|
Bulls**t doesn't change anything (political thread)... (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ownymcown |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
OK, well with that point, just realize that Ron Paul could never gain any wide support from either side of the aisle, thus would accomplish nothing. Secondly, I'm not so sure how his appointments to the Supreme Court would work out, and I'm positive that at least one will be needed in the next 4 years. In my opinion, Stevens has been holding out for a new president because he's afraid of what will happen with one more Alito/Roberts appointment. The guy's 88 in April for crying out loud. Either that or he's planning to die on the bench. |
You misunderstand Ron Paul's opinion of the role of the president then.
The President isn't supposed to "get things done" in terms of legislation. He's supposed to be the chief executor of the law, commander in chief of the armed forces, and chief diplomat to the outside world.
Ron Paul offers a humble foreign policy (war-free), and he offers peace, trade, and commerce with all (or most) nations.
The things he CAN effectively control(Department of Education, etc) are part of the bureaucracy of the executive branch, which he can eliminate at his will (he has extensive transition processes).
It seems that in terms of what the constitution allows a President to do, Ron Paul would enact some positive changes in our government.
And the number one reason why he has so much support among the denizens of the internet: he WILL fight to protect the rights of the individual. Simple as that. None of the other candidates offer that, not even Obama. While Obama seems like he would support protecting our rights, he would not touch certain things because of the political backfiring that occurs. What politician would make prostitution or drugs legal? None. That's why we don't need a politician in the presidency, we need a leader, like Ron Paul :happy2: |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by ownymcown
You misunderstand Ron Paul's opinion of the role of the president then.
The President isn't supposed to "get things done" in terms of legislation. He's supposed to be the chief executor of the law, commander in chief of the armed forces, and chief diplomat to the outside world.
Ron Paul offers a humble foreign policy (war-free), and he offers peace, trade, and commerce with all (or most) nations.
The things he CAN effectively control(Department of Education, etc) are part of the bureaucracy of the executive branch, which he can eliminate at his will (he has extensive transition processes).
It seems that in terms of what the constitution allows a President to do, Ron Paul would enact some positive changes in our government.
And the number one reason why he has so much support among the denizens of the internet: he WILL fight to protect the rights of the individual. Simple as that. None of the other candidates offer that, not even Obama. While Obama seems like he would support protecting our rights, he would not touch certain things because of the political backfiring that occurs. What politician would make prostitution or drugs legal? None. That's why we don't need a politician in the presidency, we need a leader, like Ron Paul :happy2: |
I gave Paul a very good look and a huge listen to what he had to say in the debates, and I must say he's the most intelligent Republican candidate... Unfortunately, I don't think I could go for him, his policies are too deregulative, he wants to dismantle nearly EVERYTHING, and I don't think that's a good road to go on these days.. |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
To be honest, if she's the nominee, I'm won't vote for her. I'll either skip for the first time, write in, or vote for McCain and hope for the McCain of 2000, not the panderer to the Christian Right & right-wing radio that's he's become. |
Oh, and Obama is the uniter? I can't help but think that the overzealousness of his supporters will cause a huge divide within the Democratic party, not because of anything said between Hill and Barack, but simply because they don't get what they want... Say what you want about how polarizing Hillary is, but the real divide is this whole "movement" that he's started... More people are paying more attention to politics, and all of a sudden, the old tricks and old standards shouldn't apply to him... All of a sudden, Hillary, who in reality has views very close to Obama, is not a good enough candidate for them???? It sounds like a cry-baby approach to the general election, and common sense says to me that Obama's messianic and pop-iconic rise and the subsequent obsession over it is what's polarizing the party, not Hillary. Your decision not to vote for Hillary, if she's the candidate, shows this. People have invested too much "hope" and yearning for "change", that they're not willing to support Hillary if she wins? It's scary that his draw has such a dividing effect on the party... |
|
|
| kingchinc |
| I'm voting McCain because his taters are mighty scrumptious! |
