>> ^DuoJet:

>> ^bareboards2:
Surely this guy can't get elected?

Surely he can get elected. George W. Bush was elected twice.


I think you just highlighted exactly why he couldn't get elected. The system is not designed to attract the best and the brightest and the statesmen who wish to serve and to put the country's interests ahead of their own or ahead of their party.

Left and right both have adopted the lesser of two evils approach In 2004, the left said, "anyone but Bush", and in 2012, the right said, "Anyone but Obama" When you don't really care about your own candidate, you're just voting against the other guy, you've got a broken system.

The first past the post system is a dud. Abolish all parties, vote for the person, not the party. If that means we have 42 candidates instead of 2, then fine. If that means the guy with most votes only represents a small fraction of the total vote...tough. We already have shitty turnout in our elections and presidents are already elected by a small fraction of the populace so really, what's the difference?

and lastly. eliminate all private funding from elections. money is not speech. speech is speech, that's why we have two different words for them. Every candidate gets a publicly funded website to do what they want with it. That's all you fucking need in today's world. no stupid billboards and lawn signs, no commercials. Just a website and a series of debates. That's all we fucking need to make a choice.

It's shit like this that make me wonder if Heinlen isn't right. You can't lead unless you've served. There has to be some demonstration that you're willing to sacrifice. I'm not just talking about military service either, there are plenty of ways of demonstrate selflessness and willingness to serve than just the military. We just have to identify them and ensure that our wannabe leaders abide by it.

[EDIT] Ooops, I thought you were referring to Powell, bareboards and Duo

Don't get me wrong I don't think Obama has done a bad job but he really hasn't done a good one either he seems more like a figure head to me he just does whatever his cabinet tells him to do. He always comes across to me as a really good guy who has no idea how to run a country. He has a lot of good ideas but he can't ever seem to implement them.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I would also like to see him run. But I don't think Obama has done a bad job.
>> ^Auger8:
I think we really missed out on a great President when Colin Powell decided not to run. That would have been a slam dunk win for him but I respect his decision to concentrate on his family. Still he's a very smart man with a strong military background and a born leader. He would have whipped this country into to shape years ago. He at least would have done a much better job than Obama.

I would also like to see him run. But I don't think Obama has done a bad job.

>> ^Auger8:

I think we really missed out on a great President when Colin Powell decided not to run. That would have been a slam dunk win for him but I respect his decision to concentrate on his family. Still he's a very smart man with a strong military background and a born leader. He would have whipped this country into to shape years ago. He at least would have done a much better job than Obama.

>> ^bareboards2:
Surely this guy can't get elected?


Surely he can get elected. George W. Bush was elected twice.

>> ^bareboards2:

slap down on Willard R-Money
Surely this guy can't get elected?


As if character or identity was the motivation behind elections... Sadly, much of it is due to $$$ and the post-primary republican base will rally behind whichever non-Obama candidate is on the ticket.

Conspiracy implies colusion, I think they all just hate him seperately. I don't understand why.
Wiki page here said he caried 2 states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012
Touche, I did infer you thought he's my guy.
The all caps was to emphasize the important part, not to 'yell', people often tend to read the first few words and begin their arguement against a straw man arguement, and I hate replying to them.
He is intelligent, if not smart. He is honest to a fault. Many of his ideas are outrageous at best, but come from an intelligent arguement perhaps taken too far. He will not win, and won't be the retardican nominee, but may force them to ignore the vote to deny him!
And NO, I am not dumbocratic QM, fuck you right back! ;-}
I'm an old school republican (fiscal conservative, social liberal) that's more pissed at the neocons than I ever could be at the democrats. The dumbocrats are useless, but somewhat consistant, the retardicans drank the coolaid and went bat shit crazy on me. What does that leave me with, and don't say 'Tea party', they're a big part of the problem.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^newtboy:
You didn't hear that he won 2 states because the GOP claimed he didn't and the media repeated it, all before the votes were counted. Apparently audits have shown that he did win.

