Reasons why you are a fool if you vote for Obama or Romney.

i would rather have someone disconnected from reality, than someone disconnected from morality. either one will screw up, but the person lacking morals will be happy and continue in the same direction.

 

And the person disconnected from reality won't even realize they've screwed up. Either way, I'd prefer someone immoral over someone incompetent, sort of like how I'd prefer a doctor that was racist over a doctor that didn't know what the hell he was doing.

 

Why do we have to settle for immoral or incompetent? Why do we have to settle for one side or the other of the two party corporate oligarchy? Why do we have to settle at all?

 

Why do we have to settle for immoral or incompetent? Why do we have to settle for one side or the other of the two party corporate oligarchy? Why do we have to settle at all?

 

Ron Paul hasn't been relevant since Iowa. Just go away Paulbots.

 

Is trolling your forte or do you have anything relevant to add to the conversation?

 

I guess competency is now defined as willingness to follow the directives of the central bankers.
Bravo.

 

No, I'm not a fan of the central bankers, but I'm also not a fan of strategies that haven't been realistic for over 100 years. I need a president whose head is at least in the same century as I am.

One of the very few things that Paul advocated that I do like was his push to audit the Fed, which has happened, and we didn't even have to elect him to do it. I say that's win-win.

 

I'm just curious and kind of playing devil's advocate, here. What is it that you dislike about Paul's positions, specifically? I never saw him as a dream candidate but I don't understand why some would be so utterly opposed to him to prefer Obama or Romney to him, which you seem to be advocating for. I personally would feel much better about him being President than either Obama or Romney.

 

Ok the links you posted didn't at all prove Obama and Romney are working for Wallstreet or Goldman-sacs, and you called everyone who is going to vote for either of those people fools... Do you understand it's stupid to call people fools based on their political beliefs? To do so is to pretend every issue is simple and has an easy answer. You may have put very little work into finding your answer for that issue yourself, but that doesn't mean the right answer is easy to find. If it was so easy everyone would have the same answer, but we are all still divided. If we are to find the right answers we need to respect everyone's view points, give them a reasonable say and listen to them, not throw insults around.

 

You make a very good point. We aren't going to ever convince anyone to consider our premise or position when we begin with an insult.

 

right, because the 300 million people he leads would just watch in horror, completely unable to tell him what he's doing wrong.

i guess that would be better than the 300 million people that don't waste their time talking to obama because they know they'll be ignored.

i see that you would rather have a smart man attempt to kill you than a stupid man. nice logic there, good luck defending yourself against a well thought-out agenda to destroy the essence of human nature that drives society. good luck keeping your incentive, your will to live, in a place where nothing you do matters. socialism. the economy will boom, taxes will go down, the debt will get paid off, all the while, 99% of the population will be sitting on the bench in their backyards, watching illegal immigrants rake in the free money that is falling from their trees.

 

I disagree with strictly Constitutional politician's. I believe the Constitution needs to be updated because I believe the last thing that would be good for this country is to gut the Federal government as Paul advocates. I think the idea that power be transfered from one central government to 50 state governments is only going to exponentially increase the political gridlock we have, as well as create 50 bloated state governments. It's not that I don't believe the Federal government oversteps it's bounds, or that it's the best solution but I do believe you do need a big government when you have a big country as we do. The more people you have, the more need there becomes for rules and guidelines. Again, I'm not saying every regulation or law passed is necessary, but I prefer that to the opposite which is neo-anarchy as each state slowly drifts away from each other because there is no strong central government uniting them. I fear for the day when we'll have to change the name of the country from The United States to The States. No one has ever been able to show me a even a halfways successful country the size of ours with a decentralized form of government in our modern age. That's why I say Paul lives in the past. His ideas were valid when communication and travel were limited, and states had to have more power. That's not necessary anymore.

 

let's be honest, we aren't going to convince anyone anyway. Many will realize, but only after it is too late, after we are already in the streets, taking up arms, killing each other by the millions on behalf of our financial masters.
There is nothing new under the sun.

 

what strategies haven't been realistic in the past 100 years ?
The ones that have we have not followed, or the ones that we have followed, straight into the toilet ?
I'd say you have a pretty low bar for successful strategies.

 

That all seems pretty vague and to be based more on a caricature representation of Ron Paul than what I understand of him. I do agree with decentralizing government, not for efficiency, but for the simple facts that it is more difficult, more costly, and less lucrative to corrupt 50 state governments than it is to have the Federal government in your pocket. Regardless of the speed of communication, decentralization of government allows for the people to wield more direct and less diluted influence over their representatives in government. That being said, I don't believe that Paul has plans to dismantle the Federal government nor do I believe that a concern about falling into neo-anarchy is really very relevant at all.

Show me any industrialized state that has a decentralized government. Show me any industrialized state that doesn't have their government dominated by supranational corporate interests.

Your case against Paul doesn't win me over as far as putting him behind Romney and Obama and their corporate masters maintaining control.

 

We surely won't if we don't try, and we surely won't if our initial effort to show them some truth is wrapped in an insult.

 

I agree, although I agree that my vote will probably be pointless I will still cast it. I do not get the logic that not voting will show 'em. Voting in a third party will show them that the dog and pony show will no longer be tolerated by the American people.

