Republican Presidential Candidate 2012

[cover drive man]

Might be a bit early to start this but I feel like making a prediction (33/1 at Victor Chandler)

The republicans won't place much emphasis on attacking Obama's foreign policy (other than seeming to reach out to Iran a few years ago) mainly because Obama inherited the wars he's in with the exception of Libya. The question, presumably, will be the economy. Obama's 'big government' action to sorting the current problems is of course, proving unpopular with the growing right. The republicans, moreso than usual, will sympathise with some libertarian economics.

Ron Paul is probably the most outspoken candidate when it comes to 'small government' and I think in this campaign he'll flourish with conservatives on economic issues. He'll certainly make use of the S and C words when describing Obama's policy on healthcare and regulation. The gamble is that Paul is also probably the most outspoken against middle east intervention and this will be divisive perhaps to the point of forming fringe groups like the tea party. Paul is also a fringe member in many people's eyes. But on the fringe topics, all eyes will be on Sarah Palin, Paul might get through without as much controversy.

Ron Paul for the Republican nomination, 33/1 at Victor Chandler.

 

[cover drive man]

But whoever gets it, I'll support Obama in the election.

 

[Spark]

Ron Paul won't come close to getting the nomination. Can't reconcile with the diehard social conservatives and associated Bible-thumpers in the GOP base.

 

[Flem274*]

Ron Paul is too libertarian for the GOP. He has next to no chance, which is a shame, because he is one of the best candidates.

 

[cover drive man]

The favourite though, Romney, also has critics on the right after his healthcare speech which could hinder his chances. I think though, that with the GOP calling Obama a socialist for years now it could make room for Paul's libertarian ideas.

Remember though, I'm looking at the prediction from a betting view of backing and laying. I don't really think he'll get it, just that 33/1 makes room for a good lay profit on the exchanges.

 

[silentstriker]

Ron Paul is too libertarian for the GOP. He has next to no chance, which is a shame, because he is one of the best candidates.

He's also a nutjob.

 

[Adamc]

Nah, he's a 'maverick'. That worked out well for them last time round.

 

[Flem274*]

He's also a nutjob.

Have I gone and mixed him up with someone intelligent?

I hate it when I do that.

 

[silentstriker]

Have I gone and mixed him up with someone intelligent?

I hate it when I do that.

I didn't say he wasn't intelligent. He's merely crazy-radical in his political positions.

 

[Cevno]

Ron Paul is crazy all right.

 

[Redbacks]

Thing is the Libertarians tend to have some radical ideas, but I tend to find they have the most developed theory on how to price 'negative externalities' whereas Statist/Enviro groups generally have no ideas other than to resort to interventionist policies and call for 'everything to stop!' Thus they might be in the best position to shape tha future, or at least for politicians to use some of their ideas to shape the future to their own advantage.

But such a radical way of thinking that they propose is probably only possible piecemeal. Then experimentation will determine what's effective and what isn't. Obv no chance of winning government at the moment though.

 

[silentstriker]

I certainly would not want to be living in a Rand-ian hellhole of a country designed by and for selfish pricks. It's as much a crazy belief-driven utopian nonsense as communism.

 

[Spark]

I really, really like libertarianism as an ideology. The problem isn't that they're libertarians, they're ideologues, with all the associated problems with being divorced-from-reality and "nationalist" (in the Orwellian sense) tendencies that that brings.

 

[silentstriker]

Encyclopedia Dramatica is hilarious on libertarianism.

 

[Spark]

It's hilarious on a lot of things tbf.

It's also highly disturbing and NSFW ever on others, and then on some pages NSFL. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[morgieb]

Really have nfi who can win it for them, which obviously is a good thing, as I think Obama's pretty gun and that the Republicans are a bunch of evil monsters. Romney's too stiff, fake, and has healthcare worries, Pawlenty's too bland, Hunstman's too moderate, Libertarianism won't work for most of the primary voters, and the others are hilariously inept or too conservative.

 

[Redbacks]

I certainly would not want to be living in a Rand-ian hellhole of a country designed by and for selfish pricks. It's as much a crazy belief-driven utopian nonsense as communism.

Rather than the one founded on charity like the current one You would have to determine selfish as a system where currently tax payers have bailed out banks and car companies who made bad decisions, and one where governments inact regulations that favour certain companies at the expense of everybody? Or one where an entire nation invades another because a select few determine that's in the national interest. Surely there is elements of the 'progressive' agenda that accepts such issues are almost garuanteed with large concentrations of power?

You could argue that any belief system (religion/team philosophy/monarchy) is a crazy belief driven one, then simply call that which isn't current Utopian dreaming, because as we know, there isn't exactly any system that promises total happiness all of the time and you can look to current hardship to say 'see it's all a load of bollocks'. If you subscribe to the more pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer you can really dismiss any such promises as garbage anyway regardless of your leanings, with generally opponents making such claims but never the proponents.

What we currently have is National Socialism in the West. As technological advances change the world, certainly there is scope to change to the political landscape in the future and history shows it to be very likely to happen.

 

[Flem274*]

Agree with Redbacks here. When people talk about how libertarianism will only lead to being ruled by our corporate masters, my usual reply is "What, like the world we live in now you mean?"

This doesn't make libertarianism feasible, but something to keep in mind. Of course, I think with the human advancement towards being a better species (some countries have even made it illegal to throw rocks at a woman's head for allegedly cheating on her husband), I hope that one day the state and other power structures will become unnecessary.

But that day is a long way off, and I shake my head when I hear anarchists demand the immediate dissolution of the state.

 

[Spark]

Really have nfi who can win it for them, which obviously is a good thing, as I think Obama's pretty gun and that the Republicans are a bunch of evil monsters. Romney's too stiff, fake, and has healthcare worries, Pawlenty's too bland, Hunstman's too moderate, Libertarianism won't work for most of the primary voters, and the others are hilariously inept or too conservative.

Really? I think he's been a massive, massive disappointment myself.

 

[silentstriker]

Rather than the one founded on charity like the current one You would have to determine selfish as a system where currently tax payers have bailed out banks and car companies who made bad decisions, and one where governments inact regulations that favour certain companies at the expense of everybody? Or one where an entire nation invades another because a select few determine that's in the national interest. Surely there is elements of the 'progressive' agenda that accepts such issues are almost garuanteed with large concentrations of power?

Meh, banks needed to be bailed out and it was right. Car companies (in the US) was a political decision and didn't need to happen. It's not a big deal - you can take each individual issue and judge it on its merit without passing it through some weird ideological filter that determines whether the action was appropriate or not. I can (and do) disagree fundamentally with many such decisions and in many cases I'd want the government more or less involved, but I'd rather live in a society like the one I live in now than the ghastly fantasy that's frequently given as the libertarian ideal.

What we currently have is National Socialism in the West. As technological advances change the world, certainly there is scope to change to the political landscape in the future and history shows it to be very likely to happen.

That's a separate discussion. It may, or it may not. I'd bet against it but just because something happens, doesn't make that change worthwhile.