Forum Post: To All Ron Paul Supporters... This is the first step.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 2:48 a.m. EST by OpenSky
(217)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I don't agree with Ron Paul, but we could all benefit from this. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he won't win the 2012 election (as our political system currently is). But we can change that!
The political game is rigged. Two parties control the entire political system, but besides rhetoric, are they really all that different? Impossibly high barriers prevent third parties from every gaining ground in the election process. Namely, the fact that we have what is called a WINNER-TAKES-ALL SYSTEM. It basically means that whichever party/candidate gets a majority of the electoral votes in a state gets all of those votes. For example, California gets 55 electoral votes. If one party gets just 28 votes (which is barely a majority), all 55 votes count to that party/candidate in the general election. This effectively means that ANY VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY IS ALWAYS A WASTED VOTE. What we need is proportional representation (used in Europe). This would allow for a multitude of parties to flourish, effectively breaking the status quo of our stagnant political system and allowing for real, significant change. Additionally, a dynamic political system such as this would by its very nature SEVERELY LIMIT THE POWER CORPORATIONS HAVE OVER OUR POLITICAL PARTIES. As more factors define our election process, it gets exponentially more difficult for corporations to influence our government. Now naturally, nothing has ever been done by Congress to really institute this kind of reform, as it is obviously against the interests of the two parties to have their positions of power so radically altered. But I ask you this: How many times during an election do you vote for the LESSER OF TWO EVILS? How many times have you wanted to vote for an independent candidate, only to recoil at the prospect of a WASTED VOTE? The only way to win the game, is to change the rules! Bring about change by DEMANDING that congress institute political party reform... They say we don't have a defined goal. We do... To break the STATUS QUO. This single demand, by itself, could change everything.
This provides some good information on the third party and the barriers it faces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
.
Ron Paul spoke on the floor of the House against the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Google it or find on the US Congress website. His reasoning is that the Federal Government overstepped its bounds and violated the rights of property owners. This negates one of the noblest reasons for having laws in the first place. To protect the rights of minorities, the oppressed, the vulnerable. But he sided with the lunch counter owners who didn't think the Federal Government should be able to tell them that they can't deny service to black people. That's a big hint right there.
Issue # 2. The Fed. It is amazing how Ron Paul followers have a cult like devotion to their crusade against the Fed. I hate to waste time on something that few people really understand. But that's part of the reason why this is such fertile territory for Paulies. I refute almost all they say about the Fed. How can they see so many ominous practices and at the same time promote the idea that its books are closed? There are countless hours I will never get back debating with Paul followers the gold standard, the structure of the Fed, the money supply or as they like to call it "printing money", inflation, the dollar. It's a real concern that there are huge gaps in their logic and beliefs that they refuse to see. And what about the world after the Fed? This is just a scam to hasten the right wing totalitarianism which is a one percenter's wet dream.
3. How many times have I heard a Ron Paul follower claim that he believes in individual freedoms? Yeah, for property owners. Ha. Seriously he's all over the map on personal freedom. I've tried to make sense of it and all I can see is that if the Federal Government restricts a freedom he's against it. But if a state restricts freedom, he's for it. I don't a real commitment to freedom as a principle or ideal. He seems more interested in making his point that the states should have more power than the federal government. Because it would be easier to reinstate slavery in a single state rather than try to get the other 49 to go along.
If OWS supported Ron Paul, which won't happen, they might as well just say. Oops, slight mistake. We’re not the 99% after all.
Your an idiot what does OWS support since you are speaking for all of us???? What politician has integrity? Or are you going to get rid of them all? Revolution? Well if thats the case whos going to lead? OWS cant even solidify its message i have been there and people are all over the map. I support the cause but nothing is going to get done unless the demands are realistic.... There is not enough support to make all these demands happen eliminating the fed is a good start. I think its so funny how people like you are so against Ron Paul and his supporters when the main stream looks at you in the same light.. Extremists kooks and if we cant form a cohesive effort behind the only candidate who deviates from the status quo, Just like us, then what is the f@cken point????
See, there's this document called the Constitution. It started on the ideas that the States had more powers than the federal government. Things have changed, but that was the premise. The REASON for this, is that if slavery were instated in a single state, then other states wouldn't HAVE to go along. But what happens when the federal government attempts to institute slavery? Which is harder to fight against? A single state, or the federal government? It's simple, bro. And it's in the Constitution.
We'll never agree on this. The founding fathers were concerned about finding a balance between states right and a strong federal government. They were particularly concerned about the protecting the smaller states from being disadvantaged by the larger ones. That's one of the reasons why we have a Senate, not based on proportional representation. Every state is equal in the Senate. I wouldn't mind hearing about state's rights so much except that it's never promoted by people who have good intentions or respect freedom. Extreme measures in a single state would affect the other states. It's a pathology when people can't see how their actions could have negative consequences for others.
The purpose of the senate USED to be that states sent their own representatives so states would be represented in the federal government. The feds took away this power with the 17th amendment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I completely agree with everything you say, except then you use the corruption of power to argue that we need a stronger consolidation of power in the federal government? Dun make no sense. The more the power is spread out, the easier it is to stamp out those who are after it for nefarious ends.
Thanks for remaining civil though we disagree. By the way I have no idea why the font is huge on part of my comment. Nothing seems to fix that. It's like somebody wants it that way.
I know about the Senate, don't see how it hinders state representation. The theory that government gets better as it gets more local sounds like common sense and then you look at local government and see some of the worst. Our representatives have districts that are relatively small especially if you live in populated area, but they have been less responsive than anyone. I own property in a red state with a heavily Republican legislature that passed some laws which the very conservative Republican governor vetoed because business said it would cause the state to lose money. These were all people who swept in on the Tea Party wave last year. Now one is being recalled. The lesson being, business shouldn't influence our governmental process. Even though I agreed with the outcome in this case, the involvement of business and its money in our government is a huge issue that towers over everything else.
Hey, Thanks to yourself. I like a good discussion and somebody disagreeing with me doesn't personally offend me.
I don't think that it necessarily gets better as it gets more local, the HOA in our neighborhood is corrupt (people running the books were getting baseball tickets for favors and using the public landscaping service to have their yards taken care of), but it's easier to deal with the corruption on a local level. I'm basically making the same argument that Plato makes at the end of The Republic. If all you get from service in government is money and power, then what kind of people will be attracted to hold government office? (Same could be said with big business). Not the kind of people who we want in control of anything. It's much easier to overturn something that happens in your city (as your voice is stronger and you have more individual and community power) than it is to change anything federally (where each individual is counted as, literally, nothing). I think your example even speaks to this.
I agree that we need business out of the government process. I think this should go hand in hand with as few, or as local, government processes as possible. If people in OWS are concerned with "getting our government back", as they say, this would be the way to do it. Even if we were able to wrest the federal state away from business, we should automatically assume that they'll have everyones interest in mind? It's impossible. The more local governance is, the more tailored to the community it can be.
Maybe one of fifty states actually does instill slavery. Watch as businesses and good people move out of the state in droves. It would be a rotten ghostland in 3 months. But now we live in a world where everyone makes choices based on fear, or what they have to lose, instead of what is right. This is one thing I've enjoyed about OWS, at least it's peeps doing SOMETHING, even if I don't think it's something that's really going to do anything.
People are looking at this from inside the box. Think outside the box. Constitution starts out "We the people". Everything about the document that this nation is built on says that politicians work for the people.
The only platform a politician should EVER be running on is, " I will do exactly what a majority of my voters want". This is where you need to get outside that box(read: prison) that the politicians built for you. Their should be no platform, no ideology, no political parties. We live in an age in which it takes an IT guy a day maybe to set up a way to legitimately poll a representatives voters.
