Media Ignoring Ron Paul's debate success?

thats because both sides are controlled by the same interests.

 

I hear this critcism a lot - I don't understand why it is not reciprocal.

I ask you what are republicans for? And don't give me "small government, less interference" because the last 6 years of Republican domination of the Executive, House and Senate have proven the opposite.

It seems to me that the Republican message is either decidedly mixed and inconsistent, with a few superficial trimmngs like "supporthing the troops" and "protecting america" added in.

 

Of course, and I don't consider it socialism in the context with which I'm using it, any more than I consider George Bush a Socialist. In my opinion, if one wants to drag socialism into a description of George W. Bush, then, to be honest, one would need to compare it to the historical examples I used... such as National Socialism. I don't think anyone wants to go there, so ignoring that historical comparison, you can scarcely call Bush a Socialist. Not in the modern context. An idiot, yes. An anchor around the country's neck, yes. Creator of a foreign policy disaster that will harm this nation for decades, yes. A "tax cutter" who didn't give a damn about creating a record deficit while paying off his friends and supporters, yes.

A Socialist? I don't think so.



D&D. Peanut Butter.

 

Blah, blah, blah. (with all due respect) There is no difference in the two parties. Who cares which one wins.
Ron Paul is a god.



Check who's been appointed to lifetime seats on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court, and then tell me with a straight face that they are both controlled by the same "interests."




D&D. Crunchy Peanut Butter.

 

Just about every W voter I've ever had the opportunity to engage in discussion eventually ends it with the declarative statement:

"Gore or Kerry would have been much worse!"

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate with the guts and gumption to address the illegal immigration disaster this country is facing.

 

I agree with you 100% on this point. IMO, people who insist there aren't differences between the two major parties are either intellectually dishonest or just ignorant.

On the other hand, while they aren't controlled by the same interests, the two parties are controlled by power/pressure groups who by use of campaign money and single issue voting, dis-proportionally impose their views on the rest of society. These power/pressure groups are so parasitically ingrained on their selected party that their deathgrips cannot be broken. This is why I will always be an independent and will never EVER align myself with the Dems or GOP. Both sides are just too infected to be salvageable. My reaction is to vote election by election, which includes a few "none of the above" ballots in the presidential votes. In nearly all Senate and House contests, I can easily make a choice.

 

I largely agree with you, A_3PO, that both parties are heavily influenced by special interests that have quite a grip on both of them... some are playing both sides, and some are supporting the party that most reflects what would be of benefit to their particular special interest. I'm not going to say, "These power/pressure groups are so parasitically ingrained on their selected party that their deathgrips cannot be broken." History has shown that different influences can be brought to bear, given time and/or opportunity, that can bring true change regardless of the heavy handed influence to which you refer. Look at what FDR did. Look at the social change brought about by the proposals and policies of JFK/LBJ. While certainly one can disagree with much of the latter changes on an ideological basis, can anyone seriously be against the civil rights legislation? The Voting Rights Act? Were those brought about by "power/pressure groups so parasitically ingrained on their selected party that their deathgrips can't be broken?" (very well written, by the way) Not in those instances, as well as others. And I want to point out the role Republicans had getting those passed. Men like Everett Dirksen voted acting on their conscious, not what was politically expedient. LBJ knew he was throwing away the South for the Democratic Party, but did what he felt was right.

Cynicism is all well and good. I'm a cynic myself. But I think it can be carried too far, and can lead to dispair, with people opting out of the political process "because it doesn't matter." It does matter. I don't see a chance in hell for a third party in this country for the forseeable future. Why not work for change within the party that you feel best represents how you look at things? I considered myself an Independent for a long time, but began to believe that it was ultimately a cop-out. I still vote for the odd Republican, and sometimes vote for "none of the above," but when it comes to Congress and the Presidency, the stakes are too important, power/pressure groups or not, to stand by and not do something that counts towards your core values. The Federal courts represent that better than anything else I can think of. That, and the power to make war and conduct peace.




D&D. Here We Are.

 

What about Tancredo?

