How does the GOP maintain the level of support they do?

[Khadgar]

Why vote for the lesser or two evils when there's an insane third eh?

I'm just going to assume the original post was satire. But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

He won't be on the ballot, so you'll have to do a write in. Which I can't do at my voting precinct. Electronic voting machines, no receipts, no write-ins, no option to abstain.

[Ellsland]

Do you want the newly released white version of Obama, or the original smooth black? It's a tough choice, really. Who do you want to represent those that steal your freedoms one by one? Romney has a pretty nice hairline, but it's already grey so you need to consider what it will look like once he is done with even his 1st term. Obama often has a semi-clueless looking smile, while Romney has that condescending "I know all" smile. They also oftentimes wear different colored ties. This is a big election! However, I'm going to have to go with the nerdy old man (Ron Paul). If you seriously believe there is any difference between the parties, just look at the overall voting records of each individual politician. They'll always disagree on the issues that don't really matter, but when it comes to foreign, domestic, or monetary policy - same thing, different label. They'll get you all hung up on whether or not weed should be legalized, & they have you debating among each other for years over who should be allowed to get married to who, but when it comes to us actually having a right to trial, they all agree we shouldn't (NDAA - National Defense Authorization Act, recently passed).

I do live in America. Florida, actually.

Why vote for the lesser or two evils when there's an insane third eh?

Please provide your reasoning. Obama & Romney's biggest campaign contributors are basically the same, with Goldman Sachs being the largest. Oddly enough, both Romney & Obama supported bailing out the same corporations along with thousands of others using our tax dollars. Ron Paul's biggest campaign contributors are the US ARMY, NAVY, & AIR FORCE. He received more military contributions than Romney & Obama combined. It's obvious that the troops see through the flawed & immoral foreign policy that these corporately funded crooks advocate. It's also interesting to note that 95% of all media outlets are owned by the same 5 corporations. Look it up. It sheds a little light as to why you think our views are so "insane", along with many other Americans. When Dr. Paul received news coverage it was more likely than not an attempt to cast him in a bad light. He's the only one (other than Gary Johnson) that believes that it's also immoral for the Federal Reserve to be allowed to endless print Federal Reserve notes & indirectly tax us. Have you noticed the price of everything going up yet? Basically, the Keynesian (those in government + Obamney) need this ability to be able to constantly wage war, bail out corporations/banks, & slowly make the American people more apathetic through welfare. The combination of the welfare/warfare state couple with corporate media is a potent combination for Fascism (Government/Corporation combined).

[Socialist EU]

1.Evidently not very successful.
2. Yeah, most people are sucked into the ruling ideas, the ambition or hope to be higher up in the hierarchy, rather than politically struggle for the improvement, democratic leadership of our class and eventual human liberation.

1. The sig. Other people got it. You didn't.
2. Some important Roman, I want to say Seneca, said that democracy dies when people manipulate it for personal, material, gain.

1.Thank you for being patronising, I'm obviously too thick for X Factor,(I'm afraid its hard to take your sig seriously when your nation's name is after an obnoxious X-factor judge whom takes delight at humiliating the naive - it's called entertainment apparently ).
2. So you believe the ramblings of a pre-capitalist? So what you're saying is the bourgeoisie killed democracy by manipulating it for personal, material, gain?

[The UK in Exile]

Why vote for the lesser or two evils when there's an insane third eh?

Please provide your reasoning. Obama & Romney's biggest campaign contributors are basically the same, with Goldman Sachs being the largest. Oddly enough, both Romney & Obama supported bailing out the same corporations along with thousands of others using our tax dollars. Ron Paul's biggest campaign contributors are the US ARMY, NAVY, & AIR FORCE. He received more military contributions than Romney & Obama combined. It's obvious that the troops see through the flawed & immoral foreign policy that these corporately funded crooks advocate. It's also interesting to note that 95% of all media outlets are owned by the same 5 corporations. Look it up. It sheds a little light as to why you think our views are so "insane", along with many other Americans. When Dr. Paul received news coverage it was more likely than not an attempt to cast him in a bad light. He's the only one (other than Gary Johnson) that believes that it's also immoral for the Federal Reserve to be allowed to endless print Federal Reserve notes & indirectly tax us. Have you noticed the price of everything going up yet? Basically, the Keynesian (those in government + Obamney) need this ability to be able to constantly wage war, bail out corporations/banks, & slowly make the American people more apathetic through welfare. The combination of the welfare/warfare state couple with corporate media is a potent combination for Fascism (Government/Corporation combined).

thank you very much for enlightening us. you should seek out others to likewise enlighten.

