We staged a hostile take over of the Republican party

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
[quote/]

Well for Ron Paul, he had 30 years to increase his following and it reached a point and stayed there. This is indicitive of the amount of support he would ever get. His message resonated with a certain segment but was not flexible enough to go any further.

His strength was also his limitation. Its good to have unchanging principles but to appeal to enough voters to win an election you need to be willing to compromise.


I don't agree, I think people want someone to stand for them, and not compromise! I agree with Ron Paul's politics, but I wonder if he is some kind of gatekeeper.
edit on 7-4-2013 by downtown436 because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately for Ron Paul, he never had enough people who believed he stood for them. His message simply did not resonate with enough of the voting public. He did things that many people did not like, such as voting against the Amber Alert Bill because it violated his principles.

Many people, such as myself, would like politicians to realize that sometimes you need to compromise your principles to get good things done.




posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I understand the CIA determined by the mid-70's, by the Soviets' own information (birth death rates, alcoholism deaths, poverty rates etc) that the Soviet Union was not viable, it was matter of waiting them out. Then Bush got CIA (the A-team I recall..?) and they decided the Soviets were 10 feet tall and we had to spend all we could. No proof and all evidence is buried as usual.

Actually was the collapse of the SU a good thing? Growing up in the Cold War (6th grade during the Cuban Missile Crisis with a Nike base 1/2 mile over), as time went on I sort of imagined they would just slowly mellow, I am still amazed by the implosion. Only quasi-snark: the bipolar world kept all these little tinpot dictators and religious fanatics somewhat in line.

But more importantly, accepting the conventional wisdom as fact, my main point is to note the Reagan deficits, good or bad, did happen. The GOP, and points right, sure seem to be willfully blind on this repeating issue of 'conservatives' plunging us into huge deficits deficit via tax cuts and military expansion.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Cool.
Best of luck to you all.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBoomersRBusted
I understand the CIA determined by the mid-70's, by the Soviets' own information (birth death rates, alcoholism deaths, poverty rates etc) that the Soviet Union was not viable, it was matter of waiting them out. Then Bush got CIA (the A-team I recall..?) and they decided the Soviets were 10 feet tall and we had to spend all we could. No proof and all evidence is buried as usual.

Actually was the collapse of the SU a good thing? Growing up in the Cold War (6th grade during the Cuban Missile Crisis with a Nike base 1/2 mile over), as time went on I sort of imagined they would just slowly mellow, I am still amazed by the implosion. Only quasi-snark: the bipolar world kept all these little tinpot dictators and religious fanatics somewhat in line.

But more importantly, accepting the conventional wisdom as fact, my main point is to note the Reagan deficits, good or bad, did happen. The GOP, and points right, sure seem to be willfully blind on this repeating issue of 'conservatives' plunging us into huge deficits deficit via tax cuts and military expansion.


Remember though that under Carter, we were not holding the Soviet Union in check. They were pursuing an expansionist policy and its unclear whether they would have eventually imploded or not. The fact was that Reagan did a complete 180 from Carter and made it clear that he was going to pursue a policy of containment no matter what part of the globe it happened in.

What he didn't tell the people was that he was pursuing a purposeful policy of outspending the Soviets in everything and he did. The Soviets had to match us, missile for missile and they simply did not have the resources to do this. Eventually their economy started to buckle and Gorbachev was forced to implement the glasnost and perestroika policies which in turn led to the uprising of independence of many of the Soviet States.

Once Gorbachev announced to East Germany that they were on their own when they asked for help in containing german defectors it led to a chain reaction and the Soviet Union crumbled. This was all directly because of the spending that Reagan embarked on.

It of course is far more complicated than that but this thread isn't really about Reaganomics.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Agreed re going oftthread re Reaganomics, it just always pushes my button ignoring the debts run up, good or bad.

