It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
One thing I was thinking about for the party, who won the election for Obama? the 18-29 year olds in their grass roots campaigning. Who do the 18-29 year old Republicans vote for? Ron Paul. If you truly want to defeat Obama, stop ignoring RP! At the debates, call on him not because the crowed boos when you try to skip him, but because he too is a republican candidate running for office against Obama.
ron pauls sketchy as fuck he wants to make every state its own individual countries...thats weird, i don't know the rest, but what i've heard is that he's into weird initiatives that are totally right wing and all...for lack of a better word, sketchy.
newts a damn genius, i'd way rather have that guy in than paul
but im not gonnna vote and all i have are my parents perceptions on this shit, so correct me if im wrong
idk, i just assume that most skiers are lean democratic, i try to keep an open mind, but the elections still a year off, id like to see another democrat run against the incumbent, but they probably wouldn't get nominated....whats the opinion on Obama's job? idk why people say hes gonna end our country, cause he hasn't really done much, plus all i personally think that matters is senate and house, cause if you got both of those with some smart cookies in there, they can override the veto of any president, and keep the country goin steady...thats just me...
yeah America is really stupid. Something like around 50 percent of the country thinks the Noahs arch story is true. And a majority of the country can't even name one branch of the U.S. government. why did the founders only want rich educated men voting? so that these kind of candidates wouldn't even be considered for the presidency.
Bill Maher did a funny thing on his show last night (and before you go hating on bill maher just read a little further). His show hired a real polling company to poll 5,000 republicans from different parts of the U.S., and 30 percent of them would rather vote for Tim Tebow than mitt romney....
the generalization is correct, the Tim Tebow part, is true, just by the absolute most ..... interesting right winged folks.
but the rest is kinda true, when there was hardly any information out for the presidencies back before internet & TV. People actually cared, the less information there is available, the more curious people are, when all the information's out, not to many people will care. Now since everything is at our disposal, people become lazy and expect more powerful to know best, those people that "know best" are the rich people & CEO's. They manipulate campaign donations so their candidate who they want to win will. then they post ads supporting their candidate and ads mocking the other candidate, if a company you like supports a candidate, why don't, that may influence you as a person, the man with the money's gonna win not Mr. Vermin Supreme
He has no campaign money, no sponsors, he will never get the presidency. Now Newt, Paul, Romney, Obama, all those rich guys smear each other using money from CEO's and other companies that support their running for presidents. this has been goin on forever. then the companies use television, internet & radio to manipulate the people who don't pay that much attention to the real issues, and what those candidates try to do....soo that guy who posted all the shit about tim tebow and Bill Maher went a bit extreme. His general view of our public is correct, we're under educated and most of the people frankly don't give two flying fucks about the election, they'll just vote for who looks cooler, or whoever they're friends vote for.
Bill Maher is just some crazy leftist guy....each side has em he's not really a good source of political information but whatever floats ur boat i guesss
hmm lets see here... mitt romney single handedly saved the 2002 winter olympics from failing. He turned the state of Massachussets from one of the worse off in unemployment (48th nationally) the man knows the economy, and honestly, the country could use an economist as a president; ex: only person who gave a reasonable expectation for tax rates in last few debates. Experience: Governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation, and yet willing to compromise; apparently this is a bad thing though and he should have just completely gone against the will of the state of Massachusetts... But yeah hes a mormon so lets put all that aside. Vote against Romney if you dont agree with his political views; not his religion.
See it's not that he wants to break the nation up but to restore the rights of states. The federal governments powers have swelled in the last century to an unsustainable level as seen in the national debt. If you take the time to actually look into some of his idea's they make an awful lot of sense. It's not like his socially conservative idea's even matter as he wants to pass those issues on to the states anyways. But seriously look into what he has to say about like the fed.
