 
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 79
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 2:43 pm: |    |
I am an independent voter. I abhor Republican neo-cons such as Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee. I do, however, support Ron Paul . I want to make an appeal to Democrats to get the best possible mileage from your primary vote by voting for Ron Paul in the primary. Your vote is wasted in the Democratic primary. If, however, you vote for Ron Paul, your vote will cause maximum damage to the neocon controlled Republican Party. I do not think that Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination but the more votes he receives, the harder it will be for the neocons to still his voice. If, by some miracle, Ron Paul did win the primaries, there would be no candidate in the general election who would be more pro-war than whomever Democrats choose.
Ron Paul is the enemy of neocons who dominate the Republican Party. He embarrasses them in every debate about the stupidity of their over-spending on an illegal war and willingness to expand the war into Iran and/or Pakistan. He attacks their position on the Patriot Act and other constitutional violations on privacy. His foreign policy and personal liberty positions are much closer to Kucinich than the neocons. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul voted against the Iraq war on 2002. Unlike Hillary and Obama, Ron Paul wants all troops to come home “now”, wants to return all our troops from the Middle East and elsewhere, denounced and took off the table the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare, strikes on Iran and future escalation of the Afghanistan war, does not plan to increase US troop levels, will reduce foreign military expenses by $500M, voted against the Patriot Act in 2002 and to repeal it more recently, voted against mandatory national ID cards and subsidies to corporations, has not received huge corporate financing, wants to end the “inflation tax” that hurts the poor, wrote a bill to re-fund social security, and calls for an end to the federal war against medical marijuana. Ron Paul is against NAFTA as much as Kucinich.
So here is your choice. Wasting a vote in the Democratic Party primary or causing some mischief in the Republican Party by supporting a peace candidate . In the primary you can vote for peace or you can vote for a label. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =AFfdB5OzlyQ
Oh, and for a couple of you who have been taken in by the propaganda of hate politics, please listen to what Austin's NAACP leader has to say about Ron Paul. “Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added. "What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/ar ticles/january2008/011308_not_ racist.htm |
Traxus
Member
Username: Traxus
Post Number: 117
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 2:57 pm: | |
I'm torn between going uncommitted or voting 'pub. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:04 pm: | |
Obama is the worst thing to happen to american politics since George W. Bush
1. Ran unopposed in illinois due to the fact he took all other candidates to court to remove them from the ballot.
2. Hardly votes in the Senate other than "present"
3. Platform of hope and change hides his inexperience in national and international relations
4. Platform of hope and change is eerily similar to that of which put the bumbling idiot in office.
5. Inability to refute claims the Clintons are racist, points to his campaigns involvement in the accusations.
Clinton or Edwards in '08. A vote for Barrack is a vote for 4 more years of corporate expansion and control over the american populace. |
Irish_mafia
Member
Username: Irish_mafia
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:11 pm: | |
Ola,
You are funny.
Do you know what a neocon is? |
Iheartthed
Member
Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 2516
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:16 pm: | |
quote:^she set it up, huh? sounds tricky...what did she do, exactly?
She left her name on the ballot then pledged not to campaign in Michigan. |
Rb336
Member
Username: Rb336
Post Number: 4498
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:22 pm: | |
sorry, ron paul is a certifiable bigot and nutcase |
Arab_guyumich
Member
Username: Arab_guyumich
Post Number: 40
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:32 pm: | |
I'm rooting for Obama, but I'm voting for Mitt Romney tomorrow...here's why:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008/01/10/democrats-for-mitt- dail_n_80980.html
In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.
With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so? |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4595
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 3:42 pm: | |
I have a feeling there will be a LOT of meddling. Karma's a bitch though, eh? |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6131
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:00 pm: | |
Actually I'm thinking of voting Mitt Romney... I would have voted Democratic, but if they don't care about Michigan... screw em!
Mitt Romney was born here, and even while Governor of Massachusetts, he started his campaign here in Michigan.
If Mitt wins in Michigan, which appears likely, it could get his campaign off the ground.
If he does win the republican nomination, he can thank Michigan for that... and if he were to win in November, he can say "it all started in Michigan". Hmmm... how about Mackinaw Island as the Summer White House??
I'd rather have a pro-Michigan Mitt Romney as president than some democrat who never bothered to set foot here during the primary. And I'm basically a Democrat!
His campaign messages seem to resonate with Michigan voters... because none of the other candidates seem to notice or care that we are in a 1 state recession.