[Ellsland]

Why vote for the lesser or two evils when there's an insane third eh?

I'm just going to assume the original post was satire. But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

Satire indeed.

[Norfast]

Oh.. I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl...

No, but seriously, less statist then the Democrats? We're still talking about the party that mandates vaginal probing, wants to criminalize abortion, and last February, seriously whipped themselves into an anti-contraceptive furor? Are you also forgetting that their most "anti-statist" members still believe that individual states have the right to essentially ignore the constitution in all matters except for the 2nd amendment?

Note to libertarians: please remind your friends that having the government on the side of big business =/= economic anti-statism.

Your "anticontracepton furor" was an example of antistatism: objection to government-funded birth control. The fact that you can't see that is sadly ironic and makes me doubt your perspective.

The US is headed down Greece's road, with entitlements being the number one source of spending. The Federal Government is the country's largest employer, by far, and it just took over the medical industry. And you counter with "But, abortion."

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

[Revolutopia]

Oh.. I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl...

No, but seriously, less statist then the Democrats? We're still talking about the party that mandates vaginal probing, wants to criminalize abortion, and last February, seriously whipped themselves into an anti-contraceptive furor? Are you also forgetting that their most "anti-statist" members still believe that individual states have the right to essentially ignore the constitution in all matters except for the 2nd amendment?

Note to libertarians: please remind your friends that having the government on the side of big business =/= economic anti-statism.

Your "anticontracepton furor" was an example of antistatism: objection to government-funded birth control. The fact that you can't see that is sadly ironic and makes me doubt your perspective.

The US is headed down Greece's road, with entitlements being the number one source of spending. The Federal Government is the country's largest employer, by far, and it just took over the medical industry. And you counter with "But, abortion."

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

There was no government-funded birth control unless someone is employed by the government, nor did they just take over the medical industry.

[Trotskylvania]

Oh.. I haven't laughed that hard since I was a little girl...

No, but seriously, less statist then the Democrats? We're still talking about the party that mandates vaginal probing, wants to criminalize abortion, and last February, seriously whipped themselves into an anti-contraceptive furor? Are you also forgetting that their most "anti-statist" members still believe that individual states have the right to essentially ignore the constitution in all matters except for the 2nd amendment?

Note to libertarians: please remind your friends that having the government on the side of big business =/= economic anti-statism.

Your "anticontracepton furor" was an example of antistatism: objection to government-funded birth control. The fact that you can't see that is sadly ironic and makes me doubt your perspective.

The US is headed down Greece's road, with entitlements being the number one source of spending. The Federal Government is the country's largest employer, by far, and it just took over the medical industry. And you counter with "But, abortion."

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

Except here's the problem, bucko: government funding of birth control helps ensure considerable savings in healthcare. Most notably, it reduces the amount of public funds (local, state and federal) have to be spent on prenatal care, birth and post-natal care for people. It is a very small expenditure in the grand scheme of things, and it tends to yield considerable long term savings.

So, by your own logic of shrinking government measured by the very narrow metric of public expenditure, you would have to support total public funding of contraception.

No, the US is not heading down Greece's road. Greece is in the position it is in because the ruling right-wing party lied about the health of the economy, espescially about the level of corruption, tax evasion, balance of payments, and other measures of fiscal health, to secure European Union membership. And as a European Union member, Greece lacks unilateral control of its money supply, and cannot regulate finance and capital within it's borders effectively.

The European Union's responses to the crisis, in terms of monetary policy espescially, served to shift the geographic locus of the crisis to states like Greece, preserving the health of the economies of the more affluent, powerful states at the expense of states like Greece. So when the full brunt of the crisis hit the already frail Greek system, the lies could no longer be sustained, and Greece found itself facing an economic collapse denied the tools to fight it. Which is why they are in the midst of a sovereign debt crisis.

None of these factors in anyway apply to the US, which has been quite successfully managing the worst of the recession through deficit spending and quantitative easing. "Shrinking" the size of the government through austerity measures at this point would only provoke a double-dip recession, shrinking tax revenues and ultimately leaving the economy contracted and us still having to run deficits.

There is literally no amount of federal spending that could be cut right now that would balance the budget in the near term. Any attempt to do so would provoke long-term deprecation of vital infrastructure and of private asset value, severely harming the economy in the long-term.

When the economic recovery begins in earnest, and tax receipts start increasing steadily, austerity can be implemented gradually. But not a moment before.

