And if he was elected, do you think he would fail due to the overwhelming responsibilities as president, plus other uncontrollable factors.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 6:24
I agree that OP is a faggot
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 8:33
HAHA CRASH AND BURN IN IOWA!
WHAT NOW FAGGOT? YOU GOT BEAT MY SANTORUM HAHAHAHAHAHA!
HE WAS POLLING AT 1% JUST A WEEK AGO, AND IN 48 HOURS JUMPED UP TO 24%!
DAT SURGE!
DAT FOX NEWS BUMP!
DEM AMERICAN SHEEP!
MAIN STREAM MEDIA KICKED YOUR ASS!
WHAT'RE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?
OH RIGHT, NOTHING!
GO RIG SOME ONLINE POLL OR SOMETHING, CRAZY PAULBOT!
ISOLATIONIST! RACIST! DISGUSTING! UNELECTABLE!
YOU WANT US TO GO BACK TO THE 1700'S? CRAZY OLD KOOKS!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 11:04
>>3
>DAT FOX NEWS BUMP!
>DEM AMERICAN SHEEP!
That fact that you're pleased about these points sums you up as a person.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-04 13:16
And if he was elected, do you think he would fail...
Of course he would. The President doesn't have that much power by himself. It's not like Congress would cooperate with him.
>>4
sage for taking that post seriously.
it's blatant satire.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-05 23:38
The poor will only get poorer and the rich will only get richer without Ron Paul. Well... at least the idea of freedom will still live on.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-06 8:08
over half of all the voters for ron paul are age 19-30
so just wait 10-20 years when our generation becomes the majority of voters (and all them baby boomers die),
that's when you'll finally see a shift in politics
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-06 12:13
>>6
>blatant satire
No, it's quite conceivable that someone could be that stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 0:06
I'm a fan of the man.
That's really all I have to say on the matter.
>>12
There hasn't. Do you see the US having an actual multi-party system? No. Just two parties gradually shifting towards the right in an effort to out-do one another. The fundamentals of the current American political system has remained relatively unchanged since the early 20 th century (which is really showing its caprices these days). The new generations aren't going to change much (with exception that they'll at least be more competent in technical matters)
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 21:34
>Just two parties gradually shifting towards the right
Not really. The independents are moving Right, the Left is pretending to be moving to the middle but they never actually move an inch.
>>14 Not really. The independents are moving Right
``Independents'' aren't really a political bloc, and any independents out there mostly caucus with Democrats. the Left is pretending to be moving to the middle but they never actually move an inch.
Actual leftists are not in power at all, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are all part of fringe third-parties, and the closest to actual leftism in power are congressman Dennis Kucinich and senator Bernie Sanders.
multi-party system? No. Just two parties
That doesn't mean anything. Those two parties have changed radically. They've even "traded" stances on many issues. That's why there aren't any more Dixie Democrats. And remember that Richard Nixon signed the EPA into existence. It's not like more parties is some magical fix for everything. Some countries have too many parties and can't get anything done because of it.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-08 23:30
>Actual leftists are not in power at all, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are all part of fringe third-parties
>>16 Those two parties have changed radically
How? On the surface with silly issues like abortion? Bahfah! The GOP has been conservative even prior to Southern Strategy. Dixie Democrats
The States' Rights Democratic Party was an entirely separate third-party that wanted to revive the reconstruction era policy of the Democratic Party's southern members. Not an example at all. And remember that Richard Nixon signed the EPA into existence.
And George W. Bush signed NCLB into existence. What's your point? It's not like more parties is some magical fix for everything
No, however multiple parties at the Federal level would help get ideas like abolishing shitty free trade agreements into action, rather than just from a few fringe congressmembers as is the case today. Libertarians don't really have a say in congress beyond the aging Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party remains on the fringes, instead of its members being elected to congress as would be the case if the US had a multi-party system in place. Same thing goes for Green Party members, etc. Some countries have too many parties and can't get anything done because of it.
I wouldn't use Belgium as an example. It doesn't refute the advantages of having a multi-party system, though.
silly issues like abortion?
It's not a silly issue at all to people that take a hard stance on it. In either direction.
The States' Rights Democratic Party..
Ah, fair enough. On the subject of race and minorities though, it's hard to deny that we've gotten collectively much more tolerant recently. A black or female president really was unfuckingthinkable as late as the 90's. And gays in the military. Don't as don't tell used to be the compromise.
And George W. Bush signed NCLB into existence. What's your point?
Isn't it obvious? Most modern Republicans are even distancing themselves from Bush because the party has shifted. Libertarianism is on the rise. And it happened damn quick. You're right in that they still probably don't have a "fair" voice in terms of numbers. But give it another Congressional term or two and see.
I wouldn't use Belgium as an example.
I was thinking Finland. But I admit I'm not that learned on the subject. I was just repeating something I heard from someone else :)
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 16:07
>>19 It's not a silly issue at all to people that take a hard stance on it. In either direction.
