Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Touché

 

No

 

Idc I'm over this topic, cause you have no earthly idea what your talking about. If not Ron Paul, who? Obama or Romney? Ron paul stands for personal Liberty, and idc if it makes "the rich richer." Cause what I don't want to see is 30,000 drones flying over head, spying on Americans, and that's what Obama's planning, (by 2020.) You seem to think the government can be everybody's mommy, I just want the government out of my fucking life!

 

To what degree?

 

>thinks this forum actually holds up to it's defined "free speech" endorsement



sorry kid even people on here get silenced.

 

Everytime you vote Obama this is what you get;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNP51hZtVI"]Judge Napolitano : First American to shoot down a Drone will be an American Hero (May 15, 2012) - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeuE16LLDY"]Obama Signs NDAA, ACLU Disgusted - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtTXcwbpno4"]URGENT! OBAMA Signs Anti-Protest Bill - FREE SPEECH & Protest will get you JAIL TIME! - YouTube

Bigger, mother-government.

 

If you were paying attention you'd know, that doesn't matter. Paul is still gathering delegates and 104 out of 150 are still able to choose who to vote for.

 

Yeah, popular straw man vote won't really determine anything. It's all coming down to the Republican Convention; i expect it will get chaotic.

 

Yeah, me too. Hopefully one of the other candidates will adopt Pauls views, but I don't see myself voting if paul isn't in the running.

 

Gary Johnson

 

25

You don’t care if policies would increase the power and influence of wealth?

To me that seems short sighted if what you claim is that you wish people to be free from harassment and surveillance.

As explained rule by a few usually leads to greater exploitation and hardship for the majority of people something that traditionally then leads to popular discontent. This is understood by those causing the hardship and so nearly all oligarchies (be they of left or right) are paranoid about uprisings. Such societies often have draconian rules and greater surveillance of the population.

A well functioning democracy is supposed to mitigate against oligarchical tendencies, but it seems to me that in the US, wealth seems to have gained control of the political system. What I’m trying to understand is why many Americans seem to wish to increase the power of wealth rather than diminish its corrupting influence.

 

What I’m trying to understand is why many Americans seem to wish to increase the power of wealth rather than diminish its corrupting influence.
__________________



I have been trying to figure this out myself Balbus. Many folks do not seem to really care that not one person running for POTUS including Paul and Obama have the best interest of the American people in mind. The changes we need here cannot be seen until the entire system is fixed. This will take several election cycles and alot of vigilance on the American public's part to bring these changes. Although with the extreme polarization between the two parties unfortunately bringing these changes about will be very difficult if not impossible. Many people here will continue to vote against their own interest simply out of stubbornness to admit their political philosophy is flawed. My only hope of seeing the changes needed is with a continued awaking of the people with movements like OWS and everyone actually becoming involved in the political process, sadly this is not very likely.

 

Dude, that's already happened. The top 1% of Americans own 80% of the wealth. Leaving the remaining 99% to share 20% of the wealth. I don't want to increase the power of wealth, I want the government out of our everyday lives. Wealth already controls our government, if things get any worse we will be under a complete dictatorship ran by the special interests. Yeah, we'd all love to do away with it, but as of now, this is how it is.

So what do we do bro? Obviously we have different views, but it seems like your suggesting we should all jump on obama's bandwagon, when many of us (like me,) have decided that we don't like him, and he's doing nothing to help the dire situation we're already in. Or the poorer people inhabiting the USA

 

and for the record I said "I don't care if it makes the rich richer." because no body else including Obama, will make the rich poorer. I support OWS and Anonymous, but those two are options outside of the system. (yeah it's broken,) but Ron Paul is geared towards personal liberty which is something we badly need in this post-CISPA/NDAA/HR347 age, we need some freedom back otherwise we're facing a civil war the likes of which the world has never seen...

 

25

So lets get this straight you believe wealth has too much power and would like to reform the ‘system’ to make it more accountable to the majority.

But your solution is to promote and support political ideas that would most likely make wealth more powerful and make the system even more biased toward the few.

Your solution seems to contradict your supposed aim

The freedom he is mostly promoting is the freedom of a few to control society; the liberty his ideas would bring about is the liberty of a few to exploit the many.

 

Well we're not gonna see direct democracy happen in the US. Obama and Romney are just taking away our freedom in this alleged "war on terror," I don't see any better options.

 

Yellow

There was something I wrote some time ago - the basic argument was that the US political system is too focused on personalities. That it’s not about political factions, parties and policies and there context it’s about the candidate.

The problem a saw with that was that to some degree it can allow the political factions, their policies and the problems of the political system off the hook.

It could mean for instance that a neo-con could blame the failures of neo-con policies on Bush jr not on the flawed neo-con policies. I found that many times here with neo-cons coming here blaming the Bush administration for the failure of policies they couldn’t defend.

In the same way people blame whatever president is in power for not doing something without seeing that often the reasons it wasn’t done was the system. When you have a system dominated by money and when you have a two party system with little love loss and less cooperation between the two you are likely to have a dysfunctional system.

I’m not saying a candidate has no influence but that often Americans seem to put too much emphasis on the candidate so fail to see them in the context of their faction’s policies the dysfunctional political system they’re working in.

I remember the high expectations many had for Obama who then felt cheated. But his factions policies were never revolutionary whoever he had to contend with a political system were his opponents though them evil hearted socialism.

And here for example many have come to this forum and this thread to support and promote Ron Paul as a ‘good guy’ a ‘patriot’ an ‘honest man’, a ‘champion of liberty’ etc. But often they seem unwilling to discuss the political views of right wing libertarianism and so far none has actually been able to defend such ideas from criticism.

 

25

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘direct democracy’?

Read what I posted to Yellow above – to me its not about Obama or Romney it’s about the policies they follow and the system they’re in.

 

I will. But a direct democracy is like ancient Athens (minus the aristocrats.) It essentially cuts out the congress and lets the people vote on their own laws.