Also, the government hasn't taken over the medical industry, even though that's been consistently proven to be a net boon for an economy in terms of controlling costs and improving access to care.

[No Water No Moon]

The US is headed down Greece's road, with entitlements being the number one source of spending.

Which is good. In a depressed economy, spending on whatever measures are needed to get the economy and workforce running again, should be the priority.

The Federal Government is the country's largest employer, by far, and it just took over the medical industry.

No, they really really didn't. Not in any way.

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

And there's your problem. You're paying attention to what they SAY, not what they DO.

Under Obama, government shrunk. Under Bush II, it grew.

Perhaps you should look at how the last few presidents have fared in terms of government spending compared to overall GDP over the last couple of decades.

Republicans do TALK about shrinking government. Democrats don't talk about it. They do it.

[Greed and Death]

Perhaps you should look at how the last few presidents have fared in terms of government spending compared to overall GDP over the last couple of decades.

Republicans do TALK about shrinking government. Democrats don't talk about it. They do it.

Worth pointing out according to your source the shrinking in spending is from the state and local govnerment.

[Death Metal]

Why vote for the lesser or two evils when there's an insane third eh?

Please provide your reasoning.

Ron Paul voted for murdering citizens without due process (AUMF 2001), drafted a bill to render the Constitution worthless (We The People Act), is a bigot (His newletter in the mid-90s, which in 1996 he not only acknowledged but directly quoted too), inconsistent (claims to be anti-federal involvement yet has no qualms in using federal legislation to ban gay marraige and abortion; flipped flopped on DADT; voted against making MLK day a federal holiday, voted for amending the bill to change the date, and then voted against the bill AGAIN; was against SOPA/PIPA but supported CISPA (so long as they had amendments to it so it could be "fixed" by him, though the amendments don't really do anything)). And he's a complete idiot when it comes to economics.

[No Water No Moon]

Perhaps you should look at how the last few presidents have fared in terms of government spending compared to overall GDP over the last couple of decades.

Republicans do TALK about shrinking government. Democrats don't talk about it. They do it.

Worth pointing out according to your source the shrinking in spending is from the state and local govnerment.

For which? For Obama? Sure - there's a small increase in military spending, and a larger one in non-military (during this depressed economy), and a small state and local operating drop, and a bigger investment drop.

Which has led to overall reduction - literal reduction, i.e. a negative growth - even while overall GDP and especially the private proportion, have increased markedly.

But compare the numbers to similar statistics from previous terms.

Who decreased overall military spend by the most in a term? Clinton.

Who decreased overall NON-military by the most in a term? Clinton (in the same term).

Indeed - Clinton is the ONLY one to have decreased overall non-military spending. If you ignore Clinton, Obama is matched with the lowest Bush term for non-military spending, and way below the averaged Bush terms, either for just Bush II, or the combination of both Bush presidencies.

But for me, the most interesting comparison is how spending compares to the OVERALL economy. Under Obama and Clinton, even where spending increases - it increases overall by a lower proportion in comparison to overall and private growth - a phenomenon matched by only one of Bush II's terms, and only one of three combine Bush presidencies terms.

[Socialist EU]

Please provide your reasoning.

Ron Paul voted for murdering citizens without due process (AUMF 2001), drafted a bill to render the Constitution worthless (We The People Act), is a bigot (His newletter in the mid-90s, which in 1996 he not only acknowledged but directly quoted too), inconsistent (claims to be anti-federal involvement yet has no qualms in using federal legislation to ban gay marraige and abortion; flipped flopped on DADT; voted against making MLK day a federal holiday, voted for amending the bill to change the date, and then voted against the bill AGAIN; was against SOPA/PIPA but supported CISPA (so long as they had amendments to it so it could be "fixed" by him, though the amendments don't really do anything)). And he's a complete idiot when it comes to economics.

Yet we British supporters of Ron Paul.

......But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=188288&p=9947566#p9947566

[Greed and Death]

Worth pointing out according to your source the shrinking in spending is from the state and local govnerment.

For which? For Obama? Sure - there's a small increase in military spending, and a larger one in non-military (during this depressed economy), and a small state and local operating drop, and a bigger investment drop.

Which has led to overall reduction - literal reduction, i.e. a negative growth - even while overall GDP and especially the private proportion, have increased markedly.

But compare the numbers to similar statistics from previous terms.

Who decreased overall military spend by the most in a term? Clinton.

Who decreased overall NON-military by the most in a term? Clinton (in the same term).

