2012 US Presidential Election

[Sunny Marionette]

I don't see Vermin Supreme up there and I am dissapoint.

[Wamitoria]

I don't see Vermin Supreme up there and I am dissapoint.

Joke candidates are pointless.

[Chiki]

It doesn't, but it does forbid wars that aren't declared by Congress, which all of them haven't been since Vietnam.

No, it actually doesn't. No court has ever stated that nor has any court ruled the War Powers Act to be constitutional.

But it is. If I were on the supreme court I would have found that to be unconstitutional. The founders made the rule of needing congressional approval for a war because they didn't want one branch of government being more powerful than the other.

[Wamitoria]

If I were on the supreme court I would have found that to be unconstitutional.

Too bad your opinion doesn't matter on issues of law.

[North California]

How is Ron Paul's foreign policy at "nightmare"? It is the only one that follows the Constitution and the Founding Fathers and says we should not be in these many wars overseas.

no where in the Constitution does say anything about staying out of wars over seas you need to study up some more plus the founding fathers never expected the nation to grow as big as it did or expect it to be a major player in economics, policy making, or military power thats why you dont see that stuff in the constitution today.

George Washington advised us to get involved in the affairs of other nations. Why do people think America should be the policeman of the world? Why is it our job to fight wars for Israel and NATO? Why do we have this large overseas empire we cannot afford and kills millions? Why is that even though we have the most aggressive foreign policy, we are attack a lot more than the rest of the first world countries? Could it be the our meddling overseas has just caused more countries to hate us? Could it be that we were not attacked because of our "freedom", but rather because we were restricting freedom overseas and bombing other countries? If the "terrorists" really attack us because of our freedom, then why weren't countries like Switzerland or Norway attacked? Both of them are a lot freer than the US.

[Sunny Marionette]

I don't see Vermin Supreme up there and I am dissapoint.

Joke candidates are pointless.

But it was on C-Span so it's legit, yo.

But seriously, I agree with you. They make good entertainment at least.

[Laerod]

I don't see Vermin Supreme up there and I am dissapoint.

Joke candidates are pointless.

Ron Paul and Santorum are up there...

[Chiki]

Ron Paul is pretty much the opposite of a statist, he opposes government spending and influence in the economy and society.

No, Ron Paul "opposes" government spending and influence in the economy and the society. He actively tries to end it in the federal government, I'll give you that, but his bills clearly show that he's in support of the states wielding massive power against their citizens. He is a statist, he just isn't a "federal" statist.

By statist as in give powers to the "states" (like... Maryland and Utah)? That is a principal libertarian belief, as it says in the 10th amendment that all powers not guaranteed to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved FOR the states. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

[Osterra]

I'm British, so I was looking through candidates. According to Wikipedia, today, Santorum withdrew.

[Osterra]

I'm British, so I was looking through candidates. According to Wikipedia, today, Santorum withdrew.

[Chiki]

If I were on the supreme court I would have found that to be unconstitutional.

Too bad your opinion doesn't matter on issues of law.

True... Next goal of mine is to get the next president to appoint me to the supreme court

[Crata]

I'm all in favour of less government for personal reasons, but I also believe that sometimes the government HAS to step in. See the Great Depression. What would have happened with the GOP at that time? Well, goodbye, world.

Also, take a look at Ron Paul's statement on his official page.

• Against abortion (= pro regulating a women's body - how about personal, uh, I don't know - freedoms?)
• Repeal the national health care system (= allow private companies to deny basic services and run helpless citizens into helplessness)
• End foreign wars immediately (= leaving allies behind; I'm all against wars, but just abandoning allies at this point would be irresponsible)
• Homeschooling (= against an educated America; how about common standards to provide equal chances for everyone?)
• Privatize energy (= put America in a stranglehold of the few companies able to control the energy; same problem in Germany, based on an old law around the 1940s)
• Statement of faith (= so Mr. Paul, how about the seperation of state and church?)

Overall, meh. I used to support him, but looking at these points makes me not to any longer.

[Revolutopia]

no where in the Constitution does say anything about staying out of wars over seas you need to study up some more plus the founding fathers never expected the nation to grow as big as it did or expect it to be a major player in economics, policy making, or military power thats why you dont see that stuff in the constitution today.

