Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Paul right now is in first place. The one candidate hated by the media and all the major Democrats without any major donors or backers is actually winning so far. But even if he places 2nd or 3rd it's amazing for someone who hasn't raised the corporate funds like the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackplay Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Agreed. This caucus is a joke and it's on us :shame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 How is it a joke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobalt Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 this just gets lulzier and lulzier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 No lulzier will be when I propose to you on national tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck kottke Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Well, as for his means of financing his campaign, I believe Ron Paul deserves high marks - the majority of his contributions are from individuals, he's one of the lowest in lobbyist receipts, and the 4th highest in small-donor receipts. But I think many of his proposals are extreme and damaging to the strengths of our democracy and to our society and to the world in general. >He wants to eliminate the department of education, which is truly sad because there is so much inequity between levels of educational funding for K-12th grade, both within states and between states, this is very unfair to youth in general. I believe we ought to put more money into education, improve the merit based system and cooperative efforts within schools, to strengthen our economy and create a more enlightened citizenry. To fund schools federally would allow for equal opportunity for all students, be they in Mississippi or in Minnesota, and in conjunction with this we need to restore representative government, to allow the funding to be appropriated fairly and wisely. >I give him kudos for voting against the wars, and for his aim to reduce the military in such a way as to truly improve global stability by transferring more over to peace initiatives. But voting against aid to hurricane Katrina victims, that's just cruel. >I think what we need is a Federal Government responsive to our will as citizens, which is the real problem. Ron Paul authored a bill to abolish all income taxes, which to me would eviscerate the US Federal Government, and consider what has occurred in recent times - we've seen the wealthiest 1% cut themselves huge tax breaks, run up an enormous Federal debt, and deregulate oversight over the very entities which needed careful oversight, the "banking industries." So what resulted is massive unemployment, growth in wealth inequalities, budget shortfalls and the cutting of services, reductions on money for education, and the list goes on. Considering this, I believe we need a strong Federal government, fully funded, and make the wealthiest of the wealthiest pay their fair share. To make government responsive to our will, amend the constitution, call a convention if necessary with very careful citizen oversight and participation, to ensure we retain control of our government by capping the donations to campaigns to a level affordable by all, enact term limits to prevent consolidations of power, and end the revolving door of congress members morphing into lobbyists. On matters of trade, Ron Paul voted against NAFTA (kudos there too!), but then his ideas of unregulated free trade lack considerations for human rights, the environment, and fair business practices. I would much rather see trade policies with oversight to protect worker's rights globally, protect the environment globally, and set up fair trade practices as well. To do so would require a properly functioning Federal government and agencies tasked with protecting those things we share in common, responsive to our will, not to the will of a powerful few. Reform with election and campaign funding takes center stage there again. For more on that: Lawrence Lessig on How We Lost Our Democracy | Lawrence Lessig | Rolling Stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 I went to public schools. I've worked in public schools. Going to school interfered with my education. The department of education has failed miserably, look at the national test scores and statistics for that proof. Pumping money into a failed organization is hurting the country. The Income Tax is unconstitutional. Where does most that money go? The Federal government waste it on wars, other nations and corruption. That money is better building jobs in the economy than funding illegal wars, puppet goverments and hand-out out to politician's friends in corporations. Paul is against the bail outs and the marriage of wall st and corporations with the government. Breaking up that marriage will do great to allow wealth to be distributed more in the economy. Remember, It's the major politicians and federal government taking OUR money and giving it to corporations and wall st.. Paul stands against that. Paul is the only candidate not funded and supported by all the corrupt politicians and corporations/super rich. He's the only candidate that is not in the mainstream taking funds and bribes from the same people destroying the country. ALL other candidates roll in the same circles, funded by the same people-both sides. Supporting Pauls is standing up the super-rich, corporate owned fascist government supported by both parties and all major candidates. Obama and all the other politicians are in the same inner circle together, they all have the same puppet masters. Paul is the only politician who isn't controlled by the same money/people. To sum it up; A vote for Paul is against the other politicians who are supported/funded/and controlled by the same groups of people who have controlled and run our government into the ground for a long time. The only way we are to break the cycle of controlled politics is to vote for candidates not in their pockets. Obama is not the one, follow the money. Obama is funded by the super rich and corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerrymanGirl1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Well santorum's leading now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Yeah, apparently threatening to bomb Iran helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
