Rick Santorum, a man after my own heart.

Thank you Ron Paul for stayinng on topic in today's debate.

The only candidate to actually answer the final question.

The rest just gave their pre-prepared concluding statements because they were caught off guard and didn't know what to say without their notes. And lol at Romney....Uhhh John you get to ask what you want, Ill answer how I want.

That's great and all you moron, as long as your answer relates to the question in some way.

Question: What's the greatest misconception about you?
Romney: I'd be a great president because blah blah blah...

Ron Paul 2012

Reply 63

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by mevidek

as are his views on Iran. What an awful and dangerous leader he would make.

What exactly are his views on Iran?

Reply 64

Llamageddon

Original post by Sharri5

typical ignorant statement.

Given that you quite clearly don't understand what I meant by it I will have to say a big 'ol /care.

Reply 65

SilverArch

Original post by thunder_chunky

What exactly are his views on Iran?

Something along the lines of 'nuke it'

He's really really pro-Israel, anti-Iran, and supports as much military action in Iran as possible to stop it developing nuclear weapons basically. He claims that Obama has thrown Israel under a bus, and is actively helping Iran to get nuclear weapons

Or straight from the horses mouth- "If and when Rick Santorum is president, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because the world as we know it will be no more."

and another lovely gem to leave you with (though not about Iran) - "You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," Santorum said during an October debate. "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

Reply 66

tc92

Original post by SilverArch

Something along the lines of 'nuke it'

He's really really pro-Israel, anti-Iran, and supports as much military action in Iran as possible to stop it developing nuclear weapons basically. He claims that Obama has thrown Israel under a bus, and is actively helping Iran to get nuclear weapons

Or straight from the horses mouth- "If and when Rick Santorum is president, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon because the world as we know it will be no more."

and another lovely gem to leave you with (though not about Iran) - "You know, Mitt, I don't want to go to a trade war, I want to beat China," Santorum said during an October debate. "I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business."

You can't possibly argue that that is in any way talking about military war. It is quite clearly about trade, and fierce competition between nations is something that should be encouraged.

One of the annoying things when it comes to Rick Santorum is that he says plenty of things which aren't exactly mainstream, yet his critics resort to childish name-calling, labelling him "crazy" or "extreme" without actually justifying it, and taking things out of context, when there are perfectly good quotes in context that could be used for the same point.

Reply 67

SilverArch

Original post by tc92

You can't possibly argue that that is in any way talking about military war. It is quite clearly about trade, and fierce competition between nations is something that should be encouraged.

One of the annoying things when it comes to Rick Santorum is that he says plenty of things which aren't exactly mainstream, yet his critics resort to childish name-calling, labelling him "crazy" or "extreme" without actually justifying it, and taking things out of context, when there are perfectly good quotes in context that could be used for the same point.

I wasn't actually trying to imply he wanted to go to war with China (although I appreciate it might have come off that way) - I did think it summarised his rather aggressive atititude to, well, everything. Considering this thread is about Santorum as a whole, not just military policy. And please point out where I called him 'crazy'. I don't believe I've said one thing about him personally at all. (although I do feel he is extreme and un-electable if/when the whole country votes)

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 68

Obama is the best candidate. Doesn't plan to change much and isn't a fundamentalist.

Reply 69

tc92

Original post by SilverArch

I wasn't actually trying to imply he wanted to go to war with China (although I appreciate it might have come off that way) - I did think it summarised his rather aggressive atititude to, well, everything. Considering this thread is about Santorum as a whole, not just military policy.

Fair enough. But I think there's a case to say that it is beneficial for America (or any country for that matter) to want to be as competitive as possible economically, though I take your point that that needn't require particularly aggressive rhetoric necessarily.

Original post by SilverArch

And please point out where I called him 'crazy'. I don't believe I've said one thing about him personally at all. (although I do feel he is extreme and un-electable if/when the whole country votes)

That wasn't actually aimed personally at you, more a general point about the media portrayal & common perceptions in general (a quick google search for "rick santorum crazy" brings up nearly 79,000,000 hits). I think it is very similar to the way in which people have all too often been labelled 'racist' or 'extreme' for raising concerns about immigration. Being "extreme" shouldn't necessarily be a disqualifying label; I'm sure Wilberforce would've been deemed 'extreme' and well outside the mainstream (which is what extreme really means) when standing up as a lone voice against slavery. People should debate the issues and, if so fiercely against someone's views, prove them wrong in debate, rather than trying to sideline them from the discussion.

Reply 70

mevidek

16

Original post by thunder_chunky

What exactly are his views on Iran?

He's the only candidate that openly promotes getting USA's military involved there.

Reply 71

mevidek

16

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Obama is the best candidate. Doesn't plan to change much and isn't a fundamentalist.

"Doesn't plan to change much"? That's because he knows he can do nothing and millions will vote for him.

Reply 72

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Obama is the best candidate. Doesn't plan to change much and isn't a fundamentalist.

Um excuse me but wasn't the word change a pretty significant part of Obama's platform? What you said just indicates that he is the least consistent candidate...can't even follow through on the foundational principle of his entire campaign.

Reply 73

Original post by thunder_chunky

What exactly are his views on Iran?

I assume you mean Santorum. His views on Iran are pretty much the same as Romney and Gingrich. He sees it as a major threat, doesn't want them continuing their nuclear program and believes in his propaganda that the only way to deal with Iran is through aggression and sanctions.

In contrast, Dr. Paul believes that talking to Iran and arriving at a more diplomatic solution is the key. According to him, we did that with the Russians who had thousands of nuclear warheads in the Cold War days (proven fact) so why can we not do the same with Iran (who anyone has yet to prove has a single nuclear weapon).

