Obama, Romney, Gingrich are all for more war more laws that destroy the constitution (Obama just signed the NDAA) More printing of money by the Federal reserve to pay for all their bureaucracy More corporate bailouts to their campaign donors More of business as usual.
The one candidate who is actually LEADING in Iowa by at least 4 percentage points at 23 percent, is RON PAUL!!!!
People, if Ron Paul wasn't a treat to the lesser of two evils, why would they black him out. think critically now, read his policies and look at hos perfect record.
Take your country back. Or keep trusting the corporate state media. Its your choice. But NEVER COMPLAIN AGAIN if you don't give Dr. Paul a thorough comparative look.
I too was surprised that Ron Paul was mentioned only once in this article, as if he is not part of the battle.
We normally only consider the candidates placed right in front of us by the mainstream corporate-owned media, even though those candidates made themselves visible by taking legal bribes (campaign contributions). And then we complain about how the politicians we elect answer to the people whose money made them visible.
We should use imagination and initiative to search for alternative candidates. We don't have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. Let's just refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).
It's satisfying to deny consent to the existing system by voting that way.
Voters in primary elections should insist on voting for such a candidate, if their party has one available. There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals; Texas Congressman Ron Paul allegedly is one of them, and he's the most famous current example that I know of. If you must vote within the two party system, then candidates like him are a good choice.
Maybe the media aren't ignoring Ron Paul as a conspiracy; maybe the media decision makers just assume his views are too radical and that his lack of wealthy supporters means he has no chance. He won't be doing big advertising buys from them, because he doesn't accept the influence of powerful interests!
But if no candidate like that wins the primary for either major party, my strategy would require voting for neither Democrats nor Republicans. Other parties' candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election. It's OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo.
If more people start voting for those outside party weirdos you see on ballots, it becomes more likely that sensible independent candidates will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.
That 3rd party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot). The best outsider candidate would be a centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties. And that risk is another reason it would be so much better for both Democratic and Republican primary voters to select nominees who don't take any form of influence money.
Lack of change results from almost everyone voting for either Democrat or Republican mainstream candidates. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it's clear that that won't change anything.
Why should we forget about the past harm they've done? It's not like that harm was accidental; it was the result of both responding to lobbying and acting based on party ideology. We should assume that politicians of both parties will repeat some of their past harmful actions.
Voters should stop focusing only on candidates who are visible in debates and TV ads. Unless a candidate is extremely wealthy, to be visible he/she has to work within the two parties' systems and to take campaign contributions from powerful interests.
Enough people voted for Republicans in 2010 to give them a House majority, while we were still suffering from the economic consequences of Republican policies. We got rid of them only two years before that. What about Republicans had changed in two years, that we should trust them? Nothing. Their bad deeds merit their permanent banishment from public office, unless they are taking no special interest money. Though voting for Democrats in 2008 was questionable also, because they contributed to those same problems.
Some voters were seduced by Obama's charisma or saw his election as a chance to break down a racial barrier; they did not insist that he offer real solutions before voting for him. They were kind of like the voters who elected George W. Bush in spite of his indifference to facts and policy.
There's a saying: "In every democracy, the people get the government they deserve". We're getting abused because we choose the wrong representatives. It's our fault, and it's our responsibility to change that.
Who else are you going to vote for? We need an intelligent businessman with an honest history. Career politicians have not gotten the job done. We need someone who is what we all strive to be, successful.
Hey CBS, guess what, there are more candidates in this race than two. This battle is NOT between your pet candidates. The PEOPLE will choose, so stop trying to shape politics and do the one thing you're barely, if at all, competent at: report it.
Ron Paul is in a statistical tie with Newt Gingrich in the latest Iowa Poll(he is at 21 percent), with Mitt Romney at 16 percent.
Ron Paul is at third in New Hampshire, as well. Given an Iowa win(which is looking very likely at this point), his chances at taking New Hampshire increase as well.
Yet, you don't mention that. You are not a valid media source, as a media source presents the facts; something you apparently are unable to do. You are pathetic.