|
|
| Frequency Mike |
| I'm not a supporter of either.. but I do want to give Eco props for a great post. that's all im adding... |
|
|
| DJ Eco |
| quote: | "The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country. |
C'mon guys, everyone's stinks; the sooner we understand this, the better off this country and Obama's diehard fans will be. It's like the 15 year old that thinks he's in love. This first girlfriend can't do ANYTHING wrong to him, it's just not fathomable to his view of her. Until she does and he's heartbroken and dumbfounded. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Eco
Oh, and Obama is the uniter? I can't help but think that the overzealousness of his supporters will cause a huge divide within the Democratic party, not because of anything said between Hill and Barack, but simply because they don't get what they want... Say what you want about how polarizing Hillary is, but the real divide is this whole "movement" that he's started... More people are paying more attention to politics, and all of a sudden, the old tricks and old standards shouldn't apply to him... All of a sudden, Hillary, who in reality has views very close to Obama, is not a good enough candidate for them???? It sounds like a cry-baby approach to the general election, and common sense says to me that Obama's messianic and pop-iconic rise and the subsequent obsession over it is what's polarizing the party, not Hillary. Your decision not to vote for Hillary, if she's the candidate, shows this. People have invested too much "hope" and yearning for "change", that they're not willing to support Hillary if she wins? It's scary that his draw has such a dividing effect on the party... |
Considering the ability to write in or abstain, I wouldn't have voted for Hillary if she were the only candidate on the ballot. I loathe her political approach due to her complete lack of integrity. Obama was just the best of the viable 3. I really supported Edwards in 2004, but the last 4 years made him far too jaded and something happend where he got a little too off targets that I'd like to see and on ones that I don't. To be honest, 6-8 months ago, before this big momentum burst, I was supporting Obama but commented to people that I didn't expect much because I couldn't see the US electing a black president.
Barosoap never really understood my contempt until she watched Hillary's desperate tactics over this past month. It's been the epitome of a display of what I hate about her. |
|
|
| Stassi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Won't deny that, either, since in the past few months, Paul's support has dwindled since it went nowhere and we're too far into the primary season. The last half of 2007 and January was insane with Ron Paul people. |
I guess it all comes down to who pays more money to get front page submittions. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stassi
I guess it all comes down to who pays more money to get front page submittions. |
Ron Paul got donations that made McCain envious. |
|
|
| Stef De Roux |
I was a Mitt Romney fan. The troop surge is working not because of Bush but because of Petraeus. However John Mccain has showed this country that he is no conservative
1)He claims he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent. An excellent statement that I agree with completely. However, it seems that he voted against them twice.
2)He claims to fight for American business, especially the struggling auto industry, yet he has no problem placing mandates on them to prevent pollution and at the same time pull them further under.
3)He claims to have evangelical Christian support yet he had no problem calling evangelical leaders "agents of intolerance"
4)Lastly the thing that cements Mccain as a leftist is his crafting of the Mccain-Feingold campaign reform act. Only a liberal would dare tell a person how much money they should be allowed to spend on a campaign.
For all of these reasons I believe that John Mccain will result in a shift of the Republican Party to the left. Whether it is foolish or not I will not abandon my conservative principles just so a Republican gets into the White House. I support Mccain more than the Democrats because he is not as left wing as they are. However if this was not a time of war I would strongly consider the long term benefits of having a Democrat in office for 4 years this way the country could see how wrong they were in electing someone to the left. However, since I agree with John Mccain's foreign policy and the way he wants to handle terror, and seeing how having a Democrat in office in this critical time may very well lead to the demise of my country John Mccain needs to be elected.
Unfortunately I think it comes at a sad price to conservatives such as myself. The Republican party is making a step to the left and it is leaving people of my political persuasion behind.
This is all coming from a high school student that is part of JSA, i am sorry if i can't compete with you college grads with degrees. |
|
|
|
|
