Federal Employee's Donate To Ron Paul More Than Anyother GOP Nominee

Kinda funny huh? A man who wants to cut $1.3 Trillion dollars in federal expenses.. aka federal jobs.. Ron Paul is well supported by federal workers.. $95,000~ in donations.. puts him at the top of the list of federal employee donations... He also leads in donations from defense coordinators...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...orkers-video/2011/11/22/gIQAaNaxlN_video.html

 

That's some serious cognitive dissonance. *throws money at candidate who wants to eliminate their job*

 

Maybe there's a little "insiders information" that we the people aren't allowed in on...... All these guys say stuff to get elected and then go 180 degrees.

 

Either that, or the more competent Federal employees are all too aware of how much dead weight is on the Federal payroll and how much the Federal government is dragging the rest of the country down.

 

This seems like a positive message about Ron Paul. People support him for whatever reason they have despite the fact that they may lose their jobs if he comes into office. They must really believe in what he's saying, unless you think there's some conspiracy at work here. Pretty much the biggest reason why I support Ron Paul is that he hasn't completely changed his ideas on government every time he's gained office. The things he says are consistently consistent with the things he does.

 

eat

I don’t think he is consistent and in fact he seems rather contradictory. For example he claims he is for the 99% against the 1%

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=436309&f=36&page=23 – post 228

But the ideas Ron Paul promotes would vastly increase the power and influence of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Thing is that many criticisms of these deeply flawed ideas have been made in a number of threads and what do we get from the Paulettes mainly a rift on the theme of – ‘he’s the man’ – he’s consistent,he’s great, he’s the only honest politician, he’s not conserving his own pockets like the others, etc, etc

Rather than these rather vacuous comments why not actually try and address the criticism levelled at Ron’s right wing libertarian/neoliberal ideas.

 

It seems to me that the faults you have with libertarian ideals as well as the benefits i see in them are all mearly conjecture since we haven't had a government which follows these sorts of ideals in a very long time and thus no one really knows what will happen. In your opinion, being against these ideals, they will cause the rich to gain power. In my opinion, being for these ideals, they would cause the classes to even out following the natural course of capitalism. I think that libertarian ideals are good ones and I support them, therefore I believe that the country would benefit from having a libertarian president. You don't think that they are good ideals, and thus you don't think that it would be beneficial to the country to have a libertarian president. The argument between the two sides seems really pointless to me because it all comes out to restatement of differing opinions which cant agree because they are essentially different.

 

Eats

The right wing libertarian ideal - being what? As I’ve pointed out before one of the problems is that there seems to be a contradiction between the claims and what seems to be pursued. I mean right wing libertarians often claim their ideas would be a force for good but their critics show that they are more likely to create the opposite – the problem is that they don’t seem able to address those criticisms.

From the assertion “in a very long time” you are claiming that you do know of a precedent – can you please produce it?

 

Eat

But whereas I (and others) have explained at length, in detail and on several occasions why we think right wing libertarian ideas are deeply if not mortally flawed – you (and other right wing libertarians) just make assertions that your ideas are good ones – although you (and other right wing libertarians) don’t seem able to address the many criticisms of your ideas.

But thinking your ideas are good and those being ideas that can be defended from criticism are two different things. A fundamentalist creationist thinks their ideas are good, the people who blew up the twin towers thought their ideas were good.

What I’m pointing out is that you and other right wing libertarians don’t seem able to address the many criticisms of your ideas.

I don’t care if you agree with me or not – I’m asking why you (and other right wing libertarians) seem unable to defend your ideas from criticism.

I mean this whole post is evasion from that question.

I and others have presented criticisms of right wing libertarian ideas – can you or can you not address those arguments in any rational or reasonable way? And if you cannot defend them from criticism - why are you promoting them?