Back to the original poster: may not agree but that's the way to do it, grass roots! We all should do likewise. Who knows, we might even talk.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I like what you're doing. I don't like the attitude. What I mean by that is the attitude that you guys love freedom, and republicans and democrats hate freedom. This attitude that all of the positions you hold are correct, and anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom. I guarantee you hold some positions that are "anti-freedom."
Society can't exist where everyone is completely free. Trust me, I've been there. But I grew up and realized some rules are okay. Some government is okay. The government we have right now isn't. But that's not the position you guys are taking.
The position you guys are taking is extreme, and you won't get the majority support. Because most people are moderate in their beliefs. They believe that some government is necessary, but it shouldn't be too big. Taking the stance that we need to drastically cut government is extreme. And not giving specifics on what you guys actually want to cut is scary.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I think it is extreme and scary that you get taxed on both ends of every single financial transaction you make, and on every piece of property you own!!!

So here is what I would like to see happen while I am alive. So you maybe won't think I'm extreme and scary:

-Be able to own a piece of property. (right now you cannot, because of property taxes)

-Provide for my own welfare and that of my family by growing food, and raising animals, using said property.

-To have an expectation of privacy.

-Watch my kids grow up in a place that is safe.

-Be able to conduct business in a business friendly environment.

-Expect that the rule of law applies to everyone equally, no matter what position or title they may have, and no matter how "big" they are.

-Have a cleaner healthier planet.

-See an end to the insane military adventures we are participating in.

-See the world get along better.

So, do you really think I am an insane extremist?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 





Well first of all, libertarians, at least their presidential candidate, wants to do away with all borders. He is on record as saying that he wants no border with Mexico.


Thanks for bringing this up. There are several branches of "Libertarian". There is Green Libertarian and Socialist Libertarian (or Left-Libertarian), and in my view they might as well be in the Progressive Party, but perhaps they are less Statist than their Progressive cousins.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Well, I know I'm always saying we have too many laws. However, I feel the need to say we need, perhaps, just ONE MORE law.


I propose that people write their reps or..if we HAVE a couple politicians here (I know we do...they just don't say a word about it, I think), pressure needs applied for a law to this effect:


Any food or beverage products which are set for disposal yet in a condition fit and safe for human consumption must first be offered to the local neighborhood before being disposed of in any other way.

An exception would have to be in there for the routine dumping of expired food during normal business. The first thing that crossed my mind was how people could just wait for things to time out in a neighborhood store and game things. Outside of that one exception so business can still be in business, I'd say this ought to carry county jail time as the penalty for dumping perfectly good food which people in need could use.

There were 17 Million people on food stamps in 2001. There are 46 million on them now!
(Source

These people were pathetic to DO this, the cops were sorry excuses for civil servants and protectors of the people in actually guarding the outrage ....and I'm rather surprised the people didn't over-run the cops and just take the stuff ...or at the dump.

Hungry people will do almost anything to feed their kids. Almost anything at all. (and almost isn't even a term I think everyone would use). It's just good common sense and social policy to AVOID it whenever possible ...and helping to alleviate in in THIS neighborhood would literally have SAVED money. The fuel for the trucks which hauled the dumpsters could have been saved.

I'll bet, not a carton would have been left within 15 minutes. Not even a scrap.
edit on 7-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Minor Correction



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
What about the 'small parties' going door to door to collect signatures to be included in the state ballot during national elections? With the exception of the libertarians who managed to be on all or at least on most state ballots this time, the other parties are lagging behind severly.

I suppose taking over the republican and democrat establishment at the local level is one way to sidestep the issue, but america is in dire need of many parties, not just two. This is what needs to happen in the long run before we go to other countries to force our twisted version of democracy on them. Foriegners are probably laughing at our duopoly while their third parties get 5-10 times more than american third parties. Of course they have a parliamentary system rather than a presidential system, but the basics are still the same everywhere.

And Ron Paul is no libertarian imo. He is more of a traditional conservative that stands out against the neo-conservatives. Gary Johnson is the real libertarian(financially conservative and socially liberal).