getithom Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It's odd how close Santorum, Paul and Romney are all around 23%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerrymanGirl1 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 In my opinion santorum came out of nowhere :uhoh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 It's odd how close Santorum, Paul and Romney are all around 23%. Paul is at 21 and the other two at 25 I think. But the real thing is how the media has been attacking Paul along with both Democrats and Republicans and he still did this well. And compare it to how he did last time. He won one county last time and was in 5th place I think with a few percent. This will make him a major candidate now for the first time. He's getting more national attention and the people who like him before but said he'd never have a chance might change their mind now. In my opinion santorum came out of nowhere :uhoh: He was the last man standing. Nobody really went after him with ads. He won't last much longer. I mean for crying out loud he's campaigning on starting another war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck kottke Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 answers I went to public schools. I've worked in public schools. Going to school interfered with my education. The department of education has failed miserably, look at the national test scores and statistics for that proof. Pumping money into a failed organization is hurting the country. > Hm, well I had a very good experience in public schools in terms of getting a good education, aside from the disruptive types in class and not enough effort to end bullying at that time, so we had very different experiences then. I think perhaps the problem centers as much around healthy, stable, and supportive families as it does around the school system. But quality education requires good colleges to prepare excellent teachers, and for there to be descent pay as well to attract well qualified teachers, which varies considerably from state to state and place to place. Merit based rewards, checks and balances, and conscientious teacher recognition tops the list of priorities to get the standards up as far as I see, but what do you see as the reason for poor pubic schools in your state? The Income Tax is unconstitutional. Where does most that money go? The Federal government waste it on wars, other nations and corruption. That money is better building jobs in the economy than funding illegal wars, puppet goverments and hand-out out to politician's friends in corporations. > I recall the argument for it being unconstitutional, but I think it ought not to be, and if it is, well then we need to decide to either amend the constitution to include it, or not have it. But when the super-wealthy don't pay their fair share, cutting their taxes further erodes what good the government does do. Right, the money is wasted on bloated military contracts and wars and on corruption, which I think can only be remedied with amendments to make it possible for anyone to afford a contribution and have equal pull with their representative and end the big donations, end the side-offers for ads and posh lobbying jobs, and include term limits. End the corruption and the Federal Government will work for us. The impasse I see with simply cutting the government and having almost no tax is that the money returned may not allow for much boosting of the economy, since we've lost so much manufacturing here, and then all those social and economic boosters which help the poor and the needy are lost. The puppet government funding too is a product of money in elections and through future lobbying jobs and investments - we need to make elected officials beholden to us to stop that, otherwise, it would just be private mega-corporate puppet governments directly and private mercenary armies doing their bidding in its place. Paul is against the bail outs and the marriage of wall st and corporations with the government. Breaking up that marriage will do great to allow wealth to be distributed more in the economy. Remember, It's the major politicians and federal government taking OUR money and giving it to corporations and wall st.. Paul stands against that. > That's a plus! To accomplish that though, I think he will need the amendment for fair elections and fair candidate races, including caps on donations - otherwise, he would be mostly alone! It is mostly a matter of economic inequity that allows for wage suppression by the wealthiest, using the government they corrupted to block breakups of virtual monopolies and preventing more socially conscious ventures from becoming the mainstay. It should be that government acts on our behalf to check the consolidation of power in ownership and properly regulates to ensure that the best behaviors and market practices succeed. They're not just taking our money, they're owning the whole process. Paul is the only candidate not funded and supported by all the corrupt politicians and corporations/super rich. He's the only candidate that is not in the mainstream taking funds and bribes from the same people destroying the country. ALL other candidates roll in the same circles, funded by the same people-both sides. > That appears to be true, so I consider that as one of his greatest assets as a candidate. If however we focus on amending the constitution and pressing for real reform measures, then we might be able to regain a representative democracy, which is essential since no one candidate can make the difference. But you're right, at least he has the support of many real contributors and isn't bought off by the crooks. Supporting Pauls is standing up the super-rich, corporate owned fascist government supported by both parties and all major candidates. Obama and all the other politicians are in the same inner circle together, they all have the same puppet masters. Paul is the only politician who isn't controlled by the same money/people. > Yes, that is true. President Obama didn't stand up, and he should have gotten citizens to rally around amendments to reform the whole election process, and he should have