 

The thing that you don't seem to understand is that the thing that all we "right wing libertarians" keep saying to back up the point that libertarian ideals are good ones, pretty much defends itself as much as it can be defended. I don't have any facts or numbers to put behind it, but I'm a firm believer that the government should not be all powerful, and that it should have as little influence in the market as possible. I believe that the scope of the power which the government currently controls is the source of a lot of problems in our country, and I can only see it getting worse if we don't take some of that power away. The occupy protest are geared towards just that, removing the influence of government in the market and vice-versa. Anyway, I'm not a "right wing libertarian" and I'm not terribly well versed in politics of any sort, being as I am, an 18 year old in my first semester of college. This election will be the first one I vote in hence I'm just beginning to get my bearings when it comes to politics. The fact is that from everything I've seen, I don't see any candidate who's more fit to hold the office of President than Ron Paul. It seems completely abnormal to me for a politician to be so honest and consistent, as I've never seen another who can match that level of consistency. Regardless of whether or not I agree with all of Paul's ideas, I believe he's the only one who will actually do what he says if he gains office. Again, these are not facts that I'm trying to use to defend my point. This is my opinion, backed by what I've seen and heard about politics in my life. I feel that arguing for it is entirely pointless because there's no way I'm going to persuade you, and there's no way that you're going to persuade me. The simple truth is that I believe that Ron Paul will be a good president, and I'm going to vote for him. This is a belief, not a fact. However, I don't think anyone can say for sure that their candidate is going to do anything good for the country, especially given the fact that politicians as a whole tend to be greedy, lying, cheating scumbags.

 

Eats

Sorry but are you honestly saying that you think slogans and assertions that don’t even seem to stand up to the mildest of scrutiny are ‘good’ arguments?

I know the right wing mantra by now I think we all do here – what I’m asking is do you have any rational or reasonable arguments to defend these ideas from the many outstanding criticisms of them that remain unaddressed.

And if you are not basing your stance on any tangible knowledge why do you believe it?

 

Eats

What have you seen? What have you learned about Ron’s policies that make you think them so good? And armed with this knowledge why is it you seem totally unable to defend those ideas from criticism?

What have you seen? What have you learned about Rons policies that make you think them so good? And armed with this knowledge why is it you seem totally unable to defend those ideas from criticism?

One of the criticisms I’ve stated is that I don’t think Ron is honest or consistent to repeat – “I don’t think he is consistent and in fact he seems rather contradictory. For example he claims he is for the 99% against the 1%

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=436309&f=36&page=23 – post 228

But the ideas Ron Paul promotes would vastly increase the power and influence of the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Thing is that many criticisms of these deeply flawed ideas have been made in a number of threads and what do we get from the Paulettes mainly a rift on the theme of – ‘he’s the man’ – he’s consistent, he’s great, he’s the only honest politician, he’s not conserving his own pockets like the others, etc, etc

Rather than these rather vacuous comments why not actually try and address the criticism levelled at Ron’s right wing libertarian/neoliberal ideas”

 

Eats

But you seem unable to defend his ideas against the charge that they are bad ideas that would make a bad situation worse.

But think about it – if you can’t defend your opinion from criticism then why do you think them good opinions - isn’t it more likely that opinions that cannot be defended in any rational or reasonable way are bad opinions?

But whereas I (and others) have explained at length, in detail and on several occasions why we think right wing libertarian ideas are deeply if not mortally flawed – you are just make assertions that your ideas are good ones – although you clearly cannot address the many criticisms of your ideas.

So to you it’s a religious belief not a rational or reasoned opinion based on any tangible knowledge, just something you accept without question?

 

Ive clearly admitted that I dont have facts to back my beliefs up. I have no sort of time or motivation to look into finding facts to back my beliefs up. I'm making an opinion based on the very minimal amount of information on politics that i do take in. My support of Ron Paul stems from what I feel is a rational distrust of goverment and a belief in the constitution. It seems to me, although I'm sure you'll tell me its a lie, that Ron Paul is in line with these beliefs that I have. Once again, I really dont have the motivation to look up any facts to back up my argument with someone on an internet forum. I'll admit that my support is backed up more by conjecture than anything else, but based on what i know about the world, this is what seems to me to be a good way for it to work. That being small government and a self regulated economy. This is not a religious belief, and i don't claim to be the voice of the libertarian party, I'm simply making a decision based on my own common sense. Now I know that you're going to come back with the same objections you always do and id like to kindly remove myself from this conversation as its going nowhere. This thread isn't even about the merits of Ron Paul. My original point stands that a widespread support of any candidate by any particular group is generally a good sign. That has nothing to do with whether or not the candidate is a good one, and I wasn't trying to get into this argument again.