Thus a candidate should be running on the platform of i will do exactly what you guys tell me you want. Not on" my position on this is this or that". Representatives have no position they are merely a vessel to voice the position of a majority of their voters.
Thus it really the only thing that matters is will that person do what the voters want or will he do what he wants and tell voters that is what he is going to do.
Now it isnt always this simple, but this should be the goal. It should not matter which candidate is in the WH they should all be doing what a majority of people in the US want.
Republicans and Democrats are only different sides of the same coin...
No idea how to get thru this election cycle. Best suggestion is to start drinking heavily. They shovel so much.....
This is about "we the people"... not a politician... it's funny how you never hear occupiers talking about any politician except ppl who want "ron paul" to be some kind of savior.
http://callaconvention.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE Here's another alternative voting system you might want to consider.
Yes, we need proportional representation, like they have in Europe, and we need the Jeffersonian proposed eleventh ammendment to the constitution. Those two things would probably solve most of the grievences out there.
The link didn't have much of anything associated with it..
So until we have this kind of election process should we just not vote as a way to protest? That's my inclination at this point in time ...
we should fight for a constitutional amendment. This can make big waves, as many people have no idea our political system works like this. But if we leave it alone and don't actively seek proportional representation, then it will never be enacted. Congress has no incentive to change the way the system works, doing so would threaten their base of power.
Dont understand why people dont agree with Ron Paul his platform is not his own it is that of the constitution. Through he entire political career he has reffed to the constitution on all vote. He wants to eliminate the Federal reserve , which is the private company that got us into this mess, and is touted even by his enemies as the only honest politician in Washington? Yeah your right forget enforcing the document that gives us our rights, forget stripping power away form the big bank which our forefathers warned us about, and forget integrity. Im voting for the guy who looks presidential and speaks well. That way I can buy all of his empty promises and political rhetoric so we can be worse off in four years....WAKE UP AMERICA..... RON PAUL DOES HAVE A CHANCE TO WIN DONT LISTEN TO THE MEDIA. JUST LIKE THEY ARE AGAINST OUR PROTEST THEY ARE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE TOGETHER WE WILL CHANGE THE STATUS QUE.
Ron Paul is NOT going to help us here!
Really then what will????
In addition to Ron Paul wanting to stop wars, shut down the Fed, legalize pot and all the issues you LIKE about him, which many of you support (for some unknown reason, besides being well uninformed), did you also know this: • He wants to end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - That means Grandma's moving in! • He wants to take away a woman's right to choose - what happened to his mantra of "less government"? Could he be a closet misogynist! • He wants to ELIMINATE public schools – that means your kids will be home all the time, in your face, on your nerves! Keep the insubstantial people uneducated; now that's a good call, huh! • He opposes Universal Health Care - remember "Single Payer" healthcare for all? Same thing! and he's against it. Is he still sounding like a candidate that's going to work for you?!
Yes and we should end these corrupt institutions. Medicare was passed into law on July 30, 1965 but beneficiaries were first able to sign-up for the program on July 1, 1966. Some how some way the American public did fine before that. We are so brain washed it thinking that we need the governments help that we are scared to go back to the way things were meant to be. Medicare has been the single biggest reason why the cost of health care has gone through the roof. States can still implement their own for of medicare or social security. He has said on several occasions that he would slowly phase it out. We cant have both small government intervention and big government help. The private sector will solve this problem as it always has As for the womans right to choose and the misogynist quote. That is full Dr. Ron Paul has delivered over 4000 babies in his life he is a licensed OBGYN why would someone who dedicated his life to helping women hate them? He simply brings up a valid point that is if even in the first month of pregnancy a doctor was to due something to cause the mother to loose her child or if you were at fault in a care accident and the pregnant mother was to loose her child in both cases they would face manslaughter charges. Why if the pregnancy is wanted its a crime to harm the child but if its not its no big deal. I feel that a womans right to choose should err on the side of choosing responsibility.... However I do understand and have in fact have had personal experience with having close family have to have an abortion, for reasons I will not discuss, in those cases with a limited government that choice will be given to the states. This is the reason we have state constitutions and in fact it the very reason we are called the United States. If you dont like Gay marriage and a womans right to choose dont live in California maybe Utah is more up your alley. Ultimately most matters are differed to the states keeping things fair and making our votes count more.