I think the system is very rigged and that there is no easy solution.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


How would you do it fairly? How would you stop people from mugging other people for their groceries?
Before anyone asks, I have seen someone mugged for their groceries.

I agree it's a waste of food. And bad PR at the least.
But no matter what, people will try to game/ cheat/ exploit the system.

So while I am in agreement with your sentiment. How would you make the distribution fair, or at the least acceptable to the general public?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Hopechest
 





Well first of all, libertarians, at least their presidential candidate, wants to do away with all borders. He is on record as saying that he wants no border with Mexico.


Thanks for bringing this up. There are several branches of "Libertarian". There is Green Libertarian and Socialist Libertarian (or Left-Libertarian), and in my view they might as well be in the Progressive Party, but perhaps they are less Statist than their Progressive cousins.


"Libertarian" is basically anyone that is anti-statism, although I believe the definition of social liberalism and financial conservatism is more appropriate. If someone is a "green libertarian" they might as well vote green party. If someone is a "socialist libertarian" they might as well vote for a socialist party(2-3 exist).

A lot of people are against statism because the democrats(especially) and the republicans have given it a horrible name. Statism doesn't have to be horrible, but it does have a tendency to be somewhat wasteful and intrusive.
edit on 7/4/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by randomtangentsrme
 


Well, I'd say the same way they do the handouts of free food for the Government Commodities Program. I'm not sure about all the details as people going to the location would know it on that but it sounds very similar with Gov't food, pre-purchased, instead of surplus or unwanted like this?

In fact, I just thought of this, but since Commodities operate in a good % of the states and Tribal lands, why not just have this kind of thing donated straight into that program where possible? FREE Government help from intake to output for a change?



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Well, if the actions of some of the Tea Party "revolutionaries" is any indication, expect more of the same racism and bigotry spewed by the mainstream GOP.

Meet the new party, same as the old...



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


lol if we went by Reagan we might as well just have a single religion.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I think that if these morons actually believe what they are saying, they should be allowed to have a party. We should not have to overthrow a party that has different ideas. What we need is MORE parties, and more fairness in getting those parties and their views exposed to the citizens of this country. We need more choices. As it stands now, there is no way for a president who truly cares about helping only the middle classes and lower classes can get elected. This is because neither of the two parties are going to allow someone to get their nomination unless they share specific beliefs.

We saw this with Ron Paul. The republican party cheated him out of the nomination simply because he was someone who wanted to change things for the people. Both parties say they want to help the people and make things better, but this is not true. Their agendas are much different, and the only time they will do things to help people is if they can use that at some point in the future to help the party. I am not really explaining it all that well, but I think you may get what I am trying to say.

Candidates for major offices should not be allowed to accept campaign donations from private citizens, or from businesses, even under the table, and this needs to be cracked down on. We need a system that will give us about 10-12 candidates, who are then given a specific amount of money by the government for their campaigns, and that is all they are allowed to use. Or have some deal to allow every single candidate the same amount of airtime on tv and radio. It needs to be equal. And with this equal exposure and plethora of views on politics, we will actually finally have representation. As it stands now, with two parties, we are not adequately represented as a people.

Think about those benefiting the most, or getting the most, from politicians. It is the businesses. Between them and the politicians, we could turn things around overnight. I think the businesses need to be taken care of first, because that would be the easiest way to clean up politics. But it could be done the other way around, although I think it may be more difficult.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


awesome


thank you



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Ron Paul supports the gold standard and the naive view that if we leave other countries alone they won't bother us. There is not enough gold in all of America, including Fort Knox, to operate our modern economy. And if you think hostile dictatorships will just leave us alone, you must have missed out on Pearl Harbor and 9/11 somehow. Because of these views, I cannot support Ron Paul.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Where did u hear this?? I'm sure Gary Johnson or Rand Paul would be oppose to that. Who is the person who said this?



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cornucopia
reply to post by downtown436
 


awesome


thank you


You are welcome!





new topics
 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join