Ron Paul seems different. He doesn't seem to care who he shocks or offends with his opinions, which leads me to believe he really would be different. Obama spoke of hope, but he has always been so politically correct. I always saw Obama as a guy who just tells people what they want to hear. Ron Paul tried to expose Obama during the campaign. I recall Ron saying, "this guy doesn't want change, he wants the status quo". If I believe anyone can make real change, Ron Paul can. And maybe not Ron Paul himself, but the ideas that Ron Paul brings to the mainstream would eventually cause the change, I believe. Having said that...... I hope Ron Paul gets elected. Yes we can.

How? Can you present even a scrap of evidence as to how he will accomplish anything he has promised (especially those things that don’t fall under the control of the presidency)? The fact that he promises things he could never hope to deliver makes him exponentially worse than the usual crowd, to my mind, as he is truly preying upon the hopes and ideals of a public that is vastly uninformed as to the political process.

Can I just say that it really bothers me when people come out singing the praises of an idea or individual and then go silent when pressed for evidence?

I really appreciated my discussion on the Venus Project with Melodic Catastrophe, precisely because he was willing to engage in an open minded debate/discussion on the merits and issues of the VP. Lately, that's been a rare occurrence in my life.

I've been noticing more and more that when topics like this get brought up online or in person, the other parties always seem eager to drop it or move on once their empty lines of "He's a great guy" or "This idea is awesome" are challenged on a factual basis. I'm sorry if this post comes off as overly negative, this is just something that's been bothering me a LOT recently.

Snozz, I think it's complicated to mix psychedelics and disagreement in a text based setting. I try to keep telling myself to be only positive, even when I disagree. Also, I agree with you about Ron Paul and the idea that any change is slow even if the President wants it. I'll add a bit more.

I voted for Obama and I'm actually happy with the job he has done. To start, that health care change was a big deal and regardless if you think the plan goes too far or not far enough, he unblocked the log jam that has been stuck for almost 100 years in America. He also said before the election, that he was against a single payer system and the new plan is not a single payer system (just like he said he would do). I've seen people with health insurance get screwed because the insurance company starts playing "pre-existing conditions" games. Those days are gone. Obama deserves a lot of credit for that.

Obama never said he would stop the Iraq war. He also told us he wanted to 'win' Afghanistan so if anyone expected a dove, it's because your weren't listening to what he said. (That said, I'm not happy we are in 3 or 4 wars right now.)

Most people are pissed at Obama because the economy in America sucks. Remember what it was like under the last days of Bush? Obama was handed an economic freefall. Largely due to tax breaks, rich people are doing well right now. I'm pissed Obama didn't undo those irresponsible Bush tax handouts but Obama doesn't like them either. We may be living in a new type of economy where full employment doesn't happen. That's not Obama's doing.

So getting back to Ron Paul, I very much like some of the things he says. I also believe there is a side to Paul's thinking that I don't like. Libertarians tend to hate programs that provide a Social safety net. They want everybody to be self-sufficient. I think 'shit happens' and people sometimes need a bit of help and government is a good way to make that happen. I like knowing that kids receive a continuing benefit when the head of household dies. Ron Paul wants government out of that arena.

Lastly, no matter what a politician says, getting it to happen is not unilateral. There's an age old conflict between what politicians promise and what they can deliver. Even if they are sincere, they can't make good on some promises.

I'm not saying people can't be positive and disagree or anything along that line...but when we're having an intelligent debate and someone comes along at the end of that and essentially says Ron Paul is a great guy who can change things (when we just covered that his promises are hollow and don't fall under the office of the president) that irks me. If we can't discuss issues on which we disagree here of all places (this is one of the more intelligent groupings of people I've encountered in my life), then where can we? What is the appropriate place?


I agree with your first part; he never promised an end to war, but his actions in Syria are beyond inexcusable. The man is trying/tried to justify drone attacks as non-aggressive/non-military force...that's a joke! So much so that he couldn't even get congress to go along with it. He's also carried on the PATRIOT ACT, but that's a topic for a different thread.

As to the economy, yea, tax breaks played a large role, so did the housing bubble bursting and the collapse of a US economy largely (thanks mainly to the US bankers who backed Obama & Co.) supported by the financial sector. To say that Obama "doesn't like [the tax cuts] either" is a meaningless, throwaway statement, imo. Actions matter, political rhetoric does not. He can state he hates Wall Street brokers and bankers all he wants, but as long as his actions are a boon to them and a pain to the populace, his position is in favor of the oligarchs. This is the same vein America has been firmly entrenched in since Reagan, regardless of who the President has been. This is what I take issue with, the words do not align with the actions.

