US Republician Candidates

TJM

TJM

Associate
Joined
10 Jun 2007
Posts
2,378
Use a condom? Get any other type of contraception? Seems to work for the rest of us.
All forms of contraception can fail.

Even if a woman doesn't use protection, quite why a single shag should turn into a life-changing event against her wishes is beyond me. It's her body and primary responsibility for the child will almost certainly fall on her, so it should be her decision. Banning abortion is nothing more than a patriarchal society's way of punishing women for having sex for pleasure instead of having children.

People painting Ron Paul as aa religious nutjob is tiresome as well, he really isn't.
I'd agree - he's a straight-up nutjob like most libertarians; the religious qualifier is unnecessary.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
It's just a shame that you can find so much videos and accounts of him claiming to have near opposite views to what he has now,
People complain politicians don't listen and force things through, they change their views as they mature or public wishes change and they get blasted for that too :/
 
Associate
Joined
9 Sep 2008
Posts
1,375
He has publicly stated though that if pregnancy occurs through something like rape then they should have the choice to abort and do it ASAP.

Unlike others who are totally against it and those who are totally for it to cover peoples mistakes and avoid complications like this.

Erm, that's not really Paul's position on rape and abortion. He has stated that he would "give a shot of estrogen" to women almost immediately after they had been raped but not necessarily to women who had been raped but turned up at hospital later on.



US politicians are generally so dire that the US public latch on to a conviction politician like Ron Paul out of desperation - that doesn't mean that Paul should be let within a million miles of the levers of power.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Nov 2008
Posts
4,663
Ron Paul is the only one who doesn't seem to have an agenda... so if I were a republican, or american for that matter, he would get my vote.
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
47,396
Location
Essex
What if the Russians had military bases in Canada? What if Australia ruled the world? What if the moon really is made of blue cheese? We can play the 'idiotic questions' game all day.

Seems like you totally missed the point that Ron Paul was making. Amazing achievement really when he spelt it out so plainly but you still did it.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Sep 2005
Posts
11,453
Location
Bristol
People complain politicians don't listen and force things through, they change their views as they mature or public wishes change and they get blasted for that too :/
I don't have an automatic problem with a politician doing either of those, but politicians get lambasted for everything they do, from someone. It's just the nature of what they do.

I still think Mitt is the best candidate for the GOP, but compare the views he was espousing in 1994 (Senate run against Ted Kennedy), 2003 (governorship against Jane Swift) and now. It isn't simply changing the tone of his remarks to make them more palatable for different audiences, or changing his mind due to a revolt from the pubic, it's taking polar opposite positions, in order to win different elections. It's called opportunism, and I don't like it.
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
47,396
Location
Essex
Yep. Ron Paul is a legend TBH, America and the world would be a much better place if someone of his calibre and vision were in the white house.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
23 Dec 2009
Posts
3,242
Location
Earth
Some great posts here, thanks people :)

It is a shame that so in the west much revolves around the US yet it is one of the most corrupt in the west and the people are too blind to see past what is in front of them!
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
I don't have an automatic problem with a politician doing either of those, but politicians get lambasted for everything they do, from someone. It's just the nature of what they do.

I still think Mitt is the best candidate for the GOP, but compare the views he was espousing in 1994 (Senate run against Ted Kennedy), 2003 (governorship against Jane Swift) and now. It isn't simply changing the tone of his remarks to make them more palatable for different audiences, or changing his mind due to a revolt from the pubic, it's taking polar opposite positions, in order to win different elections. It's called opportunism, and I don't like it.

or over the course of a decade he changed his views?

Do you hold the same views on everything you did 10 years ago?
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2012
Posts
83
I'm looking forward to "Super Tuesday" on March the 6th when there are primaries etc in 8 states iirc. After then it should be blatently clear who the victor is likely to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom