Ron Paul!

Lounge
1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8)

Please watch that video. You will be amazed.

I really can’t help telling as many people about Ron Paul as possible. I’m usually not one to post political threads, but I noticed the one about Cheney and thought what the heck.

The thing about Ron Paul is though, he’s not about politics…he’s just fighting for a better country. You would be amazed at his stances on things, he’s very constitutional and here are his points:

-Get rid of the IRS
-Downsize the FBI, CIA, National Security
-Completely change our foreign policy to non-intervention (pull out of Iraq and all the other countries where we have troops stationed for no real reason)
-Balance the budget
-Limit Government power
-Never regulate the Internet
-Get rid of the Patriot Act and anything that limits freedom

You know what else, he is a Republican…a true Republican. But he’s not really about Republicans and Democrats, he’s about saving this country. He’s won most of the Republican debates by landslides. The Republican party has tried banning him from the debates…but his support grows daily.

He raised $5million in the third quarter, more than most of the Republican top-runners. The media has been trying to ignore him for a while, but I have a feeling he will win the nomination, and Hillary will not stand a chance.

The reason I feel so strongly about this guy is that he really seems to care for the people. He’s been consistent on all issues all his life (there are videos of him dating back to the 70s where he is saying the same things). Everything he says is so logical, clear, and so true. Even if he doesn’t win the presidency, he is the most honest ‘politician’ I have ever seen.

Personally, I have never been much into ‘politics’ at all. I had never been one to really voice my opinion, because I never thought there would be a candidate who would represent the things I thought. But this guy is what I’ve been thinking. I’ve got 2 of his bumper stickers on my car, front/back. I’ve also been handing out his cards and stuff. I think everyone in America and elsewhere really deserve to at least know about him.

By the way, here’s a brief overview of his record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

2

Never regulate the Internet could be aproblem with me..

3

Really? You want to regulate the Internet? Why, I’m just curious to know…

4

To bad the national polls show Hillary and Juliani at the top right now, and the polls haven’t failed to predict the winner but a few times in the history of the US.

5

Because I don’t wanna accidently stumble upon videos of beheadings in iraq of journalists and what not, as I did years ago… which still scarres me to this day

6

I like his apparent integrity and independent voice, but I’m not crazy about his votes on abortion issues. He’s a libertarian but opposed to reproductive choice? He’s got some explaining to do before he’d get my vote.

His record on civil rights isn’t the greatest either … I could go on.

One thing I’ll say for him: He’s not in Bush/Cheney’s pocket.

Ron Paul on the Issues

7

I like to think of the internet as a playground. . . without the MP walking around.

How did you ‘accidentally’ stumble upon the vids?

8

Some AIM Virus or something falsly-advertised it and I wasn’t sure what I was watching… but ya.. it was fully uncensored… I was completely shocked, to say the least.

9

He’s there to take away votes like all of the other nobody candidates.

I personally do not believe we will see another president based on the laws that were passed. This administration has done enough undermining to just let it slip from their grasp. Don’t believe martial law can be declared at any time? Research the Directive on Continuity passed this last March. You can find it on whitehouse.gov, although parts of it are classified. It entails that the executive branches will be able to coordinate over the legislative and judicial branches in the event of catastrophic proportions, ie. another terrorist attack. You don’t need to take heed to this, of course, you can disregard it as the ramblings of a whackjob conspiracy theorist. Hopefully all of the sources out there are incredible, and that I’m just reaching, connecting irrelevant nonsense - you know, for the sake of a future. Don’t think that they haven’t already tried to overturn the 22nd Amendment? Do your research. Luckily it never passed. Of course like everything else this administration does, it just passes bills that go around already established ones.

10

I agree with Carrie. I really wish politicians of all parties would get the hell out of everybody’s personal business and concentrate on fixing the damn country.

11

Any USA flag that displays those little gold tassels around the edges indicate Marshal Law already. Notice how all USA government service flags all have those little gold tassels on them. HMMMMM!

Now I am not willing to share with anyone who I voted for or my reasoning as that is my right. I will say Dick and Bush sure had the greatest slogan of all time.

12

Actually, the greatest slogan from all time came from the 2004 campaign:

“Lick Bush!”:smiley::open_mouth:

13

Well, that’s one way to put it.

14

Interesting point steveo. I looked into what the golden tassels mean, and it pulled up some surpising information that pretty much reframed my view of this country. We are heading into rough times and I doubt any international bankers will bail us out of this imminent economic collapse.

I don’t blame you for saving face on the issue of who you voted for. Everybody has their own given right to elect whom they choose. I did not vote, because I personally believe it is a fallacious (illusory) system.

15

Therefore, you “automatically voted” for the winner.:open_mouth:

16

Unfortunately there are some real problems with voting as a social choice mechanism.

Arrow’s impossibility theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arrow’s impossibility theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, demonstrates that no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of reasonable criteria when there are three or more options to choose from. These criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-imposition, non-dictatorship, monotonicity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.

  • non-dictatorship: the social welfare function should account for the wishes of multiple voters. It can’t simply mimic the preferences of a single voter.
  • unrestricted domain or universality: the social welfare function should account for all preferences among all voters to yield a unique and complete ranking of societal choices. Thus, the voting mechanism must account for all individual preferences, it must do so in a manner that results in a complete ranking of preferences for society, and it must deterministically provide the same ranking each time voters’ preferences are presented the same way.
  • independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA): the social welfare function should provide the same ranking of preferences among a subset of options as it would for a complete set of options. Changes in individuals’ rankings of irrelevant alternatives (ones outside the subset) should have no impact on the societal ranking of the relevant subset.
  • positive association of social and individual values or monotonicity: if any individual modifies his or her preference order by promoting a certain option, then the societal preference order should respond only by promoting that same option or not changing, never by placing it lower than before. An individual should not be able to hurt an option by ranking it higher.
    *]non-imposition or citizen sovereignty: every possible societal preference order should be achievable by some set of individual preference orders. This means that the social welfare function is onto: It has an unrestricted target space.
17

Condorcet, writing in the C18, developed a simple model that illustrates the conundrum of getting meaningful outcomes from voting…

Marquis de Condorcet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Voting paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

collective preferences can be cyclic (i.e. not transitive), even if the preferences of individual voters are not. This is paradoxical, because it means that majority wishes can be in conflict with each other. When this occurs, it is because the conflicting majorities are each made up of different groups of individuals. For example, suppose we have three candidates, A, B and C, and that there are three voters with preferences as follows (candidates being listed in decreasing order of preference): Voter 1: A B CVoter 2: B C AVoter 3: C A B If C is chosen as the winner, it can be argued that B should win instead, since two voters (1 and 2) prefer B to C and only one voter (3) prefers C to B. However, by the same argument A is preferred to B, and C is preferred to A, by a margin of two to one on each occasion. The requirement of majority rule then provides no clear winner.
Also, if an election were held with the above three voters as the only participants, nobody would win under majority rule, as it would result in a three way tie with each candidate getting one vote. However, Condorcet’s paradox illustrates that the person who can reduce alternatives can essentially guide the election. For example, if Voter 1 and Voter 2 choose their preferred candidates (A and B respectively), and if Voter 3 was willing to drop his vote for C, then Voter 3 can choose between either A or B - and become the agenda-setter.
When a Condorcet method is used to determine an election, a voting paradox among the ballots can mean that the election has no Condorcet winner. The several variants of the Condorcet method differ chiefly on how they resolve such ambiguities when they arise to determine a winner. Note that there is no fair and deterministic resolution to this trivial example because each candidate is in an exactly symmetrical situation.

18

Wonder how the concept of protest voting fits into this ? Colbert is performing a burlesque of the classic protest vote… Ross Perot was almost on his way to election based on collective frustration, disgust, and hopelessness…

19

None of the above - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

20

ah..so that’s why the younguns love him.

Btw - Carrie - good pickup on the reproductive rights issue.

actually as far as the Libertarians - that is a bone i have to pick with the party platform in general. They waffle on reproductive rights. try to play both ends against the middle.