They're both the fucking problem. I wish Ron Paul could be president.

The future looks pretty fucking bleak now.

^ true dat.

Ron Paul is definitely not what I would call vanilla though.

@enoch

Howdy. First off, thanks; coming back to this discussion is kind of interesting after a few years.

My thoughts:

1. I wasn't a huge Obama supporter - but I did expect more from him in terms of change on health care (the US system is still a crazy-quilt of expensive nonsense) and reduced military expenditure (I expected a faster withdraw timetable from both Iraq and Afghanistan). I thought he could sell his vision, but it hasn't worked; he's lost people and as a result doesn't have the political will to make real change. It's too bad, because I think he did intend some good things.

2. I think the Occupy movement is a good illustration of the point I wanted to make. They had a good thing going and some scattered good ideas - but they didn't integrate themselves into the political movement. They distrusted it, shunned it. Candidates couldn't espouse Occupy ideals to get elected because Occupy people were poorly organized, had vague goals, and were not reliable voters. Nobody worried about not getting re-elected because they didn't line up with Occupy.

3. By contrast, the Tea Partiers had a much more substantial impact on policy because they did connect to the Republican party, connected with candidates, and they got out the vote (sometimes at least). If they could have found anyone who wasn't a complete and utter moron to lead them (I guess it's hard to find sane leaders when your policies are nuts), they could have got a lot of stuff changed (mostly for the worse, of course, but change nonetheless).

I think if Occupy could have organized better (maybe have some leaders, or at least rallied behind some statement of principle and ideas for change), it could have been a huge force for good. I think they were hampered by exactly this sense of hopelessness. They didn't actually believe they could make a difference in political decisions, so they didn't really try - and because of this, in the end I don't think they've had much lasting effect. A lot of their ideas resonated with a powerful number of people, but all that effort and will got channeled nowhere - just anger and hopelessness and failure.

I still think positive change is very possible in the US (and the world in general), and I think it's still most likely to happen (in the US) through the normal democratic process. It'll take some real leadership, though. Someone like Ron Paul - but with much less crazy and more charisma - could turn the Occupy-type crowd into a very potent political force that could do some real good. (On Ron Paul: he did certainly face some unfair extra hurdles as an anti-establishment candidate - but I think his main problem was that too many people legitimately disagreed with him).

Will it happen? I don't know. As I've said, I think a big problem is that the current generation - the students and young people who've driven change throughout history - distrusts the entire political process. More than that, they distrust "leadership" in general. Returning to Occupy, they seemed to be actively against leaders emerging or having cohesive policies to rally around.

That's cool and fun and Internet-like, but it doesn't get the job done.

I like it, but the Ron Paul one made me want to get my US citizenship and vote for him until I found out it was fake.

"You can give me money, and I'll go make the zoo."

I've been reading Schama's "Citizens" on the French Revolution and the lead-up to it, and I have found it quite interesting to compare parallels between Louis XVI's France and contemporary U.S.A. It's actually a bit scary that the language being used is so similar in both cases, given what happened after 1791.

For instance, my initial comparison between Ron Paul and free market reformer Turgot is, I think, reasonably fair doesn't reflect badly on Paul. Although Turgot ended up losing his job after rushing through his reform program and some of his reforms were reversed in the short term, others were retained or re-instated in a slightly altered form a few years later.

So anyway, which of Paul's policies were you referring to as having potential to improve the U.S.? You're right that I haven't studied it in depth, and my background is not political science or media studies, but I have read the various related discussions on the sift and in the local and U.K. media.

>> ^oritteropo:

What do you mean by "people like you"? Who are you lumping me in with? How does it affect you, personally, if politicians in a far off land make decisions that neither of us would agree with in our homelands?
Please either mark your other profile comment as private or edit it to remove my comment or delete it, I didn't want my comment public or I would not have ticked the private box.
>> ^coolhund:
>> ^oritteropo:
Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.
And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.



Why does it have to affect me personally? I mean it affects me, but not directly (thankfully I dont live in one of those countries where it would), though there is no denying that the US has a huge influence on my country aswell. I can think around the next corner. I know how decisions in foreign policy of a superpower affect people on the whole world. You can see it every day. You want to tell me that it doesnt affect the whole world how the US has treated the middle east for the last 5+ decades? Do you really think they hate the US and their supporters because they are "free"? Do you think they wont forget that the US and other western countries supported the "Israelis" all the way where they are today? What would you do if someone took a good chunk of your property and just give it someone else? And a few decades later all you have left is only a spot for you to sleep and defecate on, because everything else has been taken by those, and you are treated like criminals by them and the majority of the world, because they control media in said superpower and you dont. Who would you blame for that? Only the one taking your land or also the one who allowed them to take it and continue to support them?
Or are you hiding behind your hypocrite ethics and moral by saying "thats not an excuse"?

The Vietnam war, based on lies, the attack on Iraq 2003, based on lies, etc, etc, etc, didnt affect the world??? It didnt affect me? How can you think that? Do you really think other regimes dont look at the USA and think to themselves, if they are the biggest hypocrites on this earth, why cant we be? There are enough examples for that, even in Europe. European governments suddenly made as bad and audacious decisions in foreign and internal policies and were inspired by the sudden and open showing of totalitarianism. Some even follow the US like they are their lapdogs. That doesnt affect me or anyone in the world?

