SC Dem debate last night

[Evermore]

Incorrect. they're not grossly different. on the few that they're incredibly different on, I tend to agree with one side or the other. those issues include agreeance with Obama on gun control, immigration, and education, and agreeance with Paul on Economy, income, and national security. They both have great stances on a good many things, but I'm in heavy agreeance about 50/50. That's how I like them both - you don't have to fully agree with a candidate to favor them.

Grossly different would be Obama and Thompson, or Hillary and Huckabee.. something like that, those are grossly different. Look at that electoral compass site, for example - I land flat in between the two of them (Paul and Obama)

Ugh... Paul wants to completely gut the federal government and hand all the power back to the states which would pretty much cancel out ANY other candidates and especially a Democratic platform.

good thats how it is supposed to be. it wont cancil out squat sir except for the 2nd layer of thievery.

[Evermore]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

[Jay]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

Yeah if Obama gets elected.

[Evermore]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

Yeah if Obama gets elected.

thats funny.

[Lyion]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

Only if someone drives a large truck with explosives into the Capital while all the mainstream large GOP and DNC members are there. Throw in SCOTUS, too.

America, home of the corrupt, land of the nanny state.

[Jay]

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

Yeah if Obama gets elected.

thats funny.

I don't follow politics, I follow common sense. Everyone had jobs, cheap gas and Mr. Bill had a 65% approval rating last time a democrat was in office. All I remember from Reagan, Bush, and W's respective eras are complaints from everyone around me. Also, I could care less if you think keeping a BFG 9000 in your closet makes you feel fuzzy inside. If stripping you of your arsenal improved our economy, go for it I say. Too many gun happy hippy tards voting against everything they believe in just to keep their guns safe.

[Evermore]

Jay
are you fucking kidding? this goes WAY WAY beyond gun rights and approval ratings. YOu follow common sense? Common sense tells you that our government is totally fucked up and hasnt worked for YEARS, no matter who is in office. the government is currently a big shit in the shitter and someone needs to flush

[Evermore]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

Only if someone drives a large truck with explosives into the Capital while all the mainstream large GOP and DNC members are there. Throw in SCOTUS, too.

America, home of the corrupt, land of the nanny state.

that truck is Ron Paul !

[Jay]

Bottom line is it's about time they put a democrat in office to fix the country again so that the next elected Republican has more surplus to blow. Jenna Bush 2016?

[Evermore]

bottom line is neither party has truely done what they should have or should be and they both need a wake up.

[Tossica]

bottom line is neither party has truely done what they should have or should be and they both need a wake up.

That's what I've been saying since I was old enough to vote. The answer is NOT Ron Paul unfortunately.

[Harrison]

I don't follow politics

Who else stopped there?

[Tossica]

If you wanted integrity and accountability without handing the keys to the entire country over to the highest bidder,




was your man.

[Evermore]

bottom line is neither party has truely done what they should have or should be and they both need a wake up.

That's what I've been saying since I was old enough to vote. The answer is NOT Ron Paul unfortunately.

this is where you are off track Ron Paul IS the best answer we have at hand. Keep believing what they want you to beleive thou. will hel the powers that be STAY in power

[Tossica]

bottom line is neither party has truely done what they should have or should be and they both need a wake up.

That's what I've been saying since I was old enough to vote. The answer is NOT Ron Paul unfortunately.

this is where you are off track Ron Paul IS the best answer we have at hand. Keep believing what they want you to beleive thou. will hel the powers that be STAY in power

Have you even thought about what would happen if he was elected and had his way? Don't just listen to the words, actually consider the effects of the policies he wants to put in place. The words sound great and get people excited, the reality isn't something most people are considering when they put their support behind him.

[Jay]

I don't follow politics

Who else stopped there?

Everyone stopped about 15000 posts ago when they all realized that you were destined for miserable failure. Not limited to NT either btw.

[10sun]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

How?

Tell me, because as far as I can tell the President of the United States of America is still bound by a government where the Congress & Judicial systems are still in place.

Putting such an extreme radical into the Presidential seat will serve only to solidify the Democrats & Republicans in a common goal: to preserve the status quo; not to enable vast changes which will remove the current positions of power.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong as I am only basing this upon my rudimentary understanding afforded to me through my public school education & the basic Political Science courses I've taken at the university level in addition to my own observations on the political process.