 

It's based on the opinion I've formed of him, which started when I first heard about him during the run-up to the 2008 election. Back then, the first mention of his name that I was aware of were from the bumper stickers of the college students from a nearby college town. People would talk about him(he's anti-war, he's anti-war on drugs, etc) and I thought maybe this guy was a good alternative until I did some research on him and figured out what he's really about. I do not advocate a strict constitutional government, because basing your government on a document created 225 years ago, during a point in time that might as well be another world entirely compared to today, is just naive, in my opinion. I suppose you could say I advocate a new Constitutional convention to update the document to a modern one that reflects the changed world we live in.

I understand the points you've made about decentralized government, but I do not think it will produce the results you think it will. Here are some much more modern ways of dealing with the problem that don't include gutting the government:

Enact shorter term limits on senators and representatives, as well as enacting a two year "Confidence" vote on the current president. In that vote, there would be only one question, and no candidates. It would simply be, "Continue with this president: Yes or no". If the vote is no, in 3 months(just an arbitrary number, but the period of time should be somewhat short) a new election will be held, and the sitting president will not be allowed on the ballot. Changes need to be made to the election structure so that it's much easier for the people to remove a politician from office at the state and national level. The problem we have right now is that politician's are barely accountable to the people, because most people aren't paying attention.

Enforce strict rules on personal finances for politicians. Either full disclosure or full removal from office. Also change the law so that after a politician has left office, he cannot work for a private sector corporation that was affected by any legislation supported or introduced by that politician for the next 5-10 years(another arbitrary number, but the duration should be in years).

Remove that laughable Citizen's United decision that makes corporations people, OR, start holding corporations to the same laws that people are. Since people go to jail when they run afoul of the law, corporate executives should also be directly responsible for what their corporation does. I'm not talking the situations where they stole millions of dollars, I'm talking about holding them directly responsible just as a person would be held directly responsible, for any issue.

Outlaw all donations to any political candidate that is not from a real "person" and that money must be out of their own pocket, not given to them by a corporation to donate on their behalf. When a politician is caught taking bribes, kickbacks, etc etc, both that politician and the corporation/industry giving the benefits should be fined and punished. Don't just punish one, punish both.

Enforce strict transparency rules. Politician's seem to care most about their legacy and reputation, so anything that taints that is probably going to be avoided a lot of times. If a politician is caught not disclosing required information, or disclosing false or misleading information, they are subject to a predetermined list of penalties up to and including direct immediate removal from office.

All elections are funded by the government and each candidate receives a fixed amount of money. This system cannot be circumvented, as Obama did in 2008. Public airtime will occur with a new law that requires media networks give a percentage of air time to political candidates free of charge, sort of like a public service announcement. Advertising in print and internet media would be sold at reduced rates. When it comes to radio, I'm not in favor of the fairness doctrine, however, any media network should not be allowed to deny programming time to a candidate who requests it. Basically, you're not required to have an equal amount of programming for each viewpoint, but you cannot deny a candidate a share of time should they request it just because it does not mesh with your stations motif. The airwaves are public property and should be treated as such.

That's just what I've come up with off the top of my head to get undue influence out of government, and it doesn't rely on bloating 50 governments who may all end up wanting to do their own thing. I see that as disorganized chaos. I don't advocate an overwhelming oppressive central government, and there are definitely areas that the Federal government needs to be scaled back. No argument there. I just don't think the answer is to disassemble centralized government to the point that Paul advocates.

 

though I agree, I feel that very few will be convinced, and not enough to make a change prior to a real crisis.
Upon crisis, the majority will flock to the government offered solutions to the crisis.
History will not be denied. It will play out as it always has.

 

I agree with many of these ideas Junkieturtle, great post.

Although I agree with strictly adhering to a document centuries old can be silly. Our constitution and bill of rights has laid a great basis for us especially with the ideal of maximum freedom for the people and limited power for government. This is where I agree with Ron Paul.

 

thats why I cant understand why you liked his last ignorant post?

 

as i said before,most people in america who arent aware of whats really going on that doesnt apply to, its just the posters like the first one who came on and all he can do is come on and throw insults without looking at the links provided that myself and other posters have tried many times to reason with on this before but ignore those facts all the timem that it applies to. It doesnt matter when I post that here,it goes ignored EVERY SINGLE TIME so its pointless to bother posting it for them here anymore.

its a well known fact that romney and obama are always invited to AIPAC meetings all the time but Paul is never invited by them.Fact Bush jr is a mass murderer of innocent women and children,fact Obama is a mass murderer of innocent women and children,fact-Romney is long time pals and friends with Bush as is Clinton.Fact,they are all members of the CFR an evil organization. Paul is NONE of those things.Neither is Garry Johnson.

 

Maybe he had a brief moment of clarity.

 

I just spent a good deal of time replying to this only to have PF not load and not save my post. Just wanted to mention that we are on the same page regarding the influence of money on the political process, public funding of campaigns and free use of the public airwaves, transparency and full financial disclosure.

Regarding decentralization, I'm not sure how you came under the understanding that decentralization somehow means a complete dismantling of the Federal government. We surely can delegate more control of government operations to the states without eliminating the Federal government. The Federal government serves a vital purpose for us as a nation both domestically, but more importantly on the global scale. No one is advocating to eliminate the Federal government, or at least not me when I talk of decentralization.