George Washington advised us to get involved in the affairs of other nations. Why do people think America should be the policeman of the world? Why is it our job to fight wars for Israel and NATO? Why do we have this large overseas empire we cannot afford and kills millions? Why is that even though we have the most aggressive foreign policy, we are attack a lot more than the rest of the first world countries? Could it be the our meddling overseas has just caused more countries to hate us? Could it be that we were not attacked because of our "freedom", but rather because we were restricting freedom overseas and bombing other countries? If the "terrorists" really attack us because of our freedom, then why weren't countries like Switzerland or Norway attacked? Both of them are a lot freer than the US.

George Washington is not the Constitution nor is he all the Founding Fathers. Thus your original statement is still wrong.

[Teddy Republic]

Steward Alexander is the only sane choice. Sure, he's a socialist, but at least he doesn't support the CIA, Guantanamo Bay, Execution, War, Theocracy. He's a feminist, a human-rights supporter and a darn well learned politician. I say this as a TR fan, and I mean it.

[Laerod]

No, Ron Paul "opposes" government spending and influence in the economy and the society. He actively tries to end it in the federal government, I'll give you that, but his bills clearly show that he's in support of the states wielding massive power against their citizens. He is a statist, he just isn't a "federal" statist.

By statist as in give powers to the "states" (like... Maryland and Utah)? That is a principal libertarian belief, as it says in the 10th amendment that all powers not guaranteed to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are reserved FOR the states. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

You'd think a principal libertarian belief was freedom, not creating massively powerful governments with no checks and balances.

[Wikkiwallana]

Let's consider our options:


Obama: Bought by Wall Street and Military-Industrial Complex, supports the Federal Reserve, the wars, and the NDAA
Romney: Bought by Wall Street and Military-Industrial Complex, supports the Federal Reserve and the wars, and the NDAA
Gingrich: Bought by Wall Street and Military-Industrial Complex, supports the Federal Reserve and the wars, and the NDAA
Santorum: Bought by Wall Street and Military-Industrial Complex, supports the Federal Reserve, the wars, and the NDAA

and...


Ron Paul: The only constitutionalist candidate

Not in a million years. He ignores the supremacy clause, the 1sr amendment, and the 14th amendment; has no idea what the 9th and 10th amendments actually mean; and has voted for a bill he personally called "constitutionally flawed".

who supports maximum liberty,

His "We the People Act" and "Marriage Protection Act" are anything but.

both personal and economic,

See above.

State's rights,

There is no such thing.

ending the wars,

We've ended one and are winding down another.

ending the Federal Reserve,

Moronic idea.

legalizing weed,

no, he wants to let states set drug policy; there's a difference.

ending foreign aid,

Will accomplish nothing except pissing off the international community.

ending the messy bureaucracy that is our government,

No he doesn't

returning education to the State and local levels,

Horrible idea, unless we want a generation of people who don't understand science.

opposes the Patriot Act,

It's already mostly gone, so big whoop.

opposes the NDAA,

Yes, not paying are armed forces their salaries is a stellar plan.

opposes the TSA,

While they've gone too far, the actual idea of making sure people aren't taking bombs, guns, and knives on planes is sound.

supports gun rights,

So does every other candidate.

opposes affirmative action (judge people by their abilities and skill, not race),

Way to not understand what affirmative action is.

supports the free market,

The free market caused the global economic crash with it's greed and lies. Fuck the free market.

opposes the bailouts,

Yeah, we should just let our citizens rot in poverty!

will cut $1 trillion from dept.

How?

Will restore America.

You seem to have the definition of "restore" confused with "destroy".

Yeah, Ron Paul 2012! Join the Revolution.

If he wins, I certainly will. And I can near guarantee there will be one.

[Wikkiwallana]

Slavery, no rights for women, non-landowners...

Touche, good point. However, these were civil liberties that were not socially acceptable at that time era. Nowadays homosexuals can't get married, in some states people of non-faith cannot hold a political office, etc. We just need less government, that's all there is to it.