Reply 74

Original post by .eXe

Um excuse me but wasn't the word change a pretty significant part of Obama's platform? What you said just indicates that he is the least consistent candidate...can't even follow through on the foundational principle of his entire campaign.

So? I don't care about consistency. I care about policy and intent. And Obama seems to be the best candidate.

Reply 75

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

So? I don't care about consistency. I care about policy and intent. And Obama seems to be the best candidate.

Lol, hahaha here' i'll destroy what you just said very quickly.

According to you, if a candidate is inconsistent, that's fine. So basically, you are totally fine voting a president in whose platform promises (policy and intent) sound amazing but you couldn't care less about whether they actually follow them through or not, after they get the presidency (consistency)

Do I have it about right?

It's people like yourself that destroy countries by electing presidents solely on their election promises, but don't actually hold them accountable to deliver them after they gain the presidency.

Absolutely disgusting. Why do you even vote then?

Reply 76

Original post by .eXe

Lol, hahaha here' i'll destroy what you just said very quickly.

According to you, if a candidate is inconsistent, that's fine. So basically, you are totally fine voting a president in whose platform promises (policy and intent) sound amazing but you couldn't care less about whether they actually follow them through or not, after they get the presidency (consistency)

Do I have it about right?

It's people like yourself that destroy countries by electing presidents solely on their election promises, but don't actually hold them accountable to deliver them after they gain the presidency.

Absolutely disgusting. Why do you even vote then?

I don't vote based on election promise. I have yet to ever see a candidate that follows through on their election promise. The US governmental structure doesn't allow presidents to just make any decisions they want so I don't expect them to follow through with their election promises. Vote based on the options. Obama seems to be the least radical and moderate hence I can trust him to not **** things up too much.

Reply 77

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

I don't vote based on election promise. I have yet to ever see a candidate that follows through on their election promise. The US governmental structure doesn't allow presidents to just make any decisions they want so I don't expect them to follow through with their election promises. Vote based on the options. Obama seems to be the least radical and moderate hence I can trust him to not **** things up too much.

Bolded point taken. However, you have to realize that in order to combat some of the issues that the US (and by some extension the world) faces today, radical change is exactly what is required. If the status quo remains, the country will dip further into debt (which already exceeds its GDP), will further have to increase taxes to offset their ever increasing costs, and be participant in wars that it doesn't have the right nor reason to be in.

This is the status quo. I cannot understand why people feel that the current state is by any means acceptable...and in the long term...sustainable.

Without some of the cost cutting (radical) changes that candidates like Ron Paul would like to see, US cannot sustain itself as an economy. The the people it's going to hurt most are the people who have historically been hurt the most...middle class. Socio-economic disparity is already at an all time high and if current practices continue, do you honestly see the situation improving?

Obama was voted in for 2 reasons. 1) he is black and 2) Bush was absolutely terrible. People wanted change, and thats the only reason why Obama's message was so well received. However, over time people have realized that Obama has neither delivered on much of his promises, nor enacted much of the change that was the highlight of his campaign.

Only recently did they even pull out of Iraq, and they are already contemplating another war(s) that they cannot afford nor need to initiate.

I agree that politicians have a difficult time delivering on their promises but this whole argument of maintaining the status quo vs. enacting some level of radical change is flawed because over the past 4 years, it has become increasingly evident that the traditional government practices have completely bankrupted the US. There has to be a change.

Reply 78

Original post by .eXe

Bolded point taken. However, you have to realize that in order to combat some of the issues that the US (and by some extension the world) faces today, radical change is exactly what is required. If the status quo remains, the country will dip further into debt (which already exceeds its GDP), will further have to increase taxes to offset their ever increasing costs, and be participant in wars that it doesn't have the right nor reason to be in.

This is the status quo. I cannot understand why people feel that the current state is by any means acceptable...and in the long term...sustainable.

Without some of the cost cutting (radical) changes that candidates like Ron Paul would like to see, US cannot sustain itself as an economy. The the people it's going to hurt most are the people who have historically been hurt the most...middle class. Socio-economic disparity is already at an all time high and if current practices continue, do you honestly see the situation improving?

Obama was voted in for 2 reasons. 1) he is black and 2) Bush was absolutely terrible. People wanted change, and thats the only reason why Obama's message was so well received. However, over time people have realized that Obama has neither delivered on much of his promises, nor enacted much of the change that was the highlight of his campaign.

Only recently did they even pull out of Iraq, and they are already contemplating another war(s) that they cannot afford nor need to initiate.

I agree that politicians have a difficult time delivering on their promises but this whole argument of maintaining the status quo vs. enacting some level of radical change is flawed because over the past 4 years, it has become increasingly evident that the traditional government practices have completely bankrupted the US. There has to be a change.

I disagree, I don't think radical change is needed. Call me optimistic but the US will survive this financial crisis, I don't think it's anything to worry about too much. The fact that most economist don't agree with Ron Paul leaves me to doubt that his economic plans will save the US, in fact they lead me to believe that they'll harm the US. It's not like it's Obama that's choosing the economic policies, his got a team of top economist that are advising him which is good enough for me.The US is always going to contemplate war, it's the world superpower, it's kinda it's job. I very much theirs going to be any ground invasion of Iran because it just doesn't make sense militarily and financially and the US aren't going to make the same mistake twice. They wasted trillions on Iraq war yet never got reimbursed via oil contracts, China and Russia benefited more. Status quo is unfortunately all we can work with.

Reply 79