A final example; his comments on Israel are atrocious. He talks about Palestinians upholding certain peaces or actions (which he fails to mention are tenets of agreements the Palestinians have laid on the table) while then making demands and failing to acknowledge that there have been agreements laid forth but that these agreements do not satisfy the US and its client state of Israel. Look at his rhetoric about how he would hate to have rockets falling where his two little girls were sleeping; justifying Israeli retaliation to Hezbollah rocket attacks which, interestingly enough, weren't occurring because at that time, non-Israelis were maintaining the agreed-upon ceasefire despite numerous Israeli incursions into their land. Actions are all that matter, no politician I have seen in my life has acted differently from any other, despite of rhetoric...the only thing that changes are the arenas in which their actions occur and the severity of their actions and the effects upon the national and (in the American case especially) global populace.

Personally, as much as I detest these and other actions of Obama's (while I do appreciate him bringing healthcare to the table, at least) I shudder to imagine Ron Paul attempting to deal with such issues. Honestly, I feel that any political figure whose rhetoric is already so "out there" when it comes to fairly basic issues has no place in the White House or in any role of real power, such as committee head, party leader, etc.

WhoooooooHooooooo! Another round of Nexus-Politico??

lol.

Aside from implications of the psychedelic experience...is there a better topic for mental masturbation than politics?

What can I say? I guess I'm just a chronic masturbator

Snozz I agree 100% and I would consider myself a chronic masturbator also!

Once there was this guy who caught his son maturbating and he told his son not to do it because it would make him go blind.

He caught his son doing it again and once again dad said, I told you if you keep doing that you'll go blind and the kid says,

Dad, cant I just do it until I need glasses?

lol

I know..... Its hard to resist.

Perhaps the Nexus needs a subforum, The Onanistic Office, where all us mental wankers can congregate?

I defended Obama a little bit but my point wasn't to start a discussion about him (or politics really) but rather that he has done SOME of the things he said he would do before being elected. I know people who voted for him that were surprised he didn't end Iraq and Afghanistan instantly. I think those folks heard the word "change" and expected him to withdraw from those wars upon election. Well, he never said he would withdraw troops immediately, but lots of people expected that anyway.

The point I am trying to make gets back to the initial post. I think the largest problems in the US are based on the ignorance of average Americans. Not so long ago, about 1/3 of FOX News viewers thought Saddam Hussien was responsible for the 9/11 attack. There's lots of statistics like this indicating that people are not well informed about a wide range of issues. The media is part of the problem but the news companies are driven by ratings and if people wanted quality information, they would deliver.

Finally, if we don't hold government accountable, they will do whatever is easy and in THEIR self-interest. If we are too lazy to be informed, we can't fix anything and will have the government we deserve.

Personally, I think you are mixing up the cause and effect here. All of the media conglomerates and news companies are owned by a handful of corporations. To my mind, the masses aren't requesting accurate or truly informed information because they don't know what to ask for...they assume that the news-media is acting as the news, unbiased, impartial and accurate, when in fact, it is acting as the news-media; the lapdog of corporate ownership and interest.

The reason people thought Saddam was responsible is because this is the way that these events are presented to them by FOX...it's not that they independently thought about it, researched it and then started watching FOX; it's that, what they believe to be "news" told them or insinuated this "fact" and allowed them to apply that maligned understanding to whatever else happened to be going on at the time. Ratings don't affect the news...I mean, they do, but not to the degree ratings affect most shows. Most news agencies expect to (at least they used to with regards to tv-media) operate at a loss, and can do so precisely because they are corporate-owned and another sector's profit makes up for their loss.

The News (ideally) exists to create the informed public that is necessary for a democracy to function properly. We can get into the inherent contradiction of "democracy" and "capitalism" at a later date, but assuming that the news does its job and doesn't function as the news-media, you wind up with an informed public. Why? Because most people are sheep...decently intelligent sheep, capable of seeing things and making connections, but sheep nonetheless. If the news was not corporately-manipulated and propagandized, people would be getting a "picture of the world" rather than a daily slice of horror designed to increase fear and sell a product that should not exist to be marketed as such. This picture of the world would create an informed citizenry and allow for an awakeneing of sorts. The average Joe works an exhausting nine-to-five wage-slavery job and comes home completely beat. He doesn't have the time or the energy to take on research projects and read voluminous works on the geopolitical scheme of the world, so he flips on the news-media, which he believes will present him with a distillation of global reality...unfortunately, that's not even remotely close to what he gets.

Enforce journalistic standards, cut the press from the corporations, end the sensationalism and return the news-media back to what it once was and you will have a considerably better-informed citizenry.


This is exactly what happens...this is because the politicians and CEOs are in bed with each other. They control the media, they control the regulatory firms, they control EVERYTHING. How do you hold government accountable when it's literally the same people going back and forth between government, private sector, and private sector regulating firms? It's literally impossible. This is the incestuous behemoth we have created that needs to be taken down...most likely through violent overthrow...simply because, nothing less will effectively abolish the system.

It's not about people being too lazy to be informed, it's about the capitalist system preventing people from having the time or energy to stay informed of political events. Add on a credit/debt-cycle economy to this and suddenly all of the average person's time and energy goes into barely keeping their head above water. When you have entire sections of the populace that can barely feed, clothe or house themselves, how the hell can you expect them to stay informed? This problem is systemic and as much as it is inherent to the capitalist system...it can be traced back to Reagan's deregulation and tax policies. In the 1970's, the American working class had the highest standard of living, EVER. Consequently, it was also a period of great political and social activism. Since the implementation and continuation of numerous Reagan-era policies, we have continued a long dark slide into the abyss, as a tiny minority gains incredible wealth at the social, economic and natural resource cost to the vast majority of the country's populace.

Hello. I haven't seen this topic in a few , I wasn't running. I can't provide evidence that he will accomplish everything he said. But, for example, he has spoken out against the drug war. I believe he could change the way things are done in the drug war by cutting funding for it at the federal level. Does he not have the power to cut federal spending?

The reason I don't believe he is truly preying upon the hopes and ideas of an uninformed public is because his ideas aren't particularly popular. I don't see him as feeding the masses what they want to hear. I see he says what he truly believes. Also, as I alluded to in my last post, even if Ron Paul himself doesn't achieve everything he says he wants to, I believe he would provide the change that would set the tone and pave the way for the future. I believe he could be the critical instrument for change, if not Ron being the change himself.

I think it's great even just having a guy like him around. What other mainstream politician is criticizing the drug war so strongly? I watched a Republican debate, and it seems, thanks to Ron, now the Republicans are squabbling over who is going to be the most liberal on drug policy, just to keep up with the expectations that Ron has set. Ron has made it popular, and basically expected for many politicians now to be progressive thinking on this issue. Everything starts with small steps. The fact that they are even discussing this issue seriously is a huge step, in my opinion. First it starts out with talk, then things move from there.

Nope. That would be Congress (or in special cases like food stamps/social security/medicare, it's based on the number of people drawing benefits). Technically you could argue the president "suggests" the initial bill...but it goes through many changes according to congressional rules and regulations, or that he could exercise veto power over the funding bill, but he could be overruled by supermajority and even then, he wouldn't have any real say as far as what ultimately goes in it; congress decides how much or how little to value the president's input (there are also emergency funding bills which require no presidential input whatsoever, although there are specific circumstances that must be in place for such legislation to pass). But ultimately, decisions on Federal funding come from Congress. This info can be found with a quick google search.

To my mind it doesn't matter how many people listen to him or how popular his ideas are; if he's saying things that are patently untrue or not in his abilities as President, he's preying on idealistic individuals. Whether it's 10 people or 10million people, the number is irrelevant, his rhetoric is false (i.e. he is lying) and he cannot be trusted/is no better than any other lying politician. Maybe you don't see it as that cut and dry...and that's fine, we'll just have to agree to disagree on the question of whether or not the number of people you lie to changes the fact that you are preying on them.


Barney Frank has been a more vocal opponent of prohibition for a longer period of time, afaik. He presented some of the first decriminalization bills to the US legislature well before anyone else was even thinking about it, let alone speaking publicly on it. Jared Polis is another congressman who has actually come about rather recently, but is engaging in serious conversation with his constituents and sharing "Drug War Horror Stories" with other politicos and the public. He has put the spotlight on this issue in a way I'd argue Paul has not; as he's addressing the reality whereas Paul dances around in the theoretical realm. Crazily enough Tom Tancredo has come out against the War on Drugs as well, and the list goes on and on, again, google is your friend. Paul is not special in any way, shape or form on this, as far as I can tell. I don't mean to trash him, he's made favorable statements with regards to medical marijuana and his opinion/attitude is much more "correct" than many...but you're giving him undue credit. He's done little more than trumpet a few of the basic principles we (within this community) are all aware of.

Do you have any citation or evidence to back this up? This sounds completely unlike anything I've heard from the Republican party, especially on any wide-scale level as you seem to be implying. Yes, there are a number of Republicans coming around on this, but to credit Paul for this shift is ludicrous...in fact, most of the Republicans who have come around on this cite either constituent stories, or, more frequently, the unsustainable costs associated with processing non-violent drug offenders through the legal system and housing them in jails/prisons, not Ron Paul's vague libertarian rhetoric.

Ultimately, Politics takes place in the real world, where the rubber meets the road. Ron Paul lives in fantasy land where he has mythical powers and can abolish all kinds of federal programs at the drop of a hat. As someone pointed out in this thread already, some of his most vociferous support comes from the Tea-Party...a group that has proved time after time they don't understand even the most basic tenets and principles of American politics and political history. This is the man you think can change America for the better?

No amount of Duc tape is going to fix a fundamentally flawed system, you may keep it going for some (maybe even a long) time but you are really just creating a sticky, lumpy mess. IMO, best is to just let it completely break down so you can start over with something new.

City states armed with tactical nukes, that might work...

After reading this thread, i have to admit i am a little skeptical of paul. He shares something in common with obama, lots of promises, and he may or may not come through on things. But like what was said about congress being the major power element, does the president have any real power? It would seem that a cleaning of house at congress is in order. But to be truthful, i think the political system would just vote in people that are the same more or less as those they replace.

what was has been said about media and living standards was really interesting as well. People who are low income, or hardworking, don't have alot of time to independently find credible information and news. Or they don't have the money, or they're lazy. Thus all that is available to them is TV news, and that's just really sad. Its far to easy to not be informed today, and i see an epidemic of intellectual laziness in america. Really its not laziness, rather distraction from that task by work or other desirable things.

The way i see it, were stuck in a positive feedback loop, living standards decline, people become more sheepish, and are more susceptible to bullshit. politicians "supported" (needs more emphasis) by corporations and the status qwo are then more easily electable into office. And if you think about it, if your stuck in a shitty job or are unhappy about your life bec. of your living standards, you want to vote for someone making promises to fix things, and not the one telling you things are fucked up big-time and need to change.

this will only work for the wolves for so long though, eventually i believe there WILL be a tipping point. When the general public rationalizes and understands the radical disconnect between political rhetoric, action, and reality. People will see the problem is the system itself, and instill something new to take its place.

We need politicians that are realistically, superhuman, supermoral, and superrational. Not to mention highly intelligent and skeptical. Either we make a system that does away with this requirement, or people need to be much more careful and informed about who they vote for. Either way its hard work for people who are either already busy, or distracted by life.

When I first heard about Ron Paul and some of the things he was saying, I must admit that I took notice and thought wow this guy does not talk like most politicians. Then I started looking closer. I wondered why someone with these beliefs would align himself with the Republicans and most recently with the Tea Party fanatics. I can honestly say that I would never vote for this man. Take a good look at Rand Paul, Ron's son. This guy has some serious problems with credibility. And Ron supports him no matter what. In my opinion he will never be elected President, but even if he were, he would never be able to accomplish even a small percentage of what he promises to do. The fact is that it takes dozens and dozens, sometime hundreds, of high powered decision makers in order to make huge changes like he proposes as RP simply does not have the traction or support from the powerful elite who really control things to do most of what he wants and proposes to change. I hope someone can figure out how to do a few of the things he has proposed though.

C'mon guys, surely you know by now that it doesn't matter who you vote for. I's already decided!- Whatever is in the government agenda gets done sooner, or later. It's all a game to trick you all into thinking you have control of your country, or should i say CORPORATION. Because the united states isn't a country after all.And the police are there to protect the corporation, not the public.

-As far as the united states government is concerned, you either work for the corporation, or you are nothing. The only true freedom you have is when you choose to fly away from your corporation....

What we have here, this incestuous relationship between multinational corporations, the government at the federal level, and the press smacks of fascism. The courts seem to be slowly but surely removing more of our constitution rights the latest one being warrantless searches. The two major political parties seem to be one in the same... look at what hope and change got us. I did not think it was possible for things to be worse under a democratic president never mind when Bush stepped down, but here we are. We are involved in yet another foreign war with the 'democratic' president silently 'declaring' the war without authorization by the legislative branches.

My gut says that it will not change without the near leveling of the septic tank that Washington DC has become. The feeding frenzy of lobbyests has to be stopped, the professional class of career politicians needs to be removed, and government reduced to manageable size.

Huh? This sounds like more YouTube conspiracy nonsense.

yes, i got it from u tube....are you saying it's incorrect...?