 

Eats

Yet you would try and influence others by saying how great you think right wing libertarianism is and even go so far as to try and impose Ron on others by voting for him. How rational is that?

In other words you haven’t a clue if his or your ideas are good or bad, but you are going to ignore those that have explained in detail why his and your ideas are bad because you cannot be bothered to thing about them and instead have just decided to go with some dodgy slogans. How rational is that?

Based on what? You’ve just pointed out you cannot be arsed to find out anything about it? Doesn’t sound rational to me, I mean how do you know if your ideas are rational when you can’t even back them up or defend them from criticisms?

But are they good beliefs or bad beliefs? You have made it perfectly clear that you don’t know, because you can’t be bothered to find out.

Then why are you on a politics forum promoting right wing libertarian views?

Your support seems to be based on…well nothing of any substance, as to your view of the world as you have pointed out - you have no sort of time or motivation to look into finding out if it’s a good view or a bad view.

How about good governance and an economy that works for all the people? But as you have pointed out you can’t be bothered to even think if your ideas are good ones or bad ones.

You are basing your support on things you cannot defend in any rational or reasonable way other than the ‘belief’ that they’re right – which basically defines a religious belief.

LOL – a common sense based on not having the time or motivation to find out if any of your ideas stand up to any rational thought.

Good run away.

It has Ron Paul in the title, so it’s about him.

An idea that you are basing on not having the time or motivation to work out if that’s true or not?

So why are you here promoting right wing libertarian views?

 

This is what I wanted to say in this thread. Everything else is a new topic that I may very well not be qualified to speak on because, as I said, I don't know all that much about politics. When you say that by voting for a candidate I'm forcing him on other people I think you reveal a serious misunderstanding of how voting works. I vote for who I want to win, and everyone else votes for whoever he or she wants to win. The person who gets the vote of the majority is the winner. So if I vote for the same person that the majority votes for I'm not pushing the candidate on anyone. The candidate is simply the one who is supported by the majority. If not then I'm similarly not pushing the candidate on anyone because the candidate is not the one who wins the vote. The assertion that voting for a candidate without knowing every fact is wrong because you cause other people harm is asinine. I will say again, I'm basing my opinion on the information that I've taken in throughout my life about politics. I don't have all of this information available in some database from which I can cite it, and I don't feel like tracking it down. I don't think that it is at all uncommon for people to base a political opinion on a dearth of knowledge, and I don't expect most voters to have a complete knowledge of any candidate's platform, even their own. I do however, think that everyone should vote if they've seen enough to have an opinion. That's where I am. I agree with what I hear when I listen to Ron Paul speak, and I disagree with most of what I hear when other politicians speak. Therefore I will vote for Ron Paul. I don't see any reason why I should have to prove that my beliefs are the right ones. If there were some way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one person's political ideas ore the correct ones then there wouldn't be different political parties. It all comes down to opinion. As the saying goes, opinions are like assholes. I am entitled to have my opinion, and I am as much entitled to express it, whether or not I can defend it. I don't claim to be able to prove why I believe what I believe, and while that is similar to religious view, it has more backing in opinion than blind faith. I try to create my own ideas about how the country should be run, and then when a politician says something that is in line with the ideas I have, I support him. I don't support him because I learned about him and decided that his ideas are good ones. I already thought these ideas were good before I heard about him, and then I found someone who believes the same things that I do and decided to support him. I don't appreciate you saying that I don't have any idea what I'm talking about, because that's not the case. I wouldn't put forth this much effort to talk about something that I had no idea about. All I said was that I don't have any sources to cite. I'm not going to go looking up every article I've read or every interview I've seen or any source which I've gathered information from because I'm not all that concerned about proving my argument. I believe that if I really applied myself to it, I could find information to back up what I've been saying, but as you so eloquently put it, I can't be arsed to. Again, I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't plan on changing anyone's mind without backing up what I'm saying with facts. So in conclusion, I support Ron Paul, with reasons based in fact (which I can't be bothered to cite) as well as belief. I am of the opinion that If the country changes in the way that Ron Paul would have it change, it would be better off.

