By reading your responses to me, it’s quite evident that you haven’t researched Ron Paul, the only thing you have done is listen to what others have said about him, what a surprise.
What I meant by that Libertarian remark was simply put, as from his own mouth, Racism is collective idea, Dr. Paul does not agree with Collectivism (hence his approach to strong “personal” freedoms). If you would take a little time and research him, you would realize it’s a bogus claim. Dr. Paul is the epitome of consistency. His voting record says enough about his consistency, but if you need more than that then look at the stuff he has said in the 70s and 80s and what he says now.
You can highly doubt he will pardon those crimes all you want. He has said so numerous times and has talked about the war on drugs and medicinal drugs more than anybody. He knows how much of an economic strain the war on drugs is, and that’s what he cares about saving…the economy. He doesn’t need approval to overturn convictions.
As for the gold standard, he does need approval. He said he would like to go towards one, but does that mean it will happen for sure? Use god damn common sense. He’s a strict constitutionalist, that means he’s not going to go around doing things the way they aren’t suppose to be done AKA the executive branch declaring war.
Look at the price of oil in terms of inflation. The price of oil went up over 200% in dollars, over 150% in euros, and stayed flat in gold. The reason we have such high energy costs on top of other things is inflation. And people think this is ridiculous to do something about all this money being printed?
Nope, but it is highly evident that I don’t swing from his sac like so many here.
A non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with whether or not it’s possible for him to be racist.
If I were responding to that part, I would have quoted that part. I highly doubt he’s the only person who sees the problem. Again, your response is a non-sequitur, likely the result of selective reading.
Which is why his solution is no more feasible than anybody else’s. Ron Paul can say with confidence that this what he’s striving to achieve precisely because he knows he won’t end up in a position where he has to make it happen. It’s a nice little fantasy, and I can’t blame him for harboring it, much like several of his other nice little fantasies.
The 18-29 year old age group exists. Look at any Pew Research Group report or rather any statistic about voting trends in age groups.
Just about every person on this site is 18-29 or younger. If you are younger than that then you can’t say shit about the election becasue you can’t even vote. If you’re older than I think you really need to get your priorities straight.
And this isn’t about random voting. There has to be someone you like in this election. Or at least you should vote for the person you hate the least. People in Iraq died for the right to vote, and many other people don’t even get that choice. The apathy you have for one of our greatest rights is disappointing.
I am currently aware of people dying for the ability to vote, and then making the wrong choice.
You’re also holding statistics to be facts. According to statistics, Bush had no chance the second time around.
Your logic is also flawed. Just because you are capable of doing something that means that you automatically have to do it?
There is time to vote. Reread my earlier posts since the first time around didn’t help you. My post didn’t say that I’m not voting, it said that there is a chance that I may not vote. Get your facts straight.
I wholeheartedly disagree with this. When faced with a pool of undesirable candidates, the active choice to not vote is more valid, mindful, and democratic than the choice of settling for one of those candidates. Democracy has eroded precisely because so many Americans treat it like a multiple choice question on a high school quiz: out of the handful of choices, pick the answer that fits best, even if they’re all way off.
A candidate who is shitty and undeserving doesn’t automatically become less shitty and more deserving just because the guy he’s running against is even worse that he is.
No one is going to remember or care whether you voted or not. All that translates to is you’re choosing not to use the voice you have, regardless of how small it is. I just cant understand why people dislike everyone in this election. Everyone is so disillusioned with the current administration, but rather than voting in something new, they choose not to vote at all. If someone like Huckabee has a chance at getting the nomination, then I don’t care if it’s Robo-Hillary herself, I’m going to vote so Huckabee doesn’t get in.
Maybe it’s all the Superman comics I read growing up (growing up? hah, like I don’t still read them…), but being given the power to do something does not mean you must use it–but if you must, then you should never use it unless it’s for good. I don’t qualify aiding a corrupt, double-talking liar to ascend into the White House as a “good” use of power.
Democracy is voting for the candidate whom you feel genuinely represents you as a citizen and whom you think will do an excellent job, not voting against the person you dislike the most.
It’s funny how people will look down on those who choose not to vote, but then treat voting with such a cavalier football game mentality themselves.
Ron Paul being a racist is completely ridiculous if you look at his policies/record/most all speeches he’s given. He’s addressed this a million times but calling him a racist is an easy way to count him out. Those articles were debunked way back long ago and have been brought up before while he was running for congress(he did not write them). You’ll never find a video/audio clip of him saying anything like that.
And its not hipsters or whatever that wanna vote for him, its people with fucking common sense. Its annoying to hear someone support Obama because “he’s for change!” when his voting record nor his policies reflect any.
Paul’s actual stance on monetary policy is to allow competing currencies, because whatever your opinion might be on what is ridiculous and whats not- what’s really ridiculous is continuing to do the same thing we’re doing right now. Why spend money to invade/occupy other countries? Why influence their election processes? None of it has done one godamn bit of good to any US citizen. All the other republican candidates by the way are borderline insane- with Huckabee’s “The Iranians will see the gates of hell”, to McCain’s “we can stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary”.
And yet in the last election a corrupt, double-talking liar still got in. Kerry might have been a clone of Frankenstein, but he would have steered this country in a much better direction than Bush has.
And you are right about that mentality. People do vote simply to deny someone else. But I know I’m voting for Obama. Not because I hate Hillary or anyone else, it’s because I believe he’s the most well-spoken candidate, he hasn’t resorted to nearly as much smearing as Hillary or Edwards, and he’s the kind of change this country needs.
If you really can’t find a candidate you like, then you’re just not looking hard enough. You can vote for Duncan Hunter for all I care, at least you’re exercising your right to vote.
Obama voted to re-authorize the patriot act, co-sponsored a bill last April to designate the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization, and does not commit to withdrawal from Iraq immediately. Now where is the change by picking Obama besides the color of his skin?
Well it depends on whether or not you believe that national welfare is something that we can continue to afford or should be the responsibility of the government. Why take money from my paycheck to go to someone else? If people want to help the poor they can do it on their own with charities/etc., its the idea of taking someone’s money by force to give it to someone else that a lot of people don’t agree with.
How can this stop people from voting for someone. Bush did crack( or coke or something ) and got all C’s at Yale. Dirt has to be some hardcore shit to knock someone off now a days. Either that or you have to spin it something fierce.
I mean Bush’s team is brilliant, they made Kerry seem anti war when he was in 'Nam. lol.
Oh well, I want Paul or Obama to win. Either way I’d be cool. I like Paul’s whole deal, and I like Obama too. He also has the added coolness of the blackness. What kind of insanity would that be if our new president was not only BLACK but named Obama, one letter away from our hated building smashing enemy.
I liked how all the democrats totally bit off Obama’s change thing. These past few weeks I think I’ve heard change more then I’ve ever heard in my entire life.
If anyone cares what the president of the NAACP thinks of Ron Paul(I don’t like the idea of one man speaking for a race but what he says has some credibility), then here you go
Haha that was one of the most ridiculous things that has happened- people somehow got to believe that a Vietnam vet who received a purple heart hated everyone in the military. I wish people would look at a person’s policy/record/and history when deciding on voting rather than some stupid shit like that.
The stupid thing was how Kerry just let it happen. He has absolutely no personality.
WHats worse? The fact that Bush got elected again? Or Kerry lost an election that was basically handed to him on a silver platter.
It’s also pretty funny how even CNN is dissing on Paul now. No one wants him anywhere close to the white house. They won’t even let him to the debates. That is some shit right there.