Who wouldn't want a "favorite son" as president? Remember when Gerald Ford offered $600 million to get mass transit started in Detroit? We need someone to get the economy going again here in Michigan... and Mitt might be our best hope. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4598
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:06 pm: | |
"Remember when Gerald Ford offered $600 million to get mass transit started in Detroit?"
Hey yeah, whatever happened with that anyway?
Just kidding. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 484
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:07 pm: | |
Remember when Romney was pro-choice? He never mentioned Michigan back then either. Just because it's politically expedient for him to be pro-Michigan this week doesn't mean he sincerely cares about this state. If he loves Michigan so much, why did he build his entire political career in Massachusetts? |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6133
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:09 pm: | |
Johnlodge... "bungling metro-Detroit politicians"... that's what happened!  |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 98
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:15 pm: | |
Gistok...Dems can't campaign here...if they do they face reprocussions from the DNC...I am a democrat, and I am smart enough to look beyond the fact that they aren't campaigning here, because I know Michigan IS an important state to whoever is running for president.
And Michigan isn't in a single state recession. Michigan is in a depression, and the rest of the country is in a recession. A Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, a Depression is 2 years of negative growth. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3289
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:20 pm: | |
I am a left leaning Independent and will *probably* vote for Mitt because Kucinich isn't viable (maybe next time)and Romney's the only other one I see as potentially helping Michigan. The others have nothing more than a superficial clue (if even that in the case of Obama) of what's going on here.
And until his speech to the Detroit Economic Club I was considering Obama as well as Kucinich. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 485
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:24 pm: | |
I think Edwards has a bit of a clue. Look who he's got managing his campaign. |
Gravitymachine
Member
Username: Gravitymachine
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 05-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:28 pm: | |
i see romney as being almost exactly like dick devos, except the former actually won a governorship. he has the same slickness to his ads and touts his "private sector experience" left and right, as if government and business were at all similar |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6134
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:34 pm: | |
D_mcc, OK that makes sense... but if the DNC continues their nastiness on into the convention (by not even committing hotel rooms for delegates)... then they stand a chance of loosing Michigan and Floridas 44 electoral votes in November. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6135
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:38 pm: | |
D_mcc, OK that makes sense... but if the DNC continues their nastiness on into the convention (by not even committing hotel rooms for delegates)... then they stand a chance of loosing Michigan and Florida's 44 electoral votes in November.
All the Republican nominee has to do is keep reminding Michigan and Florida voters about this situation in the fall.
The DNC may think they're punishing the wayward state Democrats... but in reality the DNC might be cutting off their nose to spite their face. And that ain't gonna help the eventual Democratic nominee at all! |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 100
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:39 pm: | |
They won't do that, this is politics, they hurt us during the primaries but bring us back for the convention. Especially states like Michigan and Florida...both extremely important states, and especially a Blue state like Michigan, and Florida, which now boasts a Democratic Governer.
The DNC is basically making an example of michigan...stupid...but hey...They might be keeping michigan in the rear and use it as a HUGE battle ground state for how the Republican Leaderships agenda has made the american economy vunerable to degradation and collapse, and michigan is a stark example of that. |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3290
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:46 pm: | |
"I think Edwards has a bit of a clue. Look who he's got managing his campaign."
I don't like Edwards and don't believe he's viable. |
Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox
Post Number: 486
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:47 pm: | |
Fair enough. I like him more than Obama or Clinton and believe he's more viable than Kucinich. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 4:53 pm: | |
I think Edwards is a better candidate than anyone else running. If the media decided they wanted him to be viable...I bet he would be |
Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 3291
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 5:00 pm: | |
"They might be keeping michigan in the rear and use it as a HUGE battle ground state for how the Republican Leaderships agenda has made the american economy vunerable to degradation and collapse, and michigan is a stark example of that."
On the national stage they might do that if Clinton gets the nod, but Obama's been running around dissing the automakers so he can't very well take that line.
Even if that is their strategy, I don't think Michigan voters will forgive all the Dem. slights, whether intended or just perceived (remember which party backed out of the debate scheduled for here, too?). |
Tkshreve
Member
Username: Tkshreve
Post Number: 260
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 5:01 pm: | |
Great Points Gistok!
You are probably one of the few people here who is pledging a vote to a candidate because you actually support him or her. Many of the others here who feel an attempt at undermining the process is the way don't really see the problem. By doing this reverse voting, you are only encouraging, spreading and condoning the very evils that have plagued our Government over the last few decades.
Our founding fathers would be rolling if they saw the disaster that has become the process of selecting a President for this country.