 

Deckard, I hear what you are saying, but I feel too distanced from either party to take your course of action. Also, obviously, my negative feelings about the Democratic Party are much stronger than yours. Still, my cynicism hasn't driven me away from the democratic process to the point of non-participation. If some people allow themselves to fall into despair (as you call it) and opt out "because it doesn't matter", then it's their decision to be lazy and make excuses for staying home. I have no respect for people like that. Everyone that I know who is informed about issues, votes. The ones who say "it doesn't matter" are just ignorant and rationalize their lack of effort to learn.

As you point out, the two party system does have moments where great things happen. As a militant independent, I can enjoy them from my perspective as much as anyone else. Swing voters are key to punishing the kooks and extreme edges of both parties and injecting common sense and the true public interest into debates where political alliances, vendettas and single issue groups would otherwise rule. That's where I belong.

 

And it is a good place to be, one I respect. It is the Great Middle that both parties depend on to win elections. As the polarization of the electorate has reached new heights, driven, in my opinion, largely by the current leadership of the GOP, both in the White House, and formerly in Congress, it has left the middle, to a great extent, confused and directionless. Open to the campaigns based on fear and vilification of the opponents, in the GOP as well as the Democratic Party, of the President's ruling clique.

You may know many that vote, as do I, but I would argue, and the facts speak for themselves, that most Americans have opted out of the process. I don't think it is just for lack of knowledge, that they are "just ignorant," but that they have been driven from the process, deliberately, by the GOP's tactics of fear and gross untruth about the opposition (to be polite), and by my own party's uncanny ability to nominate leaders so colorless and inept as campaigners (notice I didn't just say inept... there is a difference between someone who cannot run a decent campaign and give a good stump speech, and someone just plainly inept. That would describe the current occupant of the Oval Office) that they can throw away certain victory.

Why else can a political party win elections, until last Fall, with the leadership under the undue influence of a few groups of religious and political extremists? In my opinion, that is a large part of what we have been seeing. By contrast to the GOP, the Democratic Party is a big tent full of groups fighting each other more effectively than they have been fighting the opposition. Certainly more effectively than the recent GOP Congress and the President's people have been fighting this war without end.



D&D. D&D Without End.

 

Yep, a large number of Americans don't vote, but what are the percentages over the last 20-30 years? Has it decreased significantly? Doesn't seem like it but I have no idea. Actually, I'm under the impression it's gone up.

My terminology may have been overly harsh on those who don't vote and a better word could be found to describe my feelings. Still, I have little patience for folks who complain and don't participate. Then again, people that thoughtlessly vote straight ticket out of habit or tradition are just as bad in a different way.

 

for the record
Ron Paul is not *my* candidate

But Obama grew because of his media Savy IMO
He got good media because of Charisma etc
The DNC speech sky rocketed him . . . .If no media was there
he's still be the guy from Ill.

The talking heads in the media 'buzzing' about him for the weeks following etc


Rocket River

 

did i hit a nerve? just because i favor a particular candidate doesnt mean i think they are "god". i guess when you start advocating for hillary or barak or whichever puppet the dems throw out you looking at them as a deity?
hillary is a god! (i just threw up in my mouth)

i dont have the same hatred for the dems that i do for the republicans over the last 6 years. i feel personally insulted as an american citizen by the way they have acted and abused their power, but i still think that in the end it doesnt matter which party is in power - there will be no real sea change in the direction of this country.

both parties are totally controlled by special interest groups, lobbyists and corporate interests - often the same groups have their hands in both parties. who controls legislation? who writes legislation? special interest groups who pony up the money - our congress is nothing more than a bunch of prostitutes, whoring out their "power" to the highest bidder and it matters not if it is a D or an R infront of their name.

both parties favor NAFTA, the north american union and a globalist agenda, which is destroying the middle and working class in this country.

while the republican congress was against amnesty, bush and the democrats were for it. now that the democrats are in power the liberal bush will get his wish.

both parties advocated for the iraq war. up until recently hillary was still going around saying how invading iraq was the right thing to do. clinton, like reagan and bush, undertook an unconstitutional war w/out a congressional declaration - obviously though, his war worked out a little better than bushs. if the democrats really wanted to end the war they could by exercising their constitutional authority by cutting off funding (power of the purse).