Ahh, so it's a conspiracy. Fair enough. Unfortunately that's not what you said. You said:
>> ^newtboy: Wikipedia shows him having won 2 primaries,

Please show me where it says that.
>> ^newtboy:
What I'm saying is that apparently Paul is the only one smart enough to play BY THE RULES set up by the retardicans which allow you to win without the most votes...if you think that's underhanded, blame the retardicans that set it up that way so THEY don't have to follow the votes. What I NEVER said is that he's my candidate, you infered that.

Actaully, I didn't. I told you to get over the fact that he lost. I never claimed he was your candidate. You inferred that I inferred that.
>> ^newtboy:
I agree that this WOULD be underhanded and sneaky IF HE DIDN"T TELL EVERYONE PUBLICLY THAT WAS THE PLAN. Saddly for those wanting to denegrate him, he DID repeatedly state this plan, and was ignored.
THANK YOU FOR USING ALL CAPS. I WOULD NEVER HAVE UNDERSTOOD OTHERWISE!!
Publicly stating you plan to ignore the will of the voters does not make it better.
>> ^newtboy:
If you want someone to be mad at, it's the retardicans and the media who ignore this intelligent, honest candidate.

"intelligent, honest candidate"? I don't think so.
Oh, and "retardicans"? What are you, the democrat @quantummushroom?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-9.88&soc=-8.05

Damn, videosift is filled with neocons in comparison.

Bill should stick to arguing with neocons and fundies. He looks intelligent against them, but he's waaaaay out of his league here.

ChaosEngine: card carrying member of the Neil deGrasse Tyson for president of everywhere 2012 fan club.

@akamat, you're right to be suspicious, but not everything that comes out of Fox News is neocon garbage. Most of it is, though, but not everything. Whenever Stossel is "interviewed" by Bill O'Reilly, they often disagree on many issues.

Or have I got this really, really screwed up and actually I'm the one buying lies about how terrible Neocons are? Unable to see that the liberal media has got me believing that the top 1% (or 0.1% as this guy points out) have it so easy? I really, really don't think this is the case. But then I would, because Huff Post told me what to think, right?

Between this and Neocons demanding to hear what they like, rather than what's true, I despair for American politics and by extension, Western politics and beyond.

How do you debate with people who just plain don't care about reality? How can a country elect any kind of worthwhile politicians when a section of the voters, too large to be ignored, seem to have no idea about how things are now and have no idea about what either party stands for?

They want another Reagan, yet what they want is nothing like what Reagan did. They want tax cuts, but no cuts on defence, medical aid or the other big federal expenses. They demand the government stay out of health care, yet demand that Medicare and Medicaid aren't cut. They want the government to bring in less money, spent about as much (cutting insignificantly small bits here and there) - yet somehow stop operating on a deficit.

There are so many contradictory demands and demands made on fantasy. And they won't compromise, no, because compromise is for people who are wrong.

I'm starting to think that the answer is Glenn Beck and his ilk. The solution may be for people like Glenn Beck who, intentionally or otherwise, radicalise and mislead these nutters so much that they become more isolated and increasingly irrelevant. Then this lunatic fringe might see their numbers dwindle from just being so ridiculous. When they won't listen to anyone who speaks about reality, what else is there?

You know a situation is FUBAR when Glenn Beck is the answer!

Frankly who cares.. most peeps complaining about where that shirt is made probably buys all their crap at Walmart (MaoMart) anyway. Focus on what matters. Newt is a Neocon. Think a bit about what they pushed down our throats in the Bush era. Remember that little thing about lying to the citizens of this nation. Getting us into a pointless war, and burdening us with a 2 trillion+ (and growing) debt. Yeah. Those guys. Stop voting for career politicians. Boot them all out and get some common sense back.

@The Neocons of Videosift

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

It's harder to forget history when you're on the receiving end of the big stick. -Yogi

http://videosift.com/video/a-message-to-all-neocons-who-booed-ron-paul