To be honest the country is just not working, It's not like whatever the voters are doing actually matters anyways. Even if he got into office, I doubt he would be able to change much if he wasn't assassinated or corrupted somehow. There is just too much bullshit wrong that is all piled over and over itself for the last 100 years or whatever it would take at least 4 or 5 presidencies with all the people's support and no outside interferences to actually make all his ideals work.
I do believe they could work (or at least work better than what we have now), but the fact of the matter is that it's the system that sucks, not the politicians. Imho, Our best case scenario with Paul would to be that it causes so much controversy that we have some huge revolution and possibly a civil war and then come out better off in 5-10 years.
I don't vote and I'm probably more educated in government bullshit than most of the voters of this country, and I know that I don't know shit.
Probably best if people just switch countries or something.
On October 13 2011 05:04 Kiarip wrote: Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
We're talking about 7 years olds here you realize. LOL the right.
I actually really like a lot of what he was saying in those videos despite generally being more Democrat and, with my first chance to vote in a presedential election this 2012, see myself voting Obama (Ron Paul probably won't get the nomination so I won't have to make a tough choice or anything.). Don't like how he wants to just have individual states make all the decisions, but I like that he realizes it's dumb to have marijuana, and even more hardcore drugs be so rigorously combated.
Also, I like that he's anti-war. Though I can't say I (or anyone really) knows what the best thing to do is with the mess we are involved in the Middle East. Pulling out seems like it would be good, but I just don't know if that would cause the sort of "oh no the bad people will take over then" that I seem to hear concerns about.
edit: Just when I'm kinda liking the guy I see above he doesn't accept the "theory" of evolution. He was a doctor...
On October 12 2011 09:07 Catch]22 wrote: I'd consider which candidate was to be the most likely to get elected in the actual election, would Ron Paul stand as big of a chance agains Obama as Romney? I actually doubt that.
I do agree that ignoring him seems like a very wierd idea, but I do believe it has something to do with him being less conservative than the rest, I thought Libertarians had their own party in the US, or does the two-party system rule out anything like that?
I think Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama, actually. No Republican voters are going to vote for Obama anyway, and Ron Paul will pick up tons of votes from independents and Democrats who are pissed off at Obama for escalating the wars, escalating the unconstitutional detention and assassination of US citizens, escalating the war on drugs, further eroding our civil rights, etc. There have been a few mock polls of Ron Paul against Obama that have gone in favor of Paul, and I expect that he'd be even more popular with more media recognition if he can win the Republican primary.
We do have a Libertarian party, but our system of elections has been set up by the Republicans and Democrats to all but prevent third party participation. The actual Libertarian party is also too extreme for most people's liking.
I know very little about politics. But the idea that Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama does make some sense. Republicans would still all vote for him over Obama, and like you say, he's someone Democrats/Independents would consider.
Ron Paul is the only republican I would vote for over Obama. I hate Romney with a passion, every time that guy speaks I can't help but feel like I'm being lied to or something.
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. Well, that's status quo for republicans, isn't it? Yet he's pretty much the only candidate that doesn't want to use the federal government to stuff his religious views down my throat. +1 for that.
He's fine with the local government stuffing their religious views down my throat, but I have a lot more influence as an individual on local gov than I do on a national scale.
That being said, I would like to see this crazy idea that evolution isn't true.... to be a little bit more damning. Why is it okay that most republican candidates do not seem to believe in evolution? This should be considered insane. As it is Ron Paul is just a normal candidate on that front.
On October 13 2011 13:16 LuckyFool wrote: Ron Paul is the only republican I would vote for over Obama. I hate Romney with a passion, every time that guy speaks I can't help but feel like I'm being lied to or something.
I like Chris Christie. But he's not nuts enough for the base, nor running.
On October 13 2011 09:37 SpoR wrote: Probably best if people just switch countries or something.
Probably won't help you. Any country worth switching to isn't easy to immigrate to. And most countries are going to be affected by this global crisis, too.
I can't watch YouTube, but in the last general election I voted for Ron Paul, and I've seen/thought about a lot of these issues. Unlike a lot of people who are willing to fight to the death to say that their position is 100% informed, first and foremost I would admit that I cut corners when it comes to choosing which politician I want. I estimate and then go with that; I don't research to death every issue... So please take my opinions with a grain of salt and believe me when I say that I would like to be shown I am wrong.
On October 12 2011 08:32 BioNova wrote: 1.) Global War/Terrorism I list this first, as it the area as an elected president could influence most even on his first day in office. Ron is ardently anti-war. He opposes almost all the current conflicts, despite originally voting for action against those responsible for 9/11. His newest campaign add 'Imagine' best reflects his current view on current foreign policy. Possibly the greatest anti-war add of the modern age.