And yes, when a Democrat gets elected he/she will be on the first bus headed for Michigan to bail it out. Right? They won't even give us lip service right now. What does that say? They side stepped our state to make promises to other states. That doesn't even put us in line.
You may get out of Iraq, but you still won't have a job! |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 102
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 5:17 pm: | |
Rebuild Iraq? Rebuild Michigan! |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 80
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 5:58 pm: | |
Irish Mafia(3:11pm) Yes, I know what neocons are. Why, did you want to defend them? I use the Wikipedia definition of neoconservatism and I used it derisively to describe the likes of McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee. Hillary is a Democrat variation. Neocons are less concerned about balancing fiscal budgets than traditional conservatives, do not feel alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state, enforce morality, promote expansionist foreign policies including preemptive and unilateral intervention, and support the welfare state though not as vigorously as Democrats. They are largely responsible for the bankruptcy of this country and unnecessary wars.
___
Rb336(3:22pm) Sorry Rb, name calling doesn't cut it. Go back to your sources of disinformation. I prefer to accept the word of a long time acquaintance and NAACP director to yours. You imply that Mr. Linden is a “certifiable bigot and nut case” too.
___
ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT? Vote for Ron Paul. Don't waste your primary vote by writing “uncommitted” on your primary ballot. Vote, instead, for Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have been silenced and removed from debates because they were embarrassing better funded candidates who wanted to posture as peace candidates. Ron Paul is a peace and civil liberties candidate. Neocon Republicans are looking for an excuse to give Ron Paul the Kucinich treatment. Keep a voice of peace and personal liberty alive and weaken the neocons. This video lays out the reasoning of why anti-war democrats should vote for Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IsXgP0xweIA |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 103
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:02 pm: | |
Do you starch your brown shirt Oladub? |
Corvax
Member
Username: Corvax
Post Number: 90
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:21 pm: | |
D_mcc,
regarding your earlier post on Obama, in exactly what election did he run unopposed by suing to get his opponents off the ballot? he may have effectively run unopposed in the gen'l election, but only because the Il state repub party could find no one to replace a discredited repub primary victor forced off the ballot by his own party, so they imported Alan Keyes from MD, whom Barack easily defeated.
in the dem promary for senate, however, Obama faced 6 or 7 credible candidates, some more well-funded than he was, and he still got 53% of the statewide vote, one of the most stunning victories for a non-incumbent in IL history.
i don't know how you can possibly compare him to George W
He'll make a great president
corvax |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 371
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:23 pm: | |
D_MCC ASK "Do you starch your brown shirt Oladub?"
That is really funny you would make such a lame analogy and a hypocritical one at that. -He just cares about our country and wants get us out of the war. I laugh at the notion that you call a Ron Paul supporter a "Brown Shirt" when every other Republican, and other Democrats even have supported an unjust war?
A brown shirt? Hillary voted for the war (as have other Democrats) and has yet to come clean on it. It cost thousands of American lives (many minorities) and trillions of dollars that should be spent here. This to me is a hell of a lot more of a brown shirt, than something supposedly written in a newsletter over a decade ago.
Next.................... |
401don
Member
Username: 401don
Post Number: 208
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:29 pm: | |
Disclaimer-I'm Canadian so I don't have a say - but I hate it when I really like a candidate's policies but dislike/distrust the candidate - that's how I feel about Edwards. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 104
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:30 pm: | |
I speak not on the war, but on the grounds that Ron Paul is as great as people say he is, I actually support most of his policies, but some people make him out to be the end all be all of the campaign, some of his politics are down right scary.
I compare Obama to Bush, because you have no information on him. How can we know what his policies are on anything when his most common vote in the senate is "Present"???
I've said it before, and I will say it again..If it weren't for the TV and Internet, Dennis Kucinich would be the number one candidate.
And Cinder...all but 3 senators voted in favor of the war. Why? because the intelligence back then had everyone fooled...you can't fault someone for relying on the only information presented to them.
By the way...support edwards..he's the only one that has any interest in the middle class. |
Corvax
Member
Username: Corvax
Post Number: 91
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:41 pm: | |
D_mcc,
so you don't have an answer to the question about the election you described because it never happened.
it's easy to find out what Obama stands for, just check out his website or pay attention, for example, to his economic stimulus package announced today.
he's been my senator for a couple years now, and before that was a particularly effective IL state legislator, known for his ability to get support from both sides of the partisan aisle.
