FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


How to Vote for Ron Paul. Even if you're not an American





Possum
Hi



There is something really wrong in the world. And especially in America. I say this not because I'm anti American. I say this because I am very much pro American and its people and I thank America for much of my freedom. So its my time to do something back for America in my own small way.

I have studied the recent economic and political events in America and how the mass media is purposefully ignoring Senator Ron Paul who I believe would absolutely be a wonderful President.

http://udopage.com/news-the-watchtower-ron-paul.php

I have therefor changed my Twitter Logo to one with Ron Paul on it and have made a simple help file to show others (your grandparents perhaps) how to do it as well.

http://udopage.com/news-politics-voting-vote-for-ron-paul.php

http://twitter.com/@mpskinner


Thank you for your Time ....
jwellsy
The man does seem to have a good hart. His convictions run deep and are focused on the original intent of the American Experiment.
gandalfthegrey
Ron Paul is the only potential Republican candidate that can beat Barack Obama. They would be stupid not to choose him. Palin and Bachmann are too idiotic to survive over a year of campaigning. Mitt Romney lacks charisma. Rick Perry looks and sounds like George W. Bush, I don't think people will go for that again.
ocalhoun
About The news story: Unsurprising. If you antagonize entrenched corporate interests, the corporate interests will fight back. Subtly modifying news reporting is one of the most powerful ways they have to fight a politician. (The other main way to fight a politician being to deny him funding and fund his rivals.)

About Ron Paul: Finally, a candidate I can mostly* support... and from the Republican party no less. Not something I expected. If he gets nominated for president, I may vote for him, but I doubt he will, since entrenched interests seem to be against him. (And the nomination process is so very malleable to those interests.) I'll probably just have to keep on voting for a third party... Though, perhaps, I might put him in as a write-in candidate.



*While I agree with most of his stances, I do have a few qualms:
-He likes to put near-ultimate power in the hands of the states, which is better than federal control, but not anywhere near as good as individual control. States can be evil too.
-His immigration policy follows the flawed Republican strategy. He needs to realize that the easiest way to secure the border is to allow free and easy legal immigration.
-His anti-war-on-drugs stance is good, but his legalization stance is a little weak, though I suppose he might just be holding back to appear more moderate and at least make some progress.
-His campaign finance reform stance is agreeable, but very weak; this is an issue that needs much more attention than he gives it.
-While he does have decent explanations for it, his use of earmarks makes me somewhat suspicious of duplicity.
-His ideas about freedom of religion are out-of-whack; mainly centered solely around protecting the Christian religion. One decision in particular -- supporting states' rights to ban atheists from office -- is VERY wrong.
... Overall, however, I would be willing to vote for him, given that his views are generally far more agreeable than any of the other (major**) options.

** ie, with a possibility of winning ***

***Nested footnotes, FTW! ****

**** We need to go deeper.
liljp617
He is opposed to mindless wars. Too many vested interests by people with great authority over this nation for a fairly anti-war candidate to win the Presidency.
Asap170
The problem is with this quote right here:
Quote:
Ron Paul is an incredible American Politician...

I got that from: http://udopage.com/news-politics-voting-vote-for-ron-paul.php

I think too many "Politicians" are in government. We need some good old fashioned army generals. The whole Democratic Government in the U.S. is so corrupt. People say stuff. They keep saying it during the election season. Spend tons of money that the American people donate to them (which is wrong anyways). Each candidate should get a set amount of money. That's all they can use on advertising and everything. People who try to run President of the United States say a bunch of stuff.

Oh and not to pick on the site and how the person is trying to vote. Putting the image of him on Facebook or Twitter doesn't do anything.
ocalhoun
Asap170 wrote:

I think too many "Politicians" are in government. We need some good old fashioned army generals.

We already have plenty, thank you.
About 8% of the population have military experience, but about 20% of politicians do.
http://www.whoserved.com/congress.asp

--And I hate to burst your bubble, but even actively serving generals can be just as political and corrupt as any politician... especially when it comes to things like defense contracts and purchasing.
Quote:
Each candidate should get a set amount of money. That's all they can use on advertising and everything.

That's a fine plan, but has one major catch; you'll have to restrict freedom of speech severely to enforce it.
Otherwise, they will circumvent this restriction by 'unrelated' corporations filming and airing commercials for them. - no charge, of course, so it doesn't count towards the set amount of money.
You could just make that illegal, but then the line starts to get quite blurred.
Could an individual put an ad out advocating a certain political position (one that a certain candidate happened to share)?

Freedom of speech and the press preclude the ability to limit the speech and press in favor or against any candidate.

A better solution, possibly, is to mandate equal donations and equal airtime on major media outlets.
This also has problems though, in setting the threshold of who gets equality and who does not:
Restrict it too much, and only the R and D candidates can get funding, effectively locking out any third party, which I think is very unhealthy.
Restrict it too little, and anybody would be able to claim scads of money simply by declaring that they are going to run for office.

Campaign finance reform is a very difficult subject; I don't have a really great solution for it. However, it is one of the most important issues in the US today, and needs a LOT more attention than it is getting.
Quote:

Oh and not to pick on the site and how the person is trying to vote. Putting the image of him on Facebook or Twitter doesn't do anything.

Quite true, for one thing, few people recognize his face.
Something like this:

would be much better.

Simply posting images on facebook or twitter isn't going to help a whole lot, no matter what image you use though.
There's no substitute for good 'ol political activism.
Asap170
ocalhoun wrote:
Asap170 wrote:

I think too many "Politicians" are in government. We need some good old fashioned army generals.

We already have plenty, thank you.
About 8% of the population have military experience, but about 20% of politicians do.
http://www.whoserved.com/congress.asp


I was talking about a military guy for president. Congress is just all messed up. For example: Ike - He was an amazing president. What was he? He was a general.

Now there was only twelve of them, but the did a lot in there years serving as the President of the United States.
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
How real id will effect you
Forced charity is not charity at all: Foreign Aid Rip-Off
Why does the MSM seem to dislike Ron Paul?
If a black man becomes a US president
Do Christians automatically gain trust?
Ron Paul's son follows in his father's footsteps
Republican Debate Nov. 12, 2011
Ron Paul Newsletter
Ron Paul's run is good for democracy
The policies of: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Preemptively Wins Iowa + Minnesota
Third Party
Politics? Does it hurt us?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.