Indeed - Clinton is the ONLY one to have decreased overall non-military spending. If you ignore Clinton, Obama is matched with the lowest Bush term for non-military spending, and way below the averaged Bush terms, either for just Bush II, or the combination of both Bush presidencies.

But for me, the most interesting comparison is how spending compares to the OVERALL economy. Under Obama and Clinton, even where spending increases - it increases overall by a lower proportion in comparison to overall and private growth - a phenomenon matched by only one of Bush II's terms, and only one of three combine Bush presidencies terms.

Clinton is the only other Democratic President up there and the only one with a listed term of net spending cuts, and only for one term. So that does not really say Democrat Presidents shriek the govnerment, that says Clinton shrank the govnerment, generally you need more than one data point to declare a trend.

[TaQud]

......But I agree, though, that as many people should vote for Ron Paul as possible.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=188288&p=9947566#p9947566

it could work...

[No Water No Moon]

For which? For Obama? Sure - there's a small increase in military spending, and a larger one in non-military (during this depressed economy), and a small state and local operating drop, and a bigger investment drop.

Which has led to overall reduction - literal reduction, i.e. a negative growth - even while overall GDP and especially the private proportion, have increased markedly.

But compare the numbers to similar statistics from previous terms.

Who decreased overall military spend by the most in a term? Clinton.

Who decreased overall NON-military by the most in a term? Clinton (in the same term).

Indeed - Clinton is the ONLY one to have decreased overall non-military spending. If you ignore Clinton, Obama is matched with the lowest Bush term for non-military spending, and way below the averaged Bush terms, either for just Bush II, or the combination of both Bush presidencies.

But for me, the most interesting comparison is how spending compares to the OVERALL economy. Under Obama and Clinton, even where spending increases - it increases overall by a lower proportion in comparison to overall and private growth - a phenomenon matched by only one of Bush II's terms, and only one of three combine Bush presidencies terms.

Clinton is the only other Democratic President up there and the only one with a listed term of net spending cuts, and only for one term. So that does not really say Democrat Presidents shriek the govnerment, that says Clinton shrank the govnerment, generally you need more than one data point to declare a trend.

Not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. Read back to see what I was responding to when I trotted the numbers out.

[Greed and Death]

Clinton is the only other Democratic President up there and the only one with a listed term of net spending cuts, and only for one term. So that does not really say Democrat Presidents shriek the govnerment, that says Clinton shrank the govnerment, generally you need more than one data point to declare a trend.

Not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. Read back to see what I was responding to when I trotted the numbers out.

Republicans do TALK about shrinking government. Democrats don't talk about it. They do it.

IS what you said as a broad sweeping trend.

However you only have One data point to support you claim of a trend of Democrats shrink the govnerment.

[Malgrave]

FOX News and an incredibly large amount of money.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

1:Propoganda
2:Having common economic ideals
3:Having super duper ultra mega rich buddies

[Socialist EU]

FOX News and an incredibly large amount of money.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that many democrat funders, supporters, members are millionaires.
And the liberal supporting media is just as lame and superficial.

[Malgrave]

FOX News and an incredibly large amount of money.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that many democrat funders, supporters, members are millionaires.

and when did I say that they don't?

[No Water No Moon]

Not sure if you're deliberately missing the point. Read back to see what I was responding to when I trotted the numbers out.

Republicans do TALK about shrinking government. Democrats don't talk about it. They do it.

IS what you said as a broad sweeping trend.

However you only have One data point to support you claim of a trend of Democrats shrink the govnerment.

*sigh*

First - what you posted was not what I responded to. I didn't respond to my own response. What I responded to was this:

There is only one party even talking about shrinking the size of government, and it isn't the Democrats. If it were, I'd support them. But it's not. My support goes to whomever is.

i.e. a person says they vote for the party that talks about shrinking government. Well, over the last 20 years or so, only one party has shrunk government - and it's not the one that talks about it.

Moreover, of the two parties, the one that has done the most to reduce the growth of government - is also not the party that talks about it.

What I'm responding to is that there's a (deliberately fostered) perception that Republicans are not only small government, but do more to reduce government size, and reduce government growth, than Democrats. And I'm pointing out that the person who says that is what they are voting for - is voting for the party that TALKS that way, and against the party that actually WALKS that way.

[Socialist EU]

Apparently it hasn't occurred to you that many democrat funders, supporters, members are millionaires.

and when did I say that they don't?

You neglect to mention that they do! Guilty by omission.

[TaQud]

FOX News and an incredibly large amount of money.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

FOX News and an incredibly large amount of money.

Also the fact a lot of people agree with their political views?