-Adam

[Yamori]

Tossica: I think you'll find that Ron Paul is the only one TRULY condemning corporatism. Specifically meaning, the peddling of favors and contracts to special interests in exchange for campaign contributions and the like. The key concept is that the corporations WON'T be able to have controlling interest in the country or large influence over the law if the size and scale of the federal government is massively reduced. How will corporations get free-reign over the government and country with a president that will veto practically every bill put before him? The very reason that corporations have so much undue and unjust power and influence in the country is because the scope of the federal government allows it - and as long as the federal government allows it, corrupt politicians will be available to corporations to use it.

Democrats may give it lip service to the ills of "the corporations," but they're deeply in the pockets of oil, drug, insurance, and military companies just as much as their conservative counterparts. I'm sure you know this.


-

10sun: If Paul were elected, he'd be able to accomplish the following:
-Wide scale troop withdrawals. The president is the commander in chief of the army and can do so.

-Disruption and de-facto disbarment of many federal departments. A lot of the employees in executive branch agencies serve at the "pleasure of the president" as they say. Firings without re-hirings can effectively close down or massively reduce many agencies: states may be compelled to scramble to take on the needed jobs themselves once again.

-Presidential pardoning powers: He could pardon those that were imprisoned unjustly via unconstitutional charges.

-VETO POWER: This is the most broad. He could (and definitely would) veto almost every (or every) bill that increased taxes or the scope of the federal government in an unconstitutional manner. It would be an effective freeze on federal glut.

-Appointing constitutionally-minded judges, district, attorneys, ect.

-Setting the legislative and diplomatic tone of the country. This is more vague, but it clearly is a factor that the president is a part of.

-Improving international relations on a massive scale. The threat of terrorism will be greatly reduced when our troops have been removed from the world. The US will not be loathed as much by the rest of the world since it will not be interfering in the affairs of other countries.

-(Very ironically) There will very likely be a temporary increase in the security of social security and medicare (and the like), since massive troop withdrawal/cutting of foreign aid from around the world will free up a lot of funds to support existing domestic government dependents.

-Financial improvements: the national debt will be greatly reduced due to the massive cut in federal spending.

So in many respects, he could be a lame duck in some aspects when it comes to widescale changes in things like social security and healthcare, since he'd need congress to enact them, but he wouldn't be powerless. And even so, a lame duck is FAR preferable to a hungry wolf.

[Tossica]

Tossica: I think you'll find that Ron Paul is the only one TRULY condemning corporatism. Specifically meaning, the peddling of favors and contracts to special interests in exchange for campaign contributions and the like. The key concept is that the corporations WON'T be able to have controlling interest in the country or large influence over the law if the size and scale of the federal government is massively reduced. How will corporations get free-reign over the government and country with a president that will veto practically every bill put before him? The very reason that corporations have so much undue and unjust power and influence in the country is because the scope of the federal government allows it - and as long as the federal government allows it, corrupt politicians will be available to corporations to use it.

How is turning over what were public works to private corporations NOT giving them influence in how those works operate? I think you are confused sir. Sure, he is advocating getting rid of corporate influence in public office BUT how is handing them the keys to the office any better than just meeting them in the back alley to do the dirty work?

[Arlos]

Yeah, but who is going to hold Big Industry to environmental standards if the EPA doesn't exist?

Sure, California (for example) will have strict laws, but funny that, air and water pollution don't stop at state borders. What happens if, say, Missouri is convinced by big business and big Agriculture to repeal water cleanliness laws, and dumps thousands of tons of waste, including deadly pesticides into the Missouri? You think that waste is going to not pass down to the Mississippi, and pollute every single state downstream? Yet if there's no national agency controlling that, what can those downstream states do to stop what Missouri did?

What happens to worker safety concerns if OSHA no longer exists? What's to stop, say, Big Coal from buying the West Virginia legislature and legalizing 12 year old coal miners again, while outlawing unions, so we end up back like it was in the late-1800s/early-1900s? Just because buying influence by special interests and big corporations at the national level won't be wroth as much won't change anything, since they'll just turn around and buy equivalent interests at the state level. You won't change anything but the location of the purchases.

No, while I like some of Paul's stances, this world has become far too complicated and interconnected to just throw everything back to the states. There's now far far far too much that one state can do that impacts large numbers of other ones which was NOT the case 200-300 years ago. If you tried to go BACK to that now, inter-state conflicts would ultimately end up completely balkanizing this country, and we'd split into fragments, the same way, say, Yugoslavia did after Marshall Tito died.

