33 replies to this topic

[Wrukag]

Personally I'm a supporter and campaign volunteer for Paul. I don't see any difference between Romney and Obama personally.

My neighbors are huge Obama supporters, but I don't see how or why. I haven't heard a single good argument as to why Obama should get another term so I'd like to be challenged on that.

And my GF's dad lovvves himself some Romney, again I can't understand why.

Discuss?

[Bone]

Obama.

Because Paul is an unelectable, uncompromising extremist and Romney will likely attempt to make America into a corporation.

[Wrukag]

Obama.

Because Paul is an unelectable, uncompromising extremist and Romney will likely attempt to make America into a corporation.

I think Paul is very electable, not to democrats obviously, mostly because of healthcare.

And America is a corporation, it started waaaay back when we adopted centralized banking.

Again, I don't see a difference between Romney and Obama. The only thing that separates the two parties anymore are a few social issues. However when it comes to things such as war, police state, eroding your civil liberties Obama is no different then Bush was.

[Bone]

I think Paul is very electable, not to democrats obviously, mostly because of healthcare.

That must be why he's failed to win a single primary.

And America is a corporation, it started waaaay back when we adopted centralized banking.

Not really. Comparing the national economy to that of a firm is a gross oversimplification.

Again, I don't see a difference between Romney and Obama. The only thing that separates the two parties anymore are a few social issues. However when it comes to things such as war, police state, eroding your civil liberties Obama is no different then Bush was.

Obama's far from perfect. But I'd rather him than the anti-gay, anti-middle class, anti-science, anti-union, anti-women, anti-sustainability, anti-healthcare candidate.

[Wrukag]

That must be why he's failed to win a single primary.

And what about caucus states? Ron Paul is doing very well here in WA state. The fight for the GOP nomination is far from over.

Obama's far from perfect. But I'd rather him than the anti-gay, anti-middle class, anti-science, anti-union, anti-women, anti-sustainability, anti-healthcare candidate.

So, social issues? My concerns aren't really whether or nor two men can get married or a womens right to choose. Mine are the Patriot Act, NDAA, foreign wars, invasion of privacy, secret prisons, torture, limited access to 4'th and 5'th amendment, drug wars, DoE, DEA, FDA etc. Thats why I support Ron Paul.

[WharfRat]

That must be why he's failed to win a single primary.

That's not ENTIRELY true... Ron Paul did win the majority vote in the Virgin Islands but because the delegates aren't awarded strictly based upon majority vote, the vast majority of the delegates went to Romney. Similarly in Virginia when Paul won 40.5% of the vote to Romney'59.5% but only received 3 delegates to Romney's 43.... Now even as a former/quasi-libertarian I understand that Ron Paul is not electable as libertarianism simply doesn't have the kind of momentum to actually break into any kind of majority vote... But let's not discount the movement Dr. Paul has brought forth from the youth. There are a lot of really fervent supporters of Dr. Paul and for a GOP candidate, that's actually a pretty big deal. Libertarianism, or at least some of the ideas of libertarianism, are now receiving exposure to a massive portion of the population to the large effort of Dr. Paul. So I'm not really diagreeing with you on the fact that Paul will not be elected... but I feel we should be fair in our assessment of the matter.

To address the OP, I understand why you feel that Romney and Obama are the same candidate. They do both represent government solutions to the problems that face society.[Un]fortunately, the majority of the populous believes that the answer really lies in government's hand... So that factor isn't really how most American's approach the subject. To them, those "few social issues" are huge issues that they feel are pivotal to our progression as a nation. Personally, I agree with you that both the GOP and the Democratic Party have far much more in common with one another than they do differences and the majority of differences come from media propaganda to stir up support... However, as I understand that libertarianism isn't ready for the mainstream, I've sided with the Democratic Party at this time as I feel that the preservation of social liberties are my highest priority.

Although I do think Obama will win a second term, I think that Paul running as a third party candidate will definitely help Obama towards such a goal.

Just my opinion. Don't crucify me for it.

[ToxicS]

I know I am repeating this from a different thread but:



This basically echoes my opinions about obama and romney.

[Romy]

I think Paul is very electable, not to democrats obviously, mostly because of healthcare.

No. He will be a Kennedy like president. No one in congress will respect him at all and the only way he will pass bills is by making EXTREME concessions to the other 2 parties.

Getting elected is only half the battle. Gaining Congress' respect is a whole 'nother ball game.

Ron Paul would be a useless president.

[ToxicS]

No. He will be a Kennedy like president. No one in congress will respect him at all and the only way he will pass bills is by making EXTREME concessions to the other 2 parties.

Getting elected is only half the battle. Gaining Congress' respect is a whole 'nother ball game.

Ron Paul would be a useless president.

Well, it doesn't help that Congress is being funded (aka bribed) by almost every ideal Ron Paul is against.

[Romy]

Well, it doesn't help that Congress is being funded by almost every ideal Ron Paul is against.