while it's true that paul has a lot of ideas that need to be heard (believe me, on many issues he is IMO a far cry better than all the other choices), it shouldnt have to come with a candidate that wants to deregulate to hell and back, get rid of social programs, eliminate most taxes, overturn roe vs wade etc etc etc etc
yes, he is a champion of civil liberties but at a point those "freedoms" manifest themselves as oppression of lots of people. there is no denying that the government oversteps its boundaries a lot but if you think that the elimination of so many regulations and so much of the government will mean true liberty for all youre fucking high. taking away so many regulations will leave the people and the environment at the mercy of the super elite even worse than they already are. a market in which the biggest corporations in the country have so little regulating them will be anything but a "free" market
not to mention what kind of horrors would go on if wacky hillbilly states get to do whatever they want
the only possible problem with ron paul for me is, what i have heard, is he has these awkward initiatives , i havent read up on him much, but im not gonna vote, so i don't influence shit haha
I mean I trust in the powers of congress and the supreme court to balance some of his more radical idea's, like obviously we aren't gonna start trading gold coins over night. I don't mean to be like aggressive or anything but what do you mean by "those "freedoms" manifest themselves as oppression of lots of people."? Like stuff like gay marriage and legalization of drugs he wants to leave to the states where change is easier to reflect our changing moral values. I just don't get why the federal government needs to dictate so much of our lives, not as a rally cry against all government, I just think many issues could be handled much better on a state by state basis.
I love how almost every supporter of ron paul, when asked, will provide 2 examples of his policies, and 1 of those examples is always that he wants to legalize drugs.
He's running to lead an entire, very large and very powerful country for 4 years. Not just so you can smoke a bowl out in the street.
So you admit you have not heard anything but that he is into "awkward" initiatives? What does that even mean? the mainstream media has not given him the time of day and left you with that impression, have you never thought to ask why? The theme of the last election and even moreso this one for the republican party was and is to change the way government works. Ron Paul is the only one who actually offers any idea's of real change and for that he is cast aside as a radical. It's not like his idea's are foreign as they are all deeply rooted in the constitution, the corner stone of our nation.
I did not say that I agreed one way or another on legalizing drugs, just that he wants to pass that right on to the states and respect it.But if "drugs" are something you are concerned of, he isn't gonna be able to legalize drugs, Cali already tried that with bud and failed just on a popular vote. It's just the fundamental idea of what is left to the states and to the federal government that he hopes to change.
so, that's completely true, i made something like that above, saying how companies, didn't include new stations, only back the people they like....ron paul isn't backed by the mainstream, so i don't know much about him, can't make a judgement....by awkward, i meant just out of the ordinary, unorthodox, and what the media is portraying his initiatives as are just plain incorrect, and radical, both sides don't like him that much. from my understanding, but hell im just a 16 year old kid, i don't know much! just what cnn, fox, and my folks tell me
When you recognize these biases that is the time to do your own research! read some of his books, read some of the books he reads! Then make your own opinion, and if it differs from his I would respect that as some of my own have differed, but don't just take what the mainstream has to say as the end all to the discussion.
Yes, you are right, checks and balances would hopefully mean some of his most radical ideas would not take place, but i am not comfortable with the idea of having a president with the following positions, to name but a few...
-categorically against all raising of taxes, and supports abolition of income tax and others
-wants to eliminate ALMOST ALL government agencies. no doubt our government wastes a SHIT TON of money, and yes people do take advantage of many of the programs but that does NOT mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water, many gov agencies help people that do not have the power to have a human level of life. as another example, the FDA is sketchy and in many cases is in bed with a lot of people but doing away with it is insane.
-deregulation left and right, as said before. complete deregulation, yes, means "freedom" but it also means FUCK YOU to the environment and many, many people at the mercy of super powerful corporations. if you think the whims and wants of corporations will bring the good life to all citizens you are sorely mistaken, and theyve proven it again and again
-yes, i agree that the gov has too much power in many cases but leaving all choices that are not explicitly cited by the constitution up to the states would mean some really ugly stuff. idk how much you pay attention to some of the goings on of certain states but leaving decisions up to some of them would manifest itself in some really crazy things going on, and oppression. "oh but you could just move to another state"....yeah, tell that to some girl who isnt being allowed an abortion in some nutjob state..tell her to just move! just abandon everyone and everything you know and spend thousands of dollars moving hundreds of miles away so the hillbillies in charge of your state wont subject you to insane laws. i think there's a reason why people like those Stormfront wackos love the guy (not to mention his newsletter controversies, though I'm not in a position to be commenting on that... but it is suspicious and he HAS said some patently wrong things about minorities, particularly blacks. i urge anyone interested to do serious homework from reliable sources on all that stuff)
-wants to overturn roe vs wade etc etc it's been covered
-opposed federal gov flu inoculation programs
-outspokenly against the civil rights act of 1964 because it was "federal interference in the labor market" and "reduced civil liberty."