Even if some of his views are crazy, I voted for him because I thought if he was elected we would see some drastic change in the U.S.'s seemingly crazy amount of spending on weapons and massive military presence in the world. It seems like we are constantly attacking all the time, and most people are unaware of this, and that this kind of stuff has become even more crazy from Bush onwards. Someone who takes a radical stance on this would be great, as Ron seems to.
For me it's quite simple. No illegal wars. No unnecessary wars. That seems to be what he's saying, and in the last election everyone else was being a pussy or an asshole about this issue. War should be what we look at most carefully. It's really depressing that people will kind of ignore the "We're killing/maiming a lot of people over in (blah blah) for (why???)" issue so that their pet economic or "moral" belief can be represented in a politician. It's like if five people were trapped in the elevator, and you had to vote who the leader would be, and only one of them doesn't advocate constant knife fights or something, but nobody really thinks that issue is important, everybody is worried about who opposes gay marriage or who will end affirmative action or help people pay slightly less taxes or get more jobs supposedly. Really depressing and ludicrous.
So this made me like Paul as a candidate, because other people were not really as serious about this most serious issue as they should be (talking about the previous general election).
2.) War on Drugs. From Mexico, to Colombia, all the way to Afghanistan. A global epidemic, both the use and abuse. At what point did we lose, and who did we lose to? Very few politicians have anything more than a static response to this problem. Not Ron.First, from 2008, then more recently.
This is an issue where I have an open mind about too. The status quo is ridiculous, and I'm willing to accept all kinds of radical attempts to change it, whether it's a "less government" approach or a "better government" approach, I would be really happy to just have _something_ besides a politician who ignores the issue completely. Prisons and jails are a huge issue in every way for many states, not to mention what's simply right and wrong, and our drug policy seems to simply hurt a lot of people who don't deserve it, not to mention, in my opinion, stop a lot of people from getting high. I'm pro-getting high. And where people go astray, I think we should look at what we can do to help this issue. The police/jail/prison thing isn't working as-is, clearly.
So again, this alone would make Paul a cool president. Maybe I want something crazy and drastic to happen, but I think most voters have felt that way a long time too.
3.) Rule of Law. Some of his most controversial positions stem from his view that the Constitution is the 800lb Gorrilla in the room, not big pharma. Over and over again he has voted against(Dr.NO) or spoken out against agencies or laws he views to be in violation of the Constitution. It would probably be easier to list the agencies he does not have issue with, than vice-versa.
I don't think we should object to wanting to clean up how we use our laws and make them consistent and transparent. If we really want something to be law it should be done the legal way, not weird ways. A lot of the ways the government works now seem really messed up. This doesn't seem crazy at all. It can be done in a safe way...
4.) Civil Liberties. Absolutely no other candidate talks about this issue at length, with any degree of consistancy. Usually reservered as a platform for democratic candidates, one shouldn't expect much from the rest of the Republicans on this subject. If you believe in cradle to the grave, Ron Paul is not your guy. He advocates personal responsibility and choices, not absolutes, and safety nets.
I'm okay with big government, so in some ways Ron Paul's not perfect for me. But I would take the so-so with the good, and sometimes a radical "no-government" experiment would at least beat the status quo. A president who wants the president to stop breaking the law against its citizens and other countries, I can deal with that.
I kind of think of it this way. I might not want a libertarian congress or judiciary. But for President, the most abused office in history? It would be cool to have a President who looks to restore some "balance of powers" and "rule of law" to the office, who thinks before we go to war we have to have the congress have some say.
I wouldn't agree with all of his opinions in this area (maybe I like judicial review more than him?) but I also wouldn't expect him to come out with a bunch of weird mandates as a President. He would seek to stop things that are blatantly illegal according to our own laws--but not go running around making up new stuff just because of his opinions. He'd be "limited" right?
5.)The Economy/MonetaryPolicy. Another favorite area for his critics. It's a good thing such a wack-job as Paul doesn't have any idea what he is talking about, and is out of touch with reality. His economic failures(sarcasm) include, but are not limited by the following video.
This is probably the area where I'm the most insecure. I tend to believe these "wackjob" presentations about how the power structure behind printing money is really fucked and how if the government took back this power we would stop getting toyed with by these shady conspiracy things. But I guess a lot of smart people say this is crazy and the more conventional economic thinking is actually right. I would like to read some stuff convincing me of that I guess.
Barring a change in what I've been convinced of, I would like to see a president do something radical with the printing and non-printing of our money, a kind of war on banks if you will.
So on these five points I would like a president that has some of these kinds of views on these issues, even if he isn't perfect. I think these issues are worth a tradeoff, whereas the kinds of things typical candidates argue over really aren't.