 

Eats

Pretty much the biggest reason why I support Ron Paul is that he hasn't completely changed his ideas on government every time he's gained office. The things he says are consistently consistent with the things he does.

But the criticism outlined in detail is that he isn’t consistent, that what he claims and what his ideas would end up doing seem to be very much at odds with each other. You have failed to address, let alone refute, that criticism meaning it stands.

*

But people can vote for bad ideas out of ignorance. Remember that the Nazis were voted into power, just because a majority vote for something does not mean that something is a good idea.

How do you know if an idea is generally a good one or a bad one?

Well a good rule of thumb is if you can’t defend an idea from its critics then it’s probably a deeply flawed idea. The Nazis beat up and interned their critics and you as equally unable to defend your ideas from its critics BUT you would vote those ideas into power?

LOL – You think it is a wise, rational and intelligent thing to vote for ideas that you don’t seem to understand and certainly can’t defend?

Throughout history people have supported bad ideas out of ignorance and have usually discovered too late their mistake. I and others are trying to point out just how bad some ideas are so you will not make the mistake of supporting them.

But you readily admit that you know little and have thought less. How do you know if your opinions are any good when you can’t even defend them from criticism?

The ‘database’ should be your brain, what you know, have learned and have experienced, you claim to be basing your opinion “on the information that I've taken in throughout my life about politics” have you forgotten what those things were and if you have how do you know if your opinions are any good?

And people can live to regret it. When it comes to politics ignorance isn’t a virtue it can be down right dangerous. I and others are trying to point out to you just how dangerous those ideas could be before you make the mistake of supporting them out of ignorance.

But is that opinion any good, as I said a good rule of thumb is if you can’t defend an opinion from its critics then it’s probably a deeply flawed idea.

Why?

Why, since you cannot defend his or your ideas from its critics?

Because you would wish to promote and even impose ideas that you can’t defend from criticism on to other people.

But you do not seem able to defend your ideas from criticisms that seem to fatally undermine those ideas.

You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to point out that they seem like pretty bad (even dangerous) ideas. And I’m also entitled to point out that you seem unable to defend those ideas from criticism implying those criticisms are correct.

Sorry Eat but that still sounds more like a religious belief than anything rational and reasonable, because you don’t seem to able to defend your opinion in any rational or reasonable way.

But are your ideas any good? The fact you can’t defend them implies they are not.

To repeat how the hell do you know if your ideas are any good seeing that you are completely unable to defend them from criticisms that strongly indicate they are in fact to some greater degree bad.

LOL,(1) I’m not here for your appreciation. (2) So far you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about.

Man you are hilarious – WHAT EFFORT? I mean you admit you have no inclination what-so-ever to learn anything.

(1)I don’t think you could.
(2)I think you are too lazy to even try.

I don’t think you have any rational or reasonable argument to support your views as proved by your totally inability to defend your ideas from the legion of criticisms levelled against them.

You might have an opinion that you feel is a good one but so did the people that planned and executed the attack on the twin towers.

 

Many people have expressed the same thing but here I’ll quote Thomas Jefferson –

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

And in relation to the right wing libertarians and the Paulettes that is what we seem to have – ignorance.

Some admit their ignorance others claim they are informed but the outcome always seems to be the same – they are totally and utterly unable to address, let alone refute the many criticisms levelled at their ideas.

It seems to me that many problems in the history of the world have come about due to the unquestioning obedience of followers to crackpot beliefs and ideologies.

It doesn’t bode well for the US when such ignorance is allowed to fester.


*

 

Balbus, you've been repeating the same 5 or 6 things for the past 6 or 7 years. Don't you ever get tired?

 

Reagan did the exact same thing. He campaigned on slashing government jobs, even went as far as spreading propaganda about how untrustful the government is, etc.

"Mistrust government, but vote for me!"

It's been proven that smear campaigns and attack ads work, in so much as they disuade people from actually voting in favour of the person they are attacking. Pretty fucked up how we allow so much advertising and persuasion into our psyche.