Michele will make a hot first lady, too!
corvax |
Alan55
Member
Username: Alan55
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 09-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:42 pm: | |
401Don: "Disclaimer-I'm Canadian so I don't have a say - but I hate it when I really like a candidate's policies but dislike/distrust the candidate - that's how I feel about Edwards."
You're right - you don't have as say here. Go worry about Mr. Harper. |
Pam
Member
Username: Pam
Post Number: 3292
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:48 pm: | |
quote:ANTI-WAR DEMOCRAT? Vote for Ron Paul. Don't waste your primary vote by writing “uncommitted” on your primary ballot. candidates.
Call me crazy, but I'm an anti-war Democrat who plans to vote for an anti-war Democrat. (Kucinich.) I don't care that he isn't "viable", whatever that means. Primaries are supposed to be for voting for who you want and I liked him even before this election snafu. If more of you vote for him, his "viability" might increase.
quote:Ron Paul is a peace and civil liberties candidate.
Sorry, I can't call someone who is not pro-choice a civil liberties candidate. |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 372
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 6:51 pm: | |
D_mcc writes: "And Cinder...all but 3 senators voted in favor of the war. Why? because the intelligence back then had everyone fooled...you can't fault someone for relying on the only information presented to them. "
This is a really sad number, I do however fault them- it was pretty apparent at the time the evidence was cooked, especially in light of what long time allies warned us, that they did not posses WMD. What was really scary was how quickly the war frenzy started up, even by people who are traditionally against such actions. I'll remember that as long as I live. Take note of it, it has many parallels throughout history.
The politicians put their careers ahead of principal, then point fingers after the fact, no surprise there.
I have always wondered how Colin Powell feels after being forced to present bogus info in front if the world during his UN Testimony. I suspect that is the part of one's career he'd like to forget. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2696
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 8:25 pm: | |
quote:D_mcc, OK that makes sense... but if the DNC continues their nastiness on into the convention (by not even committing hotel rooms for delegates)... then they stand a chance of loosing Michigan and Floridas 44 electoral votes in November.
And the DNC stands a chance of loosing the other 495 electoral votes if they don't continue. |
Detrola
Member
Username: Detrola
Post Number: 65
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 10:19 pm: | |
It still rankles that more isn't being made of this state sponsored opinion poll masquerading as a Primary. Michigan will likely have no delegates seated at the National Convention. This should be a big deal. But then again Debbie Dingell is no Katherine Harris. In November 2000 many of us were shouting "disenfranchise" to anyone who would listen. Seems to me that disenfranchisement is
disenfranchisement no matter the intent or the letter following a persons name.
Will the stated goal of making Michigan more of a player in the primary season really equate to more political influence or consideration of our interests after the election? If this ploy works in the long run what will stop other states from changing their dates? One plan I've read of would have a rotating order. So does that mean Michigan could host the first primary once every 12,16 or 20 years. Great plan. Almost as good as the College Football ranking system. |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 373
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:24 pm: | |
Now This is funny!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =PiCqxKLIVDY&eurl=http://www.c rooksandliars.com/2008/01/14/m itt-for-michigan/ |
Mike
Member
Username: Mike
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:34 pm: | |
ron paul says some crazy stuff, but i do like the general idea of limited govt. i hate the patriot act, the wire tapping, id, and all that. he is the only one who is not using scare tactics and war-like speak to get elected.
sad to say though, in this day and age, the media is who really picks the pres... |
Cinderpath
Member
Username: Cinderpath
Post Number: 374
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:39 pm: | |
D_mcc writes: "I compare Obama to Bush, because you have no information on him. How can we know what his policies are on anything when his most common vote in the senate is "Present"??? "
"And Cinder...all but 3 senators voted in favor of the war. Why? because the intelligence back then had everyone fooled...you can't fault someone for relying on the only information presented to them. "
I saw this tonight and could not believe it, take a look at this before responding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =NG3me0dB-vU&eurl=http://www.c rooksandliars.com/
Hillary is nothing more than a controlled liar-and she has not apologized for it. Until she does so, I can not in good conscience vote for her. I give Obama a lot of credit for having the foresight to make such a speech at the time. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2697
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 14, 2008 - 11:47 pm: | |
I was going to cross over and vote for Ron Paul. However, that video just convinced me to vote for Romney. |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 81
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 12:55 am: | |
D_mcc(5:58pm), I don't starch any of my shirts. Unlike your candidate, Ron Paul did not support the Patriot Act and other unconstitutional measures. Fascism, to which your term 'brownshirt' alludes, begins with 'economic fascism', or corporatism. Corporatism is the collusion of big government and big business. Ron Paul is about as far from being a corporatist as Kucinich. Please educate yourself about, for instance, the executive orders that Ron Paul has promised to overturn if elected and compare your candidate's position of support. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Jl1VIhdpl4c
___
Pam(6:02pm), You mischaracterized Ron Paul's position on abortion. Because the 10th Amendment does not authorize either pro or anti abortion legislation, it is an issue that he believes should be left to the states. Maybe 12 years from now a very conservative Supreme Court will come in and decree abortion illegal in all 50 states. Better that you can resolve this issue in Lansing. I should add that as an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, Ron Paul does not personally like abortions but he abides by the constitution. He even votes against things he likes if the Constitution does not authorize it. That approach would have kept us out of Iraq.