On October 13 2011 06:20 Logo wrote: Man I really want to like Ron Paul, and I do for many things but some of his views are just too crazy/out there for me. Still I think I'd rather have him as pres than any other rep candidate, congress would really mellow out/relax what he's capable of implementing.
Calling Alan Greenspan terrible does make me like him just a little bit more than I did though.
Look man, I get where you are coming from, but the point is you don't have any other choice!
Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich are all establishment candidates. They are all part of the corrupt system.
Michelle Bachman doesn't have a clue what is going on and supports the wars.
All of the candidates except Ron Paul support the patriot act, TSA act, endless wars and secret arrest.
To tell you the truth you have the choice between dictatorial corrupt government that works for the big banks and military industrial complex with any of the candidates or Ron Paul who at least will try and get rid of all the corruption and federal government power and give it back to the people.
He also doesn't want the federal government to have all these powers, but the states can still do whatever they want, and the federal government will basically serve to protect the peoples rights and freedoms from government itself in his case the states.
The problem with conspiracy theory/conspiracy fact, is recognizing the difference.
Darwin suggested(coming out of sleep, no google) specific details of conditions that would disprove his theory. One was finding a complex cells that could not function correctly if even one part was missing, take out the transistor on a radio, it no longer works. Might look for that, but i have a story I'd like to get out for informative/discussion purposes. The disclaimer here is a am a current agnostic.
I agree with the sentiment that in this election, America does not just choose for itself, it chooses for us all. Romney's foriegn policy in a nutshell, nail down the leash on the Middle East, and focus on Latin America. Economic Development in Latin America. Drugs in Latin America ....Stop me if you've heard this before.
It's almost Irony that brings the stories together.Going to finish my reading, get coffee and get er figured out.
Edit: So here's my mashup. I mentioned this name in Wall Street thread but no one caught on(go figure). Shit's moving fast in that thread.
I wanted to bring a name in from out of the cold. With Occupy Wall Street shifting gears, the wars burning on in 3 to 7 countries at a time, and some of the candidates looking for more. People are angry. Democrats point to republicans, and vice-versa. What is all about? Money and power silly. A lot of people when they criticize the system like to point to great speechess or moments in time when conditions were clear indicators of the problems we faced. I've found them to be slightly comforting at times myself. Usually, you have the a certain few speeches that seem to still apply or just 'fit' the situation. Kennedy on the American Press, Eisenhower warned us before him. They were not alone either. In 1933, something happened that I personally believe mirrors in may ways what is the present. I'm referring to the 'alleged' Buisness Plot. Never heard of it? Good. You have? Great!.
Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye", was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history. During his 34-year career as a Marine, he participated in military actions in the Philippines, China, in Central America and the Caribbean during the Banana Wars, and France in World War I. By the end of his career he had received 16 medals, five of which were for heroism. He is one of 19 people to twice receive the Medal of Honor, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only person to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.
In addition to his military achievements, he served as the Director of Public Safety in Philadelphia for two years and was an outspoken critic of U.S. military adventurism. In his 1935 book War is a Racket, he described the workings of the military-industrial complex and, after retiring from service, became a popular speaker at meetings organized by veterans, pacifists and church groups in the 1930s.
In 1934 he was involved in a controversy known as the Business Plot when he told a congressional committee that a group of wealthy industrialists had approached him to lead a military coup to overthrow Franklin D. Roosevelt. The individuals that were involved denied the existence of a plot, and the media ridiculed the allegations. The final report of the committee stated that there was evidence that such a plot existed, but no charges were ever filed. The opinion of most historians is that while planning for a coup was not very advanced, wild schemes were discussed.
Butler continued his speaking engagements in an extended tour but in June 1940 checked himself into a naval hospital, dying a few weeks later from what was believed to be cancer. He was buried at Oaklands Cemetery in West Chester, Pennsylvania; his home has been maintained as a memorial and contains memorabilia collected during his various career.