In any case, you might recall something called the Civil War, which pretty thoroughly settled the question of whether or not states should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please, or whether the centralized federal government should be in charge. As a historian said about the outcome of that war: "Before the Civil War, the proper way to talk about the United States was to say 'The United States are'. Afterward, it became 'The United States IS'." Sorry, but I don't want to turn back 150 years of history and go back to being 'are'.

-Arlos

[araby]

Gyps I hear you girl. Thanks for that =)

I haven't looked at other candidates beyond knowing where they stand and have not lost any faith in Ron Paul. I have questioned going with my state. Our nomination has elected every president for many elections so I feel a sense of belonging yet, it has never meant we were right.

My discouragement comes from frustration with the options because my desire to make a difference, or at least be a part of something that makes a difference, is genuine and always there. Ron Paul gives me something to have faith in and there's no reason to go back on that now. I said to a table full of supporters two weeks ago. "Now is the time" and this Primary is over now...I'm past it. So much going on still...

this is from a PM but no reason i can't post it here. I sent this PM before I came to this thread to find gyps saying "oh hell no this is what you're gonna do" to and I got a bit of a pep talk this morning too from the office manager at HQ's here...she's a firecracker and it's always good to hear it from others..thanks for that!

when I consider voting strategically against McCain, which I don't even know that I could bring myself to do, it wouldn't matter in the end because this state goes red. if I'm gonna vote McCain, which the rest of the state is clearly going to do but consider it a vote against Obama...then I may as well stay the course with Ron Paul and be 100% confident with my choice in a candidate because he's been the only one I have faith in. Why lose that now? I think on a level of belonging I guess, to my city, to my state and my country. Charleston has A LOT of Ron Paul support, more than anyone else in the state, so in a way my sense of belonging is satisfied, even if the rest of the state voted McCain (which i still can't believe even though I called it) and we'll just see about the country in November but I'm watching these numbers.

Ron Paul is getting votes, he's whipping Guiliani, did you see the spread in South Carolina?

[Narrock]

Ron Paul has some good ideas, but there's no way he's going to get the nomination. His popularity reigns amongst teenagers and the younger collegiate crowd. He's just not convincing enough people to support him.

[Evermore]

For all the Ron Paul supporters out there I pose this question:
What if Ron Paul were elected?

-Adam

you may actually get a correctly functioning country.

How?

Tell me, because as far as I can tell the President of the United States of America is still bound by a government where the Congress & Judicial systems are still in place.

Putting such an extreme radical into the Presidential seat will serve only to solidify the Democrats & Republicans in a common goal: to preserve the status quo; not to enable vast changes which will remove the current positions of power.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong as I am only basing this upon my rudimentary understanding afforded to me through my public school education & the basic Political Science courses I've taken at the university level in addition to my own observations on the political process.

-Adam

He is? Has anyone told George Bush this? and the Status QUo is what the problem is.

[Evermore]

Ron Paul has some good ideas, but there's no way he's going to get the nomination. His popularity reigns amongst teenagers and the younger collegiate crowd. He's just not convincing enough people to support him.

He isnt getting his name out effectively. Super Tuesday is 2 weeks away. I hope he spends some money on ads to get his message across

[Evermore]

Tossica: I think you'll find that Ron Paul is the only one TRULY condemning corporatism. Specifically meaning, the peddling of favors and contracts to special interests in exchange for campaign contributions and the like. The key concept is that the corporations WON'T be able to have controlling interest in the country or large influence over the law if the size and scale of the federal government is massively reduced. How will corporations get free-reign over the government and country with a president that will veto practically every bill put before him? The very reason that corporations have so much undue and unjust power and influence in the country is because the scope of the federal government allows it - and as long as the federal government allows it, corrupt politicians will be available to corporations to use it.

How is turning over what were public works to private corporations NOT giving them influence in how those works operate? I think you are confused sir. Sure, he is advocating getting rid of corporate influence in public office BUT how is handing them the keys to the office any better than just meeting them in the back alley to do the dirty work?

Government is the tool by which industry can influence the public. what you are not considering is the power of a free market. They can influence all they want. If no one buys their product i guarentee you the problem will resolve itself.