since Jefferson they would be electing Ron Paul. Since the Progressive Era they would have elected Ralph Nader... a long time ago. They still project the image of being progressive, while acting as social corporatist's. Any questions or comments?
Didn't the corporatist news outlets inform you that those two men are nutters? America should be a social corporatist nation, it's the best system of governance. That's why we have two social corporatist parties who advocate socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest.
If Ron Paul and Ralph Nader were not viewed as kooks by a majority of the electorate (conservative, liberal, centrist), they possibly could have been elected a long time ago. They are the problem not the voter's. The progressive gains that our country have realized over the last 75 years were advanced by the Democrat Party. Republican's are the killjoy party. That's why they should NEVER occupy the White House. However, to their credit, Republican's are an effective opposition party.
I see plenty of Democrats around here willing to vote him in. His strongest opposition comes from the "small government and fiscally conservative" republicans.
Democrats do not want the welfare state to be shrunk. They just like his hardcore anti-defense and pro-drug legalization efforts. They'd never stand for the rest of his platform.
They like freedom too, well the ones I've talked to. Not all of them do, but just doing the two items you've mentioned would do quiet a bit to help save lives. Also he's the most likely candidate to atleast attempt to deal with the budget, which is the largest issue facing this nation. He really is the best candidate out there at this time.
We already shaved half a trillion from defense. What more do you want? Reduction to a militia army? Anything more our troops will have to suffer losses in pay, medical benefits and housing allowances. Drug use is not freedom, it's the new slavery.
I want the military to be stationed in the US and not fighting bull(*)(*)(*)(*) wars in third world countries. As for drugs, not really sure how legalization is equal to slavery. Foreign aid could be cut as well. Subsidies and sin taxes should go too. I know killing sin taxes isn't a cut, but I'm sure there is a lot more to go.
This is impossible if the USA is to remain the dominant consumer of the globalized economy. There are natural resource deposits, new and emerging markets to be exploited, etc. and all of these need protecting from another nation who would attack them to hurt the USA economically. An attack on South Korea hurts the USA just as bad as attacking teh USA directly, it damages our economy severely. An attack on Saudi Arabia might as well be an attack on teh USA, it damages our economy severely and "figure out a way to deal with it" is not a viable option. How many friends/relatives have you lost to the slavery of heroin addiction? Yeah right. Democrats love the sin taxes more than anything else.
What we do is buy these items with money. I mean that's how the system works already. You don't need to attack anyone for oil; there is already a market. You don't need to attack anyone for cars; there is already a market. If country X attack country Y and Y wins and sells us the product X was selling, what does that matter to us? The free market works on a global scale just as it does a national scale. Not really as we have other options. Yeah, you may not be able to get a KIA if NK attacks (and for some reason stops exporting KIA), but you can still buy a Honda. No nation that I know of has a lock on any resource, well excluding specialties like Cuban cigars but that lack of import is our own doing. Zero, and if drugs were legal I'm sure that number would remain the same. People do drugs if they wish to do so; the war on drugs stops no one. I, nor any of my friends, do heroin. Guarantee I could walk down town and find heroin within a few hours at most. This we agree on. Democrats love to tax the everloving (*)(*)(*)(*) out of things they don't agree with. It's one of the main issues of have with them, well that and constantly banning freedom.
Well, since paul has turned himself into Romney's lapdog and thrown his supporters under the bus, I'd say that he doesn't deserve anyone's support. And Nader was never anything more than a single issue gadfly, more interested in flogging his own faded celebrity than in acting like a serious politician. Who else you got? And, by the way, Jefferson was already ignoring the Constitution and acting like what you people like to call a statist before the ink was even dry on the parchment.
Actually most of the Progressive gains in the last 30-50 years could be attributed to Nader who as a Civilian pushed through more Progressive legislation than any democratic president, or other elected representative. Democrats didn't call him a kook until they went corporate( Carter) and he went green. It sounds to me like your main media squeeze is bought and paid for by Democratic leadership. If that's the case i am sure you are relatively fundamentalist and ignorant of the reality of our modern political and economic spectrum.
Your saying Jefferson was a Federalist, which is simply not historically accurate. Nader covered more issues and made changes to more issues than any democrats to date, Look up Naders Raders. Nader dedicated his life to helping people, and continued to fight for what he believed in regardless of how hard political leadership tried to drag his name through the mud. I would call that being serious about changing things for the better. I think its obvious that you have done no research on this, so i would encourage you to explore the topic.
If i were a democrat, which i'm not, i would put pressure on my representatives to stand by their professed ideology.
Here's the problem......No politicans have principals......They want to get elected and that's it.........It's very hard to get kicked out of office outside of losing an electrion......I mean, how many presidents have been corrupt peices of trash.........loads.......How many have been impeached......2; and neither were removed from office. All american politicans want 2 things......They want to stay in power and get rich.......They get both of these by taking money from corporations. That is where the "Too big to fail" idea came from. They want to make sure small businesses are oppressed so that the billion dollar corporations can still in power and keep giving them money.
But we will not remain the dominant consumer of the global economy. Not by any way you cut it. Both China and India each have four times the number of people we have, and I can assure you that they will take their place in the world. Trying to stop them would have very serious consequences. And once they do take their place, they will have just as much interest in world stability as we do. We do not need to police the world, we just need to be strong enough to protect ourselves.
I see this as trading one harmful election system for another. People who run corporations are people and should have the right to petition the government as well as contribute to representatives of there choice. They should be subject to a better set of regulations. And they should stop lobbying for legislation that eliminates competition because in the long run its hurts not only potential competitors but everyone. The economy is like an ecosystem if you eliminate something significant it can have a major effect on the rest. When you disable competition you disable innovation and your own competitive nature, as well as means of employment for your potential consumers. So legislation that helps a corporation in the long run can bring us all down including that corporation in the long run. When i refer to social corporatist's i am talking about policy's like Obama care that force you to pay taxes that go to large corporations such as drug and insurance companies, much of it with out helping anyone. Your paying for drugs for drug addicts, nicotine patches for smokers, name brands, etc. Bail outs of company's that if were being run correctly would have never failed. Tax exemptions on Oil company's Making safe consumer products such as conventional light bulbs illegal to produce. In short, executives and politicians need to start looking past their next pay off and try to think about digging in for the long haul of prosperity. I mean the democrats, the republicans, the general population, unions and multinational super corporations need to stop following the line of nickels on the concrete and look up and act according to what we see, if not we will probably get hit by a big metaphoric garbage truck.
You have made it perfectly clear as to why you support the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader. (Dennis Kucinich, too?)