These guys are both Washington/Wall Street GOONS! RON PAUL has been heard by the people and the Constitution IS IMPORTANT to the American people! It is an idea whose time has come... AGAIN!!!!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
more laws that destroy the constitution (Obama just signed the NDAA)
More printing of money by the Federal reserve to pay for all their bureaucracy
More corporate bailouts to their campaign donors
More of business as usual.
The one candidate who is actually LEADING in Iowa by at least 4 percentage points at 23 percent, is RON PAUL!!!!
People, if Ron Paul wasn't a treat to the lesser of two evils, why would they black him out. think critically now, read his policies and look at hos perfect record.
Take your country back. Or keep trusting the corporate state media. Its your choice. But NEVER COMPLAIN AGAIN if you don't give Dr. Paul a thorough comparative look.
Ron Paul 2012!
We normally only consider the candidates placed right in front of us by the mainstream corporate-owned media, even though those candidates made themselves visible by taking legal bribes (campaign contributions). And then we complain about how the politicians we elect answer to the people whose money made them visible.
We should use imagination and initiative to search for alternative candidates. We don't have to wait for anyone to change the campaign finance system. Let's just refuse to vote for any candidate backed by big money. That denies power to the source of that money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).
It's satisfying to deny consent to the existing system by voting that way.
Voters in primary elections should insist on voting for such a candidate, if their party has one available. There are some politicians who take very little money from any sources except individuals; Texas Congressman Ron Paul allegedly is one of them, and he's the most famous current example that I know of. If you must vote within the two party system, then candidates like him are a good choice.
Maybe the media aren't ignoring Ron Paul as a conspiracy; maybe the media decision makers just assume his views are too radical and that his lack of wealthy supporters means he has no chance. He won't be doing big advertising buys from them, because he doesn't accept the influence of powerful interests!
But if no candidate like that wins the primary for either major party, my strategy would require voting for neither Democrats nor Republicans. Other parties' candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election. It's OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo.
If more people start voting for those outside party weirdos you see on ballots, it becomes more likely that sensible independent candidates will emerge in various elections. Then we can vote for those people. Also, that will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.
That 3rd party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot). The best outsider candidate would be a centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties. And that risk is another reason it would be so much better for both Democratic and Republican primary voters to select nominees who don't take any form of influence money.
Lack of change results from almost everyone voting for either Democrat or Republican mainstream candidates. Why do we just jump back and forth, voting one or the other into office? By now it's clear that that won't change anything.
Why should we forget about the past harm they've done? It's not like that harm was accidental; it was the result of both responding to lobbying and acting based on party ideology. We should assume that politicians of both parties will repeat some of their past harmful actions.
Voters should stop focusing only on candidates who are visible in debates and TV ads. Unless a candidate is extremely wealthy, to be visible he/she has to work within the two parties' systems and to take campaign contributions from powerful interests.
Enough people voted for Republicans in 2010 to give them a House majority, while we were still suffering from the economic consequences of Republican policies. We got rid of them only two years before that. What about Republicans had changed in two years, that we should trust them? Nothing. Their bad deeds merit their permanent banishment from public office, unless they are taking no special interest money. Though voting for Democrats in 2008 was questionable also, because they contributed to those same problems.
Some voters were seduced by Obama's charisma or saw his election as a chance to break down a racial barrier; they did not insist that he offer real solutions before voting for him. They were kind of like the voters who elected George W. Bush in spite of his indifference to facts and policy.
There's a saying: "In every democracy, the people get the government they deserve". We're getting abused because we choose the wrong representatives. It's our fault, and it's our responsibility to change that.
I have stopped watching, listening to and reading anything that comes out of any politicians mouth until maybe October 2012.
By that time they may have figured out that any incumbent stands very little chance of being re-elected.
From now until then they are going to continue to tell you what they think you want to hear and lie their socks off.
Don't waste your time and lower your electric bill at the same time.
Ron Paul is in a statistical tie with Newt Gingrich in the latest Iowa Poll(he is at 21 percent), with Mitt Romney at 16 percent.
Ron Paul is at third in New Hampshire, as well. Given an Iowa win(which is looking very likely at this point), his chances at taking New Hampshire increase as well.
Yet, you don't mention that. You are not a valid media source, as a media source presents the facts; something you apparently are unable to do. You are pathetic.
RON PAUL 2012
VOTE FOR AMERICA'S SURVIVAL