It's generally used as hand-waving distraction from other much more pressing issues, especially in contemporary media. You'd think that it was an issue that was more or less squared away in 1973, but to some, apparently not. Ah, well, another topic for another tread. Ah, fair enough. On the subject of race and minorities though, it's hard to deny that we've gotten collectively much more tolerant recently. A black or female president really was unfuckingthinkable as late as the 90's. And gays in the military. Don't as don't tell used to be the compromise.
True. Isn't it obvious? Most modern Republicans are even distancing themselves from Bush because the party has shifted.
The neoconservative faction of the Republican Party is the most visible, but in reality isn't too much different from Southern Strategy-era GOP. Nixon (Vietnam), Reagan (Central America) and George H.W. Bush (Gulf War) were pretty interventionist in their respective eras, Bush Jr. just had his turn at the helm. Still quite a conservative party and still very, very right-wing. Libertarianism is on the rise.
In some areas, to the point where Paul has more coverage than he did in 2008. You're right in that they still probably don't have a "fair" voice in terms of numbers.
Damn right, and not just libertarians, but also Green Party members, progressives, real, actual socialists (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc.). But give it another Congressional term or two and see.
From awful pig-headed populist movements like the Tea Party and OWS? At best they'll elect a few congressmembers and introduce bills where most will probably end up not getting past committee (that's true right now, but that's not the point). I was thinking Finland. But I admit I'm not that learned on the subject. I was just repeating something I heard from someone else :)
AFAIK, Finland's multi-party system is quite stable and didn't experience any noticeable hiccups until recently. Belgium, on the other hand, has had a government shutdown for something either close to or over 300 days and was recently solved. I think that comes more from that Belgians historically didn't get along with each other nicely (discrimination based on language happened quite a bit, but not so much these days, or so I've been told).
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 1:49
>The States' Rights Democratic Party
Yeah, Demfags don't care about that now. It's all about the Nanny State and the all powerful police state.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 3:27
>>20
>Damn right, and not just libertarians, but also Green Party members, progressives, real, actual socialists (Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc.).
This is a problem of education. People are only just learning that socially left, economically right generally means libertarian. Before, they had no idea that such a term existed.
>>21 Yeah, Demfags don't care about that now.
They never did. The States' Rights Democratic Party was an entirely separate third-party, like the Libertarians or Greens today.
>>22
Especially prior to the Internet becoming commercially available and popularized.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-13 5:45
How in the blue fuck do you label ows pigheaded.
Enlighten me mister rennaisance people's fucking champion over here, what would a not pigheaded populist movement be?
P.S.- Tea Party was NOT a populist movement, it wasn't even a movement. It was just a bunch of shills paid in place by the Koch brothers, why am I even bothering asking you to justify your spew when you don't even know that much. Christ.
It's not even a true 2-party system. The Democratic and Republican party both follow conservative economic policy historically, other than FDR and about 3 administrations after him. When europe decided to give a fuck about it's citizenry the US watered down any real change.
Dude, you're ignorance is showing. OWS is legitimate but the Tea Party started out as a libertarian movement with real substance. The GOP campaign machine realized how massively out of touch they were and then co-opted the original Tea Party to rebrand their message, and got all of the angry retirees and dyslexic sign makers out in force. Some proto-tea partiers remain but the majority of them have moved on, even to OWS.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 19:11
>OWS
>legitmate
>yeah, legitimately 100% real Astroturf, created out of billionaire Jew banker George Soros's bank account, amirite guise? amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:11
I demand Ron Paul penetrate my rectum.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-18 23:39
The Tea Party turned into a real movement. OWS turned into a bowel movement. OWS had potential until the anti-capitalists and anarchists took over. Then the Obama sheeple showed up with the hippies and the rest is history.
>>34
Losing the argument? Shout "FOX NEWS!", allowing you to silence the opposition and declare victory.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-23 14:35
Ron Paul will be the second Hitler if elected!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-23 23:05
Dr Paul is the man, definitely.
But he doesn't need the Republican party. Dr Paul's ideas and convictions are stronger than this dualism "Republicans/Democrats".
SOPA and PIPA are of this kind of anti-freedom bulls*** Obama is wanting to do, he's saying that he's running for the 99% (etc...) but he's just here for Hollywood and Music labels.
Obama thinks that through these bills he'll root in America the fact that freedom is dead. But freedom is still alive, and you, Dr Paul, represent this freedom, instead of the socialists theories (which, in the facts, are for Hollywood, Wall Street and Cie) Obama's promoting.
But he doesn't need the Republican party. Dr Paul's ideas and convictions are stronger than this dualism "Republicans/Democrats".
SOPA and PIPA are of this kind of anti-freedom bulls*** Obama is wanting to do, he's saying that he's running for the 99% (etc...) but he's just here for Hollywood and Music labels.
Obama thinks that through these bills he'll root in America the fact that freedom is dead. But freedom is still alive, and you, Dr Paul, represent this freedom, instead of the socialists theories (which, in the facts, are for Hollywood, Wall Street and Cie) Obama's promoting.