I agree that Medicare is broken; I have firsthand experience with being an advocate for my father-in-law and it is a scam for many. You were saying that the American public did fine before Medicare. Ok, they died because they were poor. We need Universal Health Care just like most of the other industrialized countries have. Yes, that means paying into it; everybody! It works for those countries and their citizens love it. And Social Security works, too. Ever since its implementation it has provided funds for the elderly. It's NOT broken. The republicans have spun it to make you think it's broken, but it's not. They want the money and control from it.
As for abortion, I have lived long enough to see women out protesting their rights. I read many times in the newspapers how yet another woman had died because of a botched, backroom abortion. This will continue if abortion is outlawed in many states because women will go to extremes to not have to deal with the responsibility of bringing a fetus to term, then raising it. I'm tired of seeing these people who proclaim that government is a big part of our problem then they want to go into our doctor's office, our bedrooms and demand what is right for them. It's none of their business and they don't have to live with the outcome, so just stay the hell out of people's private lives. Period!
If you leave issues, social and economical, up to the states, then the demographics will become so skewed and our country will break down into small countries with extreme views. Potentially, civil wars could break out and what the hell would that accomplish. And if some states don't prepare for even a natural disaster because they want government to become so small, who the hell will bail them out? Most humane people care about the suffering of other people. If you don't, you're a freakin' sociopath.
Listen first of all the republicans don't skew my view I am not affiliated with any party although by your response I can tell that you hang on Obama's every word. In my response I covered abortion and how surely the states would have to allow it. No candidate is just going strip us of gains that were made that is paranoia and democratic spin. Second Europe is not doing fine socialism doesn't work. But Im not understanding you you say " Its none of their business and they dont have to live with the outcome,so just stay the hell out of peoples private lives.Period!" which I agree with yet you want to government to control "social and economic issues" ? You cant have your cake and eat it too either they run the show and we depend on them for every need and they tell us how to live and what to do or we go it alone with limited help and intervention. You cant have both. One of your lasts points was about if states were left up to their own our country would break down into small countries with extreme views??? This is why we are called "THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA" states are meant to be autonomous entities this is why they have their own constitutions and bodies of government. The federal governments job is to levy trade, transportation, and to unite the state in times of war. Also to settle disputes between state and make sure the peoples basic freedoms were taken care of by the state ie the whole slavery civil war issue. These day our population is much more connected and educated civil war is not likely in America again. The federal government has since used the Necessary and proper clause located in article 1 ,section 8 ,clause 18 as a loophole to gain its ultimate authoritative power that it now has over the states. So now extreme liberals believe that it is the governments duty to take care of them and we grow fat and lazy suckling on the tit of big brother. I for one respect the knowledge and wisdom of the forefathers and believe in the principal that made America great not the mockery of a government that we have today that wipes its ass with our civil rights. In conclusion I would like to end by addressing your final thought about most humane people care about the suffering of other people. I agree 100% and actually we do agree on a lot of the points that you have made. However I feel that were our values differ is I trust in the people and you seem to trust in the government. People will take care of the weak and the hungry it is our job as humans, as Americans. I think that as a society we have become so use to the government taking care of these things we are becoming blind a desensitized to them. We pass the buck thinking thats not my problem the government will take care of it. Meanwhile the rate of hunger and homelessness continues to increase in this country. The country is too large for politicians in Washington to possible understand or even care about the full scope of the problem. States are much more grounded since the voice of the people are literally their neighbors. All Im suggesting may sound radical but it is not it is how the country was intended to be study your history and your constitution.
