I think I know who posted this...

*blocked

This video has been flagged as having an embed that is Region Blocked to not function in certain geographical locations - declared blocked by DerHasisttot.

Ron Paul has no chance of winning. His own party doesn't support him.

I'm not saying Obama hasn't disappointed. Of course he has. He promised too much, and was obviously corrupted by the financial powers. But he's not anywhere as embarassing as Bush. And every viable Republitard is just going to support the anti-abortion, anti-Union, anti-Healthcare, anti-Social Security platform that they are all obsessed with right now.

I wouldn't vote for Paul right now even if he was viable. Not because of his own policies, but because of the Republitard policies that he would be politically forced to follow.

RoPaul is a pipe dream without a pipe. Here's the deal, coming from someone (me) who agrees with Paul on most things.

The average American has been rendered ignorant of history and economics. 60 years of union-run government schools will do that to you.

Ron Paul sez, "Get rid of the Fed." No one even knows what the Fed is or why it is, and they don't care to learn. How are you going to free people from shackles they can't even see?

Ron Paul sez, "Let's return all our military to the homeland..." The unfinished part of that sentence is "...so Red China can build their own bases where we were."

But let's assume Paul actually makes it to the White House. How is one man going to tell Congress, a bunch of petty, grasping, emotionally-insecure motherfkers, however useless they are to you and me, to voluntarily give up 90% of their power and strip them of the ability to buy votes from their districts with federal pork. And that's just them, excluding the powers behind their thrones, the lobbies, the corporatists, etc.

So the people behind Paul's election (you and me) are going to save us, you say?

Historically speaking, whatever the Cause, a third of the people are For, a third Against, and a third doesn't give a sh1t either way. The people who depend on Congress for handouts--corporations and "public" unions both--aren't going to go quietly to projects they have to pay for upfront, or lower-paying (aka non-taxpayer-funded) jobs based on merit and market demand. Remember Wisconsin?


Do you understand that the media is still 95% leftist (statist)? That FOX has barely been around and is inconsequential? All the horseshit and calamity and LIES the left manufactures ("Uh, there's a Recovery going on!") will be turned against Paul like a magnifying glass against ants. The leftmedia isn't going to patiently explain what libertarianism is to the masses. I can't even begin to imagine the level of hysteria.

THE LIBERTARIANS ARE GOING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY! NO MORE MEDICARE, THEY'LL STACK THE DYING ELDERLY IN THE GUTTERS! CAMPS! THEY WANT LEGALIZED DRUGS SO THE FIENDS CAN RUN WILD IN THE STREETS! THEY ARE ANARCHISTS!

I hate saying all this sh1t, because most of Paul's Constitutional rollback is what we really need. But it just ain't gonna happen. Right now the oxen (the people) are STILL dumb and comfortable, even with 5-dollar gas, rising food costs and 22% unemployment. Ron Paul would be assassinated right after the unlikely event that he was even nominated.

rEVOLution without bloodshed? Not on the scale Paul, you and I want. Even if we do nothing, it's going to go to guns, maybe not next year but in the next ten for sure. NOT reelecting the kenyan asshole would help, but for the kind of change that's needed, a state or states will have to say, "Enough tyranny, DC" and secede, which they have every right to do.

Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@MaxWilder), and one from the right (@quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.

So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?

The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion

>> ^marbles:

Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion


While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.

First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.

Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.

After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.

Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.

This thread got to the point very quickly.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^marbles:
Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion

While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.
First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.
Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.
After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.
Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.


I fully agree with getting rid of "first past the post" type elections. But the other problems you cite are direct consequences from things you support like government unions and healthcare. How can you be against corporate funding, but support what enables it? And the only way to eliminate the revolving door is by removing the incentive of gaining government office. If the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers, then the corporate world will have no reason to influence or infiltrate it.

@quantumushroom

I agree with your general message here, though not on some of the specifics. RP is very vulnerable to scare tactics and they will certainly come out in force if he ever gets close to a nomination. He's calling for fairly drastic change. It wouldn't take much to get people terrified of that.

You, yourself have already participated in such scare tactics, which is odd as someone who "agrees with Paul on most things". Examples: You've called him an anarchist in the past and, right here in this thread, you say that China will take over the world if we bring our military home.

It's true that the president doesn't have the power to manhandle the entire government, but I think RP could be pretty effective with the bully pulpit. Also, he wouldn't be shy with the veto. He could do a lot to prevent new stupid/illegal decisions from being made.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^marbles:
Well, we have 2 people: One from the left (@ MaxWilder), and one from the right (@ quantumushroom), that both agree Ron Paul doesn't have a chance at winning. Why? Because he's not part of the corrupt establishment.
So I ask: Why stay trapped in the false left/right political structure? Why continue to vote for establishment clowns that just tell you what you want to hear?
The Left/Right Statist Collectivist Mass Delusion

While that article is full of wonderfully insulting and entertaining generalities and prejudices, it does absolutely nothing about the problem. The only way out of this statist/corporatist mess is to reform elections.
First, at a minimum we need to abolish corporate funded election campaigns. Ideally everyone would have the exact same access to promote their platforms. Not sure how that would happen for libertarian ideals, but personally I have no problem with state funding.
Secondly, we need to abolish "first past the post" elections. As far as I can tell, a Condorcet method is the only viable election type.
After that we would need to eliminate the revolving door from government office to lobbying and corporate board member.
Anybody who wants to implement those changes has my full support.

I fully agree with getting rid of "first past the post" type elections. But the other problems you cite are direct consequences from things you support like government unions and healthcare. How can you be against corporate funding, but support what enables it? And the only way to eliminate the revolving door is by removing the incentive of gaining government office. If the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers, then the corporate world will have no reason to influence or infiltrate it.


There is absolutely nothing about the fundamental role of government unions or healthcare that relates to funding politicians. As the system works now, both must pay of politicians in order to remain in existence, or their opponents will hatchet them. With a system of voting that would allow the political spectrum to shift back to the center where rational compromise exists, they wouldn't have to worry about getting defunded. Or if they did get defunded, it would be because that's what the people really wanted, not some extreme wing.

I'm not sure how you could possibly eliminate the government's power to pick winners and losers. We'd need to eliminate the ability of elected officials to pick a winner and then later get hired by the winner. That would remove the temptation to vote based on potential personal gain.

>> ^MaxWilder:

There is absolutely nothing about the fundamental role of government unions or healthcare that relates to funding politicians...

...I'm not sure how you could possibly eliminate the government's power to pick winners and losers.

No, I guess not.