In November 1934, Butler alleged the existence of a political conspiracy of Wall Street interests to overthrow President Roosevelt, a series of allegations that came to be known in the media as the Business Plot.[53][54] A special committee of the House of Representatives headed by Representatives John W. McCormack of Massachusetts and Samuel Dickstein of New York, who was later alleged to have been a paid agent of the NKVD,[55] heard his testimony in secret.[56] The McCormack-Dickstein committee was a precursor to the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
In November 1934, Butler told the committee that a group of businessmen, saying they were backed by a private army of 500,000 ex-soldiers and others, intended to establish a fascist dictatorship. Butler had been asked to lead it, he said, by Gerald P. MacGuire, a bond salesman with Grayson M–P Murphy & Co. The New York Times reported that Butler had told friends that General Hugh S. Johnson, a former official with the National Recovery Administration, was to be installed as dictator. Butler said MacGuire had told him the attempted coup was backed by three million dollars, and that the 500,000 men were probably to be assembled in Washington, D.C. the following year. All the parties alleged to be involved, including Johnson, said there was no truth in the story, calling it a joke and a fantasy.[56]
In its report, the committee stated that it was unable to confirm Butler's statements other than the proposal from MacGuire, which it considered more or less confirmed by MacGuire's European reports.[57] No prosecutions or further investigations followed, and historians have questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, although most agree that some sort of "wild scheme" was contemplated and discussed.[58][59][60][61] The news media initially dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterizing it as a "gigantic hoax".[62] When the committee's final report was released, the Times said the committee "purported to report that a two-month investigation had convinced it that General Butler's story of a Fascist march on Washington was alarmingly true" and "... also alleged that definite proof had been found that the much publicized Fascist march on Washington, which was to have been led by Major. Gen. Smedley D. Butler, retired, according to testimony at a hearing, was actually contemplated".[63]
The McCormack-Dickstein Committee confirmed some of Butler's accusations in its final report. "In the last few weeks of the committee's official life it received evidence showing that certain persons had made an attempt to establish a fascist organization in this country...There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned, and might have been placed in execution when and if the financial backers deemed it expedient."
Eh Let's see. Gonna post this, so you guys can check it out, there is Tons more on the subject.
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
In another often cited quote from the book Butler says: "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
EDIT:Was reading Matt Tabbi's pontential list of demands for OccupyWS today and found a reference to Standard Oil and Roosevelts Trust Busting.
Monopolies. Taibbi wants to break up monopolies and presumably he would use the power of the federal government to do so. In fact, this is reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt's "trust busting." Famously, John D. Rockefeller's great company, Standard Oil, was broken up a result. fun stuff!
What's whack is when it stares you in the face, and you ignore it. Domestic abuse, child abuse, much easier to picture yourself in a situation where it's easier to look away. It's not your problem right? This is a uncompartmentalized disaster. Eric Margolis commented on it the other day.
Operation Enduring Freedom – the dreadfully misnamed ten-year US occupation of Afghanistan – has turned into Operation Enduring Misery.
After ten years of military and civil operations costing at least $450 billion, over 1,600 dead and 15,000 seriously wounded soldiers, the US has achieved none of its strategic or political goals. As for Afghanistan, it has suffered untold civilian casualties, villages shattered by US bombing, night raids by death squads, over two million refugees and a 30-year civil war.
At a time when 44 million Americans subsist on government food stamps and lack the kind of medical care common to other developed nations, each US soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million per annum. CIA employs 80,000 mercenaries there, cost unknown. The Pentagon spends a staggering $20.2 billion annually air conditioning troop quarters in Afghanistan and Iraq. Source
It's kinda like Vietnam basted in Great Depression, on the scale of WW2. This time they have Banshees!!!
On October 12 2011 09:36 rel wrote: So many people saying, "Oh I'd vote for him, but it's a wasted vote." If all those people actually voted for him he might have a chance lol....
No he wouldn't.
You have to get the mainstream vote to actually elect someone, not the relatively small demographic that is the internet forum.
I think Ron Paul is great to add new conversations that might otherwise not be there. He is doesn't tiptoe around subjects nearly as much as everyone else. He tells you what he thinks and sticks to his principles.
Although this is why I like him it is also why he isn't a good politician in how we are doing things today. It's all about image and how you come across. He is an old squirrely looking guy who isn't afraid to tell you what he thinks even if he knows you don't want to hear it.
On October 13 2011 05:04 Kiarip wrote: Yes the thought of personal responsibility is innately absolutely terrifying for people that are used to living in nanny states.
We're talking about 7 years olds here you realize. LOL the right.
who picks what school a 7 year old goes to?
I think it's his parents who are considerably older than 7 years old =O
On October 14 2011 02:35 AirbladeOrange wrote: I think Ron Paul is great to add new conversations that might otherwise not be there. He is doesn't tiptoe around subjects nearly as much as everyone else. He tells you what he thinks and sticks to his principles.
Although this is why I like him it is also why he isn't a good politician in how we are doing things today. It's all about image and how you come across. He is an old squirrely looking guy who isn't afraid to tell you what he thinks even if he knows you don't want to hear it.
Well, for him personally, it appears to be over. He is not seeking re-election in Congress, to focus on this campaign. Without Ron on the stage, why even ask questions? LOL
^ Skip to 1:25... That about sums it up. Not a single bill of a Paul west wing would pass a house vote, most wouldn't even get past committee... "Approach it constitutionally, approach it on the principles of liberty." LOL. So a body of government that time and time again has granted Keynesian measures of enormous proportion to save the jobs and savings of its constituents would all of a sudden embrace a radical paradigm shift to laissez faire capitalism? With the promise of long term health for the economy at the expense of short term self-induced '7 years of famine'?
EPT
