are 100% true... I am not really sure how that makes him a racist.

 

If somebody wants to download these files and fill me on the direct connection to Ron Paul, let me know...

 

Until then, it looks like a smear job. Which, wouldn't be at all surprising.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Yeah, its definitely nothing concrete, but it seems odd that a smear job would come from anonymous.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The odd thing to me is that Anon brags about pretty much everything they do on their twitter and or their blog. I don't get a hit for A3P or American Third Party on either site.

 

Obviously that alone doesn't mean nothing happened. But if all they have is leaders of this group being Ron Paul supporters... or even if they have pictures of Ron Paul with these people... That doesn't mean anything, in my opinion.

 

Give me Ron Paul in a white bed sheet or at one of their rallies and maybe we have something worth talking about.