Paul opposes gay marriage…

[Wikkiwallana]

Actually, it's been getting better.
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center ... alecon.pdf

Now why would the current administration say they are making progress? Hmmm. Why did the last administration say they were making progress, and as did the previous one? Could it be that the government lies to the populace is just trying to stay in power and get reelected? No! The government is 100% truthful and can be trusted, right?

If you dispute the data, go gather some yourself and present it for analysis. Passive-aggressive sarcasm doesn't prove shit.

[North California]

George Washington advised us to get involved in the affairs of other nations. Why do people think America should be the policeman of the world? Why is it our job to fight wars for Israel and NATO? Why do we have this large overseas empire we cannot afford and kills millions? Why is that even though we have the most aggressive foreign policy, we are attack a lot more than the rest of the first world countries? Could it be the our meddling overseas has just caused more countries to hate us? Could it be that we were not attacked because of our "freedom", but rather because we were restricting freedom overseas and bombing other countries? If the "terrorists" really attack us because of our freedom, then why weren't countries like Switzerland or Norway attacked? Both of them are a lot freer than the US.

George Washington is not the Constitution nor is he all the Founding Fathers. Thus your original statement is still wrong.

Regardless, would you agree that a foreign policy of peace is much better than our current one? Also for the Constitution, all our wars in the past were declared and had a clear goal, and through those wars (US-Mexico War, Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII) we were able to actually benefit. But, still, maybe the World Wars could have been avoided. But, now, look at the modern day wars (which were undeclared and illegal). Korea, Vietnam, Iraq #1, Iraq #2, Afghanistan. Those wars have brought us nothing but harm.

[Laerod]

Now why would the current administration say they are making progress? Hmmm. Why did the last administration say they were making progress, and as did the previous one? Could it be that the government lies to the populace is just trying to stay in power and get reelected? No! The government is 100% truthful and can be trusted, right?

If you dispute the data, go gather some yourself and present it for analysis. Passive-aggressive sarcasm doesn't prove shit.

But it's so cool and edgy.

[Chiki]

Touche, good point. However, these were civil liberties that were not socially acceptable at that time era. Nowadays homosexuals can't get married, in some states people of non-faith cannot hold a political office, etc. We just need less government, that's all there is to it.

Paul opposes gay marriage…

But he doesn't let his religious beliefs influence his political decisions. He believes that gay people should have the right to marry, because he advocates more freedom and less government restrictions.

[Wikkiwallana]

No, it actually doesn't. No court has ever stated that nor has any court ruled the War Powers Act to be constitutional.

But it is. If I were on the supreme court I would have found that to be unconstitutional. The founders made the rule of needing congressional approval for a war because they didn't want one branch of government being more powerful than the other.

The Founders were still alive in 1941?

[Revolutopia]

George Washington is not the Constitution nor is he all the Founding Fathers. Thus your original statement is still wrong.

Regardless, would you agree that a foreign policy of peace is much better than our current one? Also for the Constitution, all our wars in the past were declared and had a clear goal, and through those wars (US-Mexico War, Spanish-American War, WWI, and WWII) we were able to actually benefit. But, still, maybe the World Wars could have been avoided. But, now, look at the modern day wars (which were undeclared and illegal). Korea, Vietnam, Iraq #1, Iraq #2, Afghanistan. Those wars have brought us nothing but harm.

Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have been declared as Congress passed acts authorizing military actions against those nations, nothing in the Constitution directly says Congress has to use the words Declaration to declare war.

[Tsarsgrad]

I don't see Vermin Supreme up there and I am dissapoint.

Joke candidates are pointless.

Then why put Santorum?


Anyhow, I support President Obama. He's done more good in four years than what Bush did in eight. Plus, he swore to veto SOPA.

-An American

[Kvatchdom]

This place is full of Paulbots

Well, I don't like him. Sure, he's more liberal on social issues than the other 'big guys', but his economic ideas are far-right. The guy, even though is a libertarian, opposes women's rights. This is what I call American hypocrisy.

And the whole Republican Party... It started off as an anti-slavery party, being much to the left from the Democratic Party(Which used to be conservative). These conservatives have ruined the ex-progressive Republican Party. Fools, hypocrites.

I support Steward Alexander, a fellow feminist and socialist. Too bad all the main channels oppose him, not even mentioning his name...