Listen first of all the republicans don't skew my view I am not affiliated with any party although by your response I can tell that you hang on Obama's every word. In my response I covered abortion and how surely the states would have to allow it. No candidate is just going strip us of gains that were made that is paranoia and democratic spin. Second Europe is not doing fine socialism doesn't work. But Im not understanding you you say " Its none of their business and they dont have to live with the outcome,so just stay the hell out of peoples private lives.Period!" which I agree with yet you want to government to control "social and economic issues" ? You cant have your cake and eat it too either they run the show and we depend on them for every need and they tell us how to live and what to do or we go it alone with limited help and intervention. You cant have both. One of your lasts points was about if states were left up to their own our country would break down into small countries with extreme views??? This is why we are called "THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA" states are meant to be autonomous entities this is why they have their own constitutions and bodies of government. The federal governments job is to levy trade, transportation, and to unite the state in times of war. Also to settle disputes between state and make sure the peoples basic freedoms were taken care of by the state ie the whole slavery civil war issue. These day our population is much more connected and educated civil war is not likely in America again. The federal government has since used the Necessary and proper clause located in article 1 ,section 8 ,clause 18 as a loophole to gain its ultimate authoritative power that it now has over the states. So now extreme liberals believe that it is the governments duty to take care of them and we grow fat and lazy suckling on the tit of big brother. I for one respect the knowledge and wisdom of the forefathers and believe in the principal that made America great not the mockery of a government that we have today that wipes its ass with our civil rights. In conclusion I would like to end by addressing your final thought about most humane people care about the suffering of other people. I agree 100% and actually we do agree on a lot of the points that you have made. However I feel that were our values differ is I trust in the people and you seem to trust in the government. People will take care of the weak and the hungry it is our job as humans, as Americans. I think that as a society we have become so use to the government taking care of these things we are becoming blind a desensitized to them. We pass the buck thinking thats not my problem the government will take care of it. Meanwhile the rate of hunger and homelessness continues to increase in this country. The country is too large for politicians in Washington to possible understand or even care about the full scope of the problem. States are much more grounded since the voice of the people are literally their neighbors. All Im suggesting may sound radical but it is not it is how the country was intended to be study your history and your constitution.
I once believed in Obama; I believed all the “hope” he so eloquently spewed to the American people during his campaigning and shortly thereafter. But as we all know, action speaks louder than words, therefore, disappointment and frustration trumped hope when we found out that he's been bought, too! No, I don't believe in Obama, instead, I believe in a system that once worked, because I have lived most of my life through it. Europe did fine for decades, too. Actually, they faired much better because they've had a universal health care that has worked for decades until the corporations became more greedy and wanted a piece of there's, too. Oh, and their education has been free for even longer; imagine that! Social and economic issues worked and it can work again when we tilt the balance back in place, if that's even possible.................. or, I'm open for something new, as well, but I haven't heard anything with a solution, except to fix what's broken.............. and that's because those that prospered through the good years know it can work again. Breaking the issues down to states will not be effective for long. The extreme states will eventually need bailing out because they will bankrupt their state; yes, they will, esp. the southeast that's just about dumber than rocks! I know, I grew up there but moved to the northwest in my 20's. They still keep electing government officials who work against their best interest but you can't convince them because they don't read! It didn't work in the african countries or the middle east (civil wars, breakdown into smaller countries) at least unless you have a dictatorship! You're dreamin' if you think civil war is not likely in America again!
You wrote in your response, “In my response I covered abortion and how surely the states would have to allow it. No candidate is just going strip us of gains that were made that is paranoia and democratic spin.” For your information, just yesterday, some misogynist congressman stood on the floor of the Senate and presented yet ANOTHER bill to ban the pill! Yup, it's true; unbelievable, but true. So now, some of the extreme, fearful (and possibly impotent) men in our government want to not only take away a woman's right to choose, but they want to control them, too! They're all freaks!