Sorry, but if you dont realize how a superpower like the US acting with such massive and audacious hypocrisy, for every human on this earth with an IQ higher than 50 to see, then I have nothing else to say.

>> ^oritteropo:

Have you ever studied the French Revolution? Ron Paul's policies didn't go so well for Turgot, and haven't for anyone else who has tried them since.
I guess since neither of us are U.S. based we can always sit back and watch the spectacle from afar, eating popcorn, no matter what they try
In reply to this comment by coolhund:
When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.
I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.
Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.
I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.
And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.



Looks like you have studied the french revolution, but not what Ron Paul actually wants to do, or rather will be able to do.

And yes I guess its easy to sit back and eat popcorn for people like you.

When America picked Rome as its role model, it was destined to die the same way.
It had potential, but corruption is a constant threat and no where near enough is being done to battle it.

I am truly shocked how divided your country has become, and how much of a threat and actually enemy to the worlds freedom after 9/11.
You havent learned a bit. Still waging wars everywhere, support totalitarian regimes (and even install them) even if its just behind the curtains. You ask yourself why "terrorists" are attacking you? You should ask yourself instead why so few are attacking you.

Believe me, I really loved the US for the most of my life. I always wanted to live there. I loved having American soldiers stationed in my country. But not anymore. A few years after 9/11 I got my ignorance armor removed by force and realized youre just as bad as the other hypocrite countries that call themselves civilized, democratic and free. But since you have so much power and exploit it all the time, youre actually worse.

I really wish you would return to your former values and actually uphold them. But looking at how corrupt your country has become, my hopes are extremely low. Just by looking at how you let the perfect opportunity pass by not voting Ron Paul - again, hurts me so much. Seeing people here and elsewhere spewing out propaganda that was indoctrinated into them reminds me of myself a few years ago. I can only feel disgust when thinking about that. In an age of information theres still so much misinformation and bias... Its sad. No wonder corruption is blooming like never before.

And yes, I am pretty sure some indoctrinated individuals will jump at me now for my last 2 sentences and mentioning Ron Paul. Save your breath, I have tried to talk to people like you for years and I was one of you. You will only learn the hard way - just like me.

A note from the inside:

Things are hot here right now (and dry), even above the Tropic of Capricorn. The PRI (right-wing) candidate, E. Peña Nieto (EPN) is accused of buying his way into the presidency, from rigging opinion polls to bribing or wielding union and corporate power to setting up twitter bot squads trying to manipulate public opinion. A huge EPN advertising presence clearly over the allowed campaign budget is visible as you travel the country.

But people aren´t having any of it and are fighting back, making sure their voices are heard. A video surfaced after EPN visited a prestigious university in Mexico City where he was shouted off campus, where 131 students state they are not paid to voice their opinions from other parties.

The surge of the #Iam132 (#YoSoy132) hashtag and subsequent movement with Worldwide TT rings a-partisan and mostly just anti-EPN and anti-PRI with their corrupt antics. Weekly protests and artistic gatherings are gaining momentum.

A 4th far-right independent party with libertarian views has surged as well, also backed by powerful unions particularly from the social workers and teacher´s unions, they are double-faced and dodgy as hell. Although Mr Quadri is a scholar and has intelligent views, he is very similar to Ron Paul and his view on drugs.

The left-wing candidate AMLO, who claims the current throne and accuses Calderon of election fraud in 2006, will probably win. He has not stated publicly that he will legalize drugs, although he says that if the people can reach more consensus on the issue, that he would go ahead with it, regardless of what the US might think.

Many are optimistic, as I.

I don't get it. Ron Paul came in last place with only 6% of Louisiana Republicans supporting him. How can someone who was beaten so badly lay claim to a delegate?

This is an example of what Ron Paul is talking about. Watch as the US no longer has the sanctions of the world and is scattered by those who have new ideas about justice.

When you make the rules, make them fair and play by them -- or else turnaround is the most fair play, with dire consequences.

Thats right, a Ron Paul reference in the comments of a video destined to die.

She has about the level of understanding I would expect from a bright 12 year old. If her parents are feeding her this, they have a "bright 12 year old"'s understanding of the financial system. About the same as Ron Paul.

Canada has debt because it spends more than it takes in. Doing so in recent years has been mostly a good decision - and generally it's hard to argue with Canadian fiscal and bank-regulatory policy given its recent performance. We've weathered the recession better than most other places (partly this is due to the our natural resources and industry mix, but not completely).

Fractional reserve banking has a complicated effect on the economy. It's not easy to fit this into a 5 minute talk, but it allows for beneficial ways of managing and growing the economy.

If you think banks are just stealing money, go start a bank or invest in one. You'll find that they're businesses like any other, and that Canadian banks are mostly well regulated, and mostly make their money in responsible ways. Banks are not magic, and individuals can leverage money in many of the same ways they do.

On the flip side, there's been tremendous misbehavior by American financial companies (most of these aren't best described as banks) in the last decade, supported by bad laws. Some people got very rich while the economy got screwed to Hell. This had nothing to do with the basic ideas of fractional reserve banking, and everything to do with naked dishonesty, regulatory capture, and plain old corruption.

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.