both parties favor increased government (although the bush administration has taken it to new heights). maybe they want to spend the money differently, but both parties still want as much as they can get thru taxing us. both are pro-irs.

lets look at both sides favorite rallying points - the clintons and the bushs - while the american public is busy fighting and arguing over who is worse, they are amigos. and rupert murdoch is holding multiple fundraisers for hillary clinton.

now, im not living in some fantasy-land where i believe that ron paul will be the next president, but i think his is a message that needs to be heard. i do honestly believe that if he was able to get the exposure that a clinton or mccain got that the majority of the american people (r, d or i) would embrace his platform.

d&d. you never get what you vote for.

 

well imo, the people who insist that the republicans and democrats are different are intellectually dishonest or just ignorant.

 

In 2004, the first election I voted in, I remember telling my dad how impressed I was with certain Democrats that had no shot of getting nominated. The basis for my thinking was essentially "they do so good in the debates, dad!" He made a very interesting point to me that I'd never considered before when I said that. He essentially told me "hey, these guys that have no shot at getting elected have the capability to promise the world because they know they'll never be held accountable for their words." They'll never have to try to put their plans into action because they won't get close to the Oval Office. I thought it was a very good point.

 

nation building
deficit spending
torture
anti-gay agenda, but pro-gay male hooker
integration of corporate influence into government (fascism)
destruction of the constitution
spying on american citizens
north american union
amnesty for illegals
"free speech zones"
war profiteering

 

Well I don't know how different the reps and dems are but I do know they all borrow money from the same rich bankers, they all join the same government policy organizations and they all support the policies that are spit out for example members of both parties litter the G8 teams, CFR meetings, Bildeberger think tanks, WTO etc etc etc etc ( they all like attending these meetings sipping wine together and boasting of their policy differences.) who really cares if they spend a billion $$$ on domestic programs (dems-focus) or a billion $$$ on foreign interventions and business breaks (rebs- focus) as long as we borrow and rich people stay rich and the rest of us get poorer....

All the government politicians in both parties and branches of governement hold hands with the World Bank/IMF and they jump when the Fed tells them to jump and they sit down when their corporate sponsors tell them to sit down.

The parties are controlled and those who try to buck the party are quieted, or ignored.

I have talked to one congressman that told me to my face what a crooked bunch of crooks are doing all of the above and gave me examples. (obvious who) Many congressmen don't realize how little power they have, they think voting for or against party is policy making. Congressmen never read legislation, just the summaries. Most apparantly think party line and party politics is how American does business so they primarily vote as they are told or pressured to vote. They compromise because principle and truth don't get you anywhere and they soon lose any self conviction they took into office once they realize that the only thing that works in Washington is power and you can't fight power. But because they carry party politics they think they have power, make a difference and that 'their' agenda is moving forward. Do you think a banker wanting you to borrow 15 million dollars cares if you build a dam in Tennessee or build a port in Alabama or buy meals on wheels in California, or send bullets to Iraq or condoms to Africa? Nope those expenses mean little to the bankers, the debt is increasing, the government is growing and control is more centralized and easy to manage.

I think saying some great conspiracy is running America is childish...America is run by rich bankers and rich industrialists. It is so out in the open and easy to see that only someone who thinks the Emporer has all his clothes on would believe that the president or the congress or the reps and dems are the decision makers.

I would personally listen to the owners of the New York Federal Reserve Bank before I would believe anything the President or Congress has to say.


Blah blah blah.... it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong (I can't afford to believe what I am saying anyhow- I am a middle of the road guy in real life )....nobody I know of in Washington is asking me anyways- this is D&D and there is no way I am going to express my normal middle of the road views, this is the only opportunity I get to spout out the most radical things I read about- And this is about the only time I can waste thinking about it. .

 

or educationally and politically brainwashed.

 

^ So Rhester you and Jo Mama see no difference between Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito?

Both parties in power tend to govern the same but that doesn't mean there aren't huge differences when it comes to policies and appointments.