broken up the big banks and ended the tax breaks to the billionaires who control the whole government. Perhaps though it's too early to say Paul is the only candidate who isn't controlled by the plutocrats - there may be some other entrants yet. I've often wondered why Bill Moyers doesn't run, or Russ Feingold. To sum it up; A vote for Paul is against the other politicians who are supported/funded/and controlled by the same groups of people who have controlled and run our government into the ground for a long time. The only way we are to break the cycle of controlled politics is to vote for candidates not in their pockets. > Good thinking, but I think the answer is more with the process, however I get your point Nick, I think it sends a strong message to the other plutocratically-controlled politicians to either do the right thing or face uncertainty in their election bids. But I think there are other ways, namely amendments and possibly a convention, if and only if we can prevent it from being hijacked by those interests. Obama is not the one, follow the money. Obama is funded by the super rich and corporations. > Well, President Obama is funded to a large extent by small contributions and through unions which generally represent broad bases of working citizens, but the influence has eroded my confidence in his ability to create real change. I would probably vote for Ralph Nader if he ran, and push for amendments, or vote for Russ Feingold or for Bill Moyers, since I would rather see Ron Paul's ideals with campaign funding coupled with a more progressive government philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackplay Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 A comedian said, "all these candidates are campaigning for a tv-show on Fox News. It's time to vote for the person not for a party. You might not like President Obama but he is better than all these guys. See ya in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Obama still gets his major funding from Unions, Wall St., major corporations and the super-wealthy. Their funding and influence if I'm correct is far more than the average donations from middle class Americans. Obama like all the others is the corporate candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackplay Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ^ it's PRESIDENT Obama It's disrespectful to the nation and to the flag to omit "President" when talking about him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 I called Bush Bush and Obama Obama...better than lying fascist pigs who broke most their promises, sold out to major corporations and attacked our freedoms while attacking other nations and killing innocent people. Which president am I talking about? haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackplay Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I called Bush Bush and Obama Obama...better than lying fascist pigs who broke most their promises, sold out to major corporations and attacked our freedoms while attacking other nations and killing innocent people. Which president am I talking about? haha LOL, you hate everyone equally. And sorry, the next president will be the same as the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 LOL, you hate everyone equally. And sorry, the next president will be the same as the others. No I love many. Just not the exact same people with different smiles. There are good people out there who would be different but as long as people cling to the one party system pretending to be a two party system and listen to the media, we will never break the control on our nations and elect politicians that are actually different and independent. Ron Paul for exampe or Ralph Nadar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck kottke Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Hm, well last time he ran, President Obama received over 50% of his campaign donations from small donations of $200 or less; I haven't checked where he is this time around though, and I suspect that will be less. Unions are member organizations that represent large groups of working class citizens, so they're not like some billionaire who wants it all for himself. It is the big checks in the end that sway all of them, I agree. My focus is on reform, on amendments to make elections fair and end the buying of government - those are progressive issues that may hold more weight than anything else, since it's at the root of the problems we face. And you know, you're right - he is President Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matter-Eater Lad Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 Unions are run by rich who use the power they get from the unions like gang lords. I've talked with many people who've been in unions. the union bosses make out like kings from it. They're just as bad as corporation CEO's. Obama rolls with the super wealthy be them Union leaders, corporate leaders, wall st or other politicians. The outcome is the same, he's controlled by the super wealthy one way or another. Does it matter is some of them are super wealthy unions? The leaders of most those unions are just as bad as those on Wall st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck kottke Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Hm, I think Unions vary in their leadership, I know there are corruption issues and power issues at the top, yes, but generally I still see them as working for their members, which are diverse and on more equal footing than wall street's financiers and power brokers. I haven't studied the matter closely; perhaps it's as bad as you say it is Nick. President Obama has been captured too much by the plutocrats, I agree. What is needed goes beyond all this, into the realm of amendments and citizen-led conventions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ^ it's PRESIDENT Obama It's disrespectful to the nation and to the flag to omit "President" when talking about him Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Hatter Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Seriously? i know right :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I like your new avatar :dazzled: Though the old one was better :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now