I think that Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinch have the most integrity of any Democratic candidates but you have party leaders who have made your Democratic primary vote null and void at the convention, have tossed Kucinich and Gravel out of Democratic debates, and are now telling you to write in 'uncommitted'. You may as well stay home. My suggestion was that you utilize your otherwise useless primary vote to support the best of the candidates in the other party - the candidate most like Kucinich in foreign affairs.
___
Fnemecek(11:47pm), Romney is a smart businessman with a strong jaw line. However, If you don't approve of preemptive wars, NAFTA, illegal immigration, the loss of civil rights, flip-flopping, and extraordinary rendition, a better choice is Ron Paul. |
Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 8:33 am: | |
Ron Paul would make a better a better president, but voting for Mitt Romney will screw up the GOP primary more than voting for Dr. Paul. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 9:25 am: | |
Ron Paul follows the constitution yes, but does he agree with the hundreds of treaties that have ammended it over our 200+ years of our fine nation? I dunno |
Oladub
Member
Username: Oladub
Post Number: 82
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 11:59 am: | |
Fnemecek, Who we vote for might result in who becomes president. Should some scandal arise about Obama, for instance, a week before the election, we might wind up with a Romney Presidency. I think a lot of us would prefer that the Republican default candidate would at least have some very acceptable positions on foreign policy and civil liberties and Detroit issues like NAFTA. Also, a Paul candidacy would free up the Democrat candidate, in the general election, to try to be more of a peace candidate than Ron Paul - if that's possible.
___
D_mcc, Ron Paul, as you say, does follow the Constitution. Only amendments, not treaties, can amend the Constitution. My guess that Ron Paul will use what power the Constitution offers him to exticate the US from anything that is unconstitutional including some treaty amendments. He has promised to overturn every illegal executive order. If Congress wants any overturned orders implemented, it will have to pass a bill and his veto pen if necessary. As commander in chief, he can, and will, order the troops to start coming home "immediately".
___
Ron Paul Stands for Liberty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =vniSmF5PxFE
U of M Supports Ron Paul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BFy--JHgYIw
"It pains Carol Paul to hear her husband booed or criticized by rivals during debates, but she takes pride in his attitude. "He has no animosity to these people," she said. "He forgives. But I don't know if he can ever forgive about the war, the boys we've lost and the fact we went in for lies." Chicago Tribune
"Aggressive wars, income taxes, national IDs, domestic spying, torture regimes, secret prisons, Federal Reserve manipulation -- we don't have to take it any more." Ron Paul |
East_detroit
Member
Username: East_detroit
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 1:15 pm: | |
Sure was a lot more fun to vote in a Caucus (2000, 2004) than in a primary. Oh well. |
Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok
Post Number: 6140
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 2:18 pm: | |
quote:
D_mcc, OK that makes sense... but if the DNC continues their nastiness on into the convention (by not even committing hotel rooms for delegates)... then they stand a chance of loosing Michigan and Florida's 44 electoral votes in November.
And the DNC stands a chance of loosing the other 495 electoral votes if they don't continue.
How ironic that the "party of tolerance" is taking such a strong position against the state leadership in both states... while the Republicans are being much more tolerant and less punishing.
But then again... we know what a knack that the Democrats have of "shooting themselves in the foot" when it comes to presidential politics.
Also, I would hardly count on many of the red states in that 495 electoral vote count...
Of course, there'll be those who will conveniently blame a close 2008 presidential loss on Michigan and Florida politicians (if either or both states end up on the Republican side)... rather than blaming the DNC. |
D_mcc
Member
Username: D_mcc
Post Number: 106
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 15, 2008 - 2:55 pm: | |
Treaties that amend the constitution are binding, treaties with other countries cannot just be dissolved overnight.
Paul would meet a wall the moment he took the oath of office |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.