Yeah. I'd be surprised if they didn't bully him out of power xD

[NapisaurusRex]

I'm tempted not to vote at all this year. Sometimes it feels like it's going to be screwed up any way it goes. I don't like any of them, for varying reasons.

[Bone]

And what about caucus states? Ron Paul is doing very well here in WA state. The fight for the GOP nomination is far from over.

The nomination is over, and you'd be deluding yourself to think otherwise. Paul will continue to try to spread his message, but it's literally impossible for him to win enough delegates.

So, social issues? My concerns aren't really whether or nor two men can get married or a womens right to choose. Mine are the Patriot Act, NDAA, foreign wars, invasion of privacy, secret prisons, torture, limited access to 4'th and 5'th amendment, drug wars, DoE, DEA, FDA etc. Thats why I support Ron Paul.

...most of those are social issues. Again, Obama is clearly the better choice when compared to Romney. Until the (legislated or otherwise) breakdown of the two-party system, nobody else has a chance in presidential elections.

I'm interested what you think about DoE, DEA, and FDA? Are you calling for their repeal? I'm doubting you truly understand the implications of Austrian economics, considering that you said Obamacare was a good idea in a different thread...

[MisterDerp]

No. He will be a Kennedy like president. No one in congress will respect him at all and the only way he will pass bills is by making EXTREME concessions to the other 2 parties.

Getting elected is only half the battle. Gaining Congress' respect is a whole 'nother ball game.

Ron Paul would be a useless president.

I think he'd be more like Kennedy in that once it's shown he's going against the people who are really in charge, he'll be conveniently "disposed of". In his case, he might get permission to audit the Federal Reserve, but he'll be conveniently killed a day or two before he performs it.

[Romy]

I think he'd be more like Kennedy in that once it's shown he's going against the people who are really in charge, he'll be conveniently "disposed of". In his case, he might get permission to audit the Federal Reserve, but he'll be conveniently killed a day or two before he performs it.

I meant a Kennedy president in the sense that congress will never respect him.

I don't think he would amount to much. Killing him will be unnecessary.

[Bone]

I think he'd be more like Kennedy in that once it's shown he's going against the people who are really in charge, he'll be conveniently "disposed of". In his case, he might get permission to audit the Federal Reserve, but he'll be conveniently killed a day or two before he performs it.

I think you might find this website interesting.

[MisterDerp]

I think you might find this website interesting.

Could you try explaining why I'm wrong rather than linking to extreme conspiracy theorist horse shit? You're not proving a point by linking to that website.

I'm open to other opinions unless you're gonna link me to TomFlocco.com (he was my music teacher in elementary school >_>) or some other garbage.

I edit my posts a buh-million times.

Edited by MisterDerp, 04 May 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Bone]

I think he'd be more like Kennedy in that once it's shown he's going against the people who are really in charge, he'll be conveniently "disposed of". In his case, he might get permission to audit the Federal Reserve, but he'll be conveniently killed a day or two before he performs it.

Could you try explaining why I'm wrong rather than linking to extreme conspiracy theorist horse shit? You're not proving a point by linking to that website.

I'm open to other opinions unless you're gonna link me to TomFlocco.com (he was my music teacher in elementary school >_>) or some other garbage.

I edit my posts a buh-million times.

How is what I posted any less verifiable than the conspiracy theory you're arguing?

[ToxicS]

For those new people, I did originally vote for Obama, so I am very angry at his actions so far.

Edited by ToxicS, 04 May 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[jsmithson]

They're all roughly equal. Obama and Romney are practically identical, and Paul's close enough . They're all liars and hypocrites, more concernec with getting votes than doing the right thing.

[Junsu]

I wouldnt vote at all, but Obama's going to win. He knows how to appeal to the public, even though he lies etc etc.
He hasn't really done anything exceptionally good but he hasnt done anything exceptionally bad.

[ToxicS]

I wouldnt vote at all, but Obama's going to win. He knows how to appeal to the public, even though he lies etc etc.
He hasn't really done anything exceptionally good but he hasnt done anything exceptionally bad.

He has done some war crimes, but so has George W Bush so I guess that's the norm these days.

[Bone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjC3DwmURUU

He has done some war crimes, but so has George W Bush so I guess that's the norm these days.

Having recently visited Flint, I would advise you to not trust anyone within a few hundred miles of the city.

[ToxicS]

Having recently visited Flint, I would advise you to not trust anyone within a few hundred miles of the city.

??? He uses sources if you expand the description box..

[Blackout]

Obama's far from perfect. But I'd rather him than the anti-gay, anti-middle class, anti-science, anti-union, anti-women, anti-sustainability, anti-healthcare candidate.

[NapisaurusRex]

I wouldnt vote at all, but Obama's going to win. He knows how to appeal to the public, even though he lies etc etc.
He hasn't really done anything exceptionally good but he hasnt done anything exceptionally bad.

Well, I don't know. I thought he was going to win, I really did. But did you see the WV primaries?