I understand that there are many people who take advantage of the welfare system and that's the federal bureau's fault for not hiring enough (or competent) people to oversee the agency; it's not been run efficiently or effectively. But what about the people that really need it: special needs, critically sick or injured, those in chronic penury, etc. Do you really think that, “people will take care of the weak and the hungry it is our job as humans, as Americans.” Seriously? Most people under 30 cannot take care of themselves, much less care for anyone else. And this generation growing up is immature much longer than the past two generations. That's why social security was established in the first place, because severely destitute people (mostly the elderly) were literally dying on the streets. I studied the Great Depression in depth recently and how Franklin Roosevelt pulled this country out of those dark days is phenomenal, esp. with the idiot republican corporate puppets he was up against (sound familiar). But he had a spirit AND a backbone unlike Obama, as well as a democratic senate and house. The bills that were passed around that time were set in place for four decades and our country prospered. Then greed crept into pockets, bank accounts, our government and now power and control are a parasite of greed! Slowly, those bills have been repealed and compromised and as a result corruption ensued until VOILA, the Great Depression is coming again. That's right, so get ready. But this time, I don't think it will last as long because we are more plugged into a communication system that will speed up the process and those bastards will be out of office and out of the banks much quicker! But until then, it won't be pretty!
We need another Franklin Roosevelt and we need her now!
I found this article that was released a couple of days ago that I consider to be one of the most articulate sources of information on how our economy plummeted to the state it is presently in. It is written by a historian and an economist who explains our situation in layman's terms. Even if you don't agree with his solution, you will gain so much information of what happened since the '80's. I encourage you to read it!!
http://www.truth-out.org/occupy-wall-street-movement-and-coming-demise-crony-capitalism/1318341474
P. S. States aren't more grounded, they're broke!
Wow first of all let me commend you on such a extremely well thought out and well written response. We are seriously almost eye to eye on these issues. I unfortunately do not have time today to return such a response to you, at least not at this moment. But as briefly as it can be put from top to bottom. I too believed in Obama I went to his rally's gave people rides to to vote and argued for the cause. Anything to get us out of war I thought its going to be tough but maybe he can do it. Not even close. I feel this is the same reason a lot of people are mad its like they took the red pill and suddenly realized that were all working together. As far as the misogynists trying to prevent woman's rights well unfortunately just like racists there will, I fear, always been the ignorant bottom feeders that try to fight against the current but they will not win. By the way to address our earlier conversation Dr. Ron Paul advocates the wide spread use of the morning after pill. As far as the states yes they are broke but so is the country everyone is broke thats why we're protesting because the screwed it up for everyone so indeed they do need to be promptly replaced. But no the states wont fall into civil war because it is the US government that will still control the standing army not the states. These are the checks and balances that the forefathers made to have an ideal America. An America that was not possible in the past due to social and economic issues but now it would flourish. The states still operate as they do now with one exception the federal government doesn't intervene unless necessary. For example if California and New york make gay marriage legal then it is legal no federal government dispute. If Utah want polygamist marriages fine. If Texas want to ban liquor fine. legal marijuana in Colorado so be it. If the state votes it into law then that is their law. Everything else will be the same except a federal government on fourth of the size with less ability to wage war. The forefathers realized that there are different people with different aspirations for their lives and different values and who are we to tell them how to live. As long as you are not robbing someone else of their freedoms, more power too you.... Gotta go now but pretty much agree with the rest including helping those who cant help themselves that is our duty. But is not our duty to enable those that can and refuse to so so....Respect.
I, too, have no time to respond presently (funny how we dash around on the internet just to check in). But I've come up with an idea which I sent out earlier that is gaining positive results. I need to tweek it a bit first so I'll send it to you soon. Peace!
Who is better qualified to make a decision for you? You, or some bureaucrat in Washington DC?
Who is better qualified to make a decision for you? You or some bureaucrat in your state capital?
Who is better qualified to make a decision for you? The bureaucrat in DC or in your own state? Or in your city?
let me refer you to this link: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-im-upset-with-the-ron-paul-supporters/#comment-92607