-called global warming a hoax
those are just a few examples off the top of my head. on another note, he does not support a return to the gold standard as you suggested
Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE some things about him. He's consistent, doesnt seem to be bought out, is against neoconservatism and its retarded hawkishness/patriot act/torture/indefinite detainment, sees the utter failure of the drug war, and is against the measures of censorship etc that have been increasingly and frighteningly appearing, to name a few.
But the idea of having someone in office who supports what i listed and more, not to mention rejects global warming and possibly evolution... i don't like that. political consistency and non neo con hawk idiots does NOT have to come with such radical right wing ideas and the rejection of well proven ideas
BUT PLEASE NOTE i urge NO ONE to take my word or anyone's on any of this. if youre going to vote, or even discuss this stuff, DO SERIOUS HOMEWORK FROM RELIABLE AND VERIFIABLE SOURCES. there's too much at stake for taking third, fourth, fifth etc hand information
just another note on federal programs such as food stamps...contrary to apparent popular belief, the majority of people getting food stamps DO WORK, and the majority of people who get food stamps are WHITE
I just wish Gary Johnson had gotten way more attention from the start. He's like all the good parts of Ron Paul without the crazy. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive and not afraid to take a stand. Plus he seems way more sane and grounded than any of the real Republican candidates. Too bad his campaign didn't go anywhere so he's now had to switch to running as a Libertarian.
Although I like the idea of a fiscal conservative in office, the thought of that conservative being Ron Paul... or any of the Republican candidates at this point... terrifies me.
im not educated enough on gary johnson to have an opinion on him. i need to fix that...
but yes i agree that obama has done far more than he is given credit for. he has done a lot and worked hard to work with people to fix a lot of things, and god knows he's a far cry better than what would have happened if mccain had been voted in. however i believe obama is far more centrist than people seem to believe, and is much more of a hawk than he led people to believe during the election and has completely failed to support many things he claimed (big surprise, i know). that being said he is way better IMO than any other option at this point and will probably vote for him again
i did a bit more homework on johnson and you and others are right when you say he's like a paul without some of the major insane ideas, an opinion i tentatively shared from what i knew about him. too bad he doesnt have the resources and backing to be a serious contender
You all do realize that Obama pretty much killed it as hard as was possible in the white house, right?
he was facing down a depression and two wars, neither of which were remotely his fault. The house was Republican controlled and fighting him at every issue, not because they thought his ideas sucked, but simply because he was a democrat.
The economy is now on the upswing, we are completely pulling out of Iraq in a few months, as well as afghanistan, and he has developed and partially implemented a plan to provide healthcare to everyone(republican killed him on this "socialist idea"), which was modeled after the republican nominees own goddamn health plan.
If there was an IQ test done, or any experiment testing the intelligence/knowledge of the constituents of each party, the conservative side would come out looking fucking retarded. there are a lot of stupid liberals, but how in the mutherfuck did Michelle Bachman, and Sarah palin ever become viable candidates.
the saddest thing about last election was that the two nominees were great leaders and would have been awesome for this country. unfortunatly, McCain had to Dumb down his campaign to appeal to his "core constituents" and picked up that dumbass milf.
Romney is by far and away the best option for the republicans because he can possible beat obama, because Mitt is liberal enough to sway independents. But to me, he just seems like a slightly smarter version of Joe Biden.
i like to think if you believe a man from a hat read a book that no one else can read but only you because god gave you a magic stone, then they took the pages away and you couldn't re read it but say a similar story that says something about you.
Im not sure where you are going with this? that graph shows the employment rate(the economy) on the rise? which is what i said...
also said its kinda hard to get things doen when the entire House is against you just because they dont like what you stand for, not becuase they dont like your policies.
also, i thought everyone knows we leave some forces behind in countries. its essentially a peace keeping force kinda like how NATO forces are in a bunch of countries. pretty common knowledge. your not dropping any bombs here.
