LOL! Who came to the right on his signature piece of legislation even after it was clear that it would still get no votes from the right and who said that their number one priority is to keep whom from being elected to a second term?
Disagree with his positions all you want, but to try to build up this fantasy that he has been the wedge just further proves this
Yeah, but it wasn't against the law back then, it was just an informal tradition that he broke, tbh.... a few years after he left office, the 22nd Amendment was ratified, banning presidents from serving more than two terms, and it's been that way ever since....
I think change starts with your local State representative and U. S. Congressperson. You're not going to effect change by continuing to field candidates that cannot outspend the the two parties.
You want change? Elect more Ron Pauls in your district races.
And, if we returned to the original intent of the Cons ution, these candidates would have to pander to people, in our State Legislatures, who are accountable to a relatively small number of voters.
If you don't like the way your State Representative voted in the presidential election, you'd have more influence than if you don't like how the majority of your fellow citizens voted.
You know your stuff. I'm impressed.
And that's one of the goals of the Ron Paul movement, tbh..... that being said, it shouldn't matter which party these Ron Pauls come from, because your vote should be based on policy beliefs and actual ideas, not "rah rah go Team Red/Blue"...
If the next Ron Paul runs for president as a Democrat, I'll vote Democrat... if they run as a Libertarian, I'll vote Libertarian, etc...
Well, tbh, The Romney/Ryan smaller government, "you did build this," theme resonates more with me than does the Obama/Biden larger government, "shared prosperity" theme.
Perhaps Ron Paul should have spent his time in local politics, around the country, instead of running for President. Perhaps, though, there aren't enough Ron Pauls to achieve what you want.
I don't know much about Paul, does he advocate a repeal of the 17th amendment or a Cons utional amendment forcing State Legislatures to do their jobs instead of pushing it off on citizens?
Yet they both share the same "give up your liberties for temporary 'safety' while we inflate the currency some more" theme at the end of the day tbh....
I think Paul's spent his time very productively as it is... standing for liberty in the House even when his positions aren't popular or easy, ethering Volcker, Greenspan, and Bernanke, writing extensively on Austrian economics and a liberty-oriented worldview, running a successful medical practice during his break from public life, and publicizing libertarian views during his presidential campaign... government needs more people like him at every level... Ron blessPerhaps Ron Paul should have spent his time in local politics, around the country, instead of running for President.
He does call for repealing the 17th Amendment, tbh...I don't know much about Paul, does he advocate a repeal of the 17th amendment or a Cons utional amendment forcing State Legislatures to do their jobs instead of pushing it off on citizens?
Voting 3rd party just for the of it when I don't even like the 3rd party candidate is another exercise in stupidity.
We disagree on this.
A voice in the wilderness. His time would have been better spent visiting a majority of his fellow Congress Critters' districts and convincing the electorate there to abandon the two party nonsense and bring real reform to Congress.
I like that. Now, have Ron Paul cultivate a candidate in my Congressional District that believes the same thing, and is electable, and you'll have two Ron Pauls in Congress.
Not voting; both candidates the same. Not gonna stand in line for hours to choose between Jack Johnson and John Jackson.
If you think these candidates are the same, I don't want you voting. So, thank you.
support the president
Unless it's not the guy you voted for and you're still asshurt about it years later.
Money wins candidacies... which in turn buys favor that return the money down the road... this is why you're not going to see a 3rd party candidate ever making a serious run.
I love seeing Republicans get really mad over "You didn't build that" because it makes them feel like they've actually built something
Well, it's just a fact, tbh.... Romney supports the PATRIOT Act, Obama extended it.... Romney wants a protracted military conflict in Iran, Obama wants one in Syria... Romney says he "would have signed" NDAA, Obama signed it... neither of them will ever end the Fed...
Ron Paul is the reason why the Federal Reserve, NDAA, SOPA/PIPA, etc. are mainstream political issues...A voice in the wilderness.
Here's the problem.... neocons such as yourself who carry water for the team no matter what immediately brand anyone like Ron Paul as "unelectable" because they won't toe the neocon party line of warmongering and Christian theocracy, tbh.... Ron blessI like that. Now, have Ron Paul cultivate a candidate in my Congressional District that believes the same thing, and is electable
But, how is that money and influence translated into votes -- the only thing that wins elections?
Persuasion.
Remove the incentive to pander. Force the State legislatures to name the slate of electors that will vote on the President and Vice President -- separately, like it used to be.
Yeah, or getting worked up when told both parties stand for the sameI love seeing Republicans get really mad over "You didn't build that" because it makes them feel like they've actually built something
Idk how many Republicans are lower middle class but say, "Yeah, or getting worked up when told both parties stand for the same
The best is seeing the "I'll keep my money guns and freedom, you can have your CHANGE" bumper sticker on a beaten to pickup truck. What money exactly are you keeping
On the one issue, most important in this elect, they differ greatly. Obama is pursuing policies that promise to redistribute wealth. Romney says he will pursue policies that free the engine of our economy to increase prosperity across the board.
You can disagree on whether or not either person is capable of achieving their objectives but, their objectives are very different.
Mainstream political issues among hundreds of other mainstream political issues. His fundamental political ideology is going nowhere because there aren't enough Ron Pauls to make a difference.
I vote Republican because Democrats are so ing disastrous for our country.
Tell me, why does Ron Paul run as a Republican?
Hard to persuade anybody when you're not given the chance. Let's be frank here, guys that have the "party apparatus" behind them are the ones heard. This is how you ended up having to carry water for Mitt after ideologically supporting every other candidate during the primaries.
Gary Johnson is a good example of a guy that didn't get the apparatus support because he's not a team player, and thus he's been drowned into irrelevancy. Ron Paul would be another example.
Idk how many Republicans are lower middle class but say, "
The best is seeing the "I'll keep my money guns and freedom, you can have your CHANGE" bumper sticker on a beaten to pickup truck. What money exactly are you keepingwell, you know, when the trickle down never comes you just...
Charge it to tha game!
Sounds like a direct and indirect way of saying the same thing.... in the end, money gets redistributed to the same banksters and special interests....
"Rah... rah... Go! Team! Red!"I vote Republican because Democrats are so ing disastrous for our country.
To get into debates... Ron blessTell me, why does Ron Paul run as a Republican?
Unless it's not the guy you voted for and you're still asshurt about it years later.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote