Ron Paul vs Rudy Guliani

[IanSwiftCore]

WELLLL... I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Whoops.


But I'm definitely going to be voting for ma man Ron Paul assuming he gets past the primaries. I won't be able vote in the primaries because I won't be old enough (I believe that's how it works), but I'll be 18 by the time the election rolls around.

[RawMeat3000]

Very insightfull.

Where did you get our secret planz?

I stole them...

From ur BRAINZ!!!!

Frankly speaking though, your choices are slim, your population is stupid and the elections are rigged with a retarded votingsystem.

An idiot shall be selected.

Arrrggg! I hate that fact. An idiot WILL be selected, and not even by the American people, but by a few electoral colleges. I love the fact that I'll get to vote in a little over a year, but it really feels like my vote will never, ever count. Not until our whole system of electing officials is changed.

I'd rather see Ron Paul win than Guliani(<that guy's an a-hole), but I'd really love to see Joe Biden become president. But only if the bastard doesn't take my money!

[Meotwister]

the electoral college was setup as a system to dilute population centers (regions) votes as they may have differing concerns than the rest of the country. This in turn would make presidents appeal to a wide variety of interests so they won't be just popular in a region or city... how well that works is up to you. The electors actually can vote for someone whom the state didnt choose (faithless elector) and has happened roughly 57 times.

You shouldn't think your vote will not count, basically it counts if you win and doesnt if you lose.. but then again when is it not like that.

and I'd like to see Guliani over Paul because really Ron Paul isnt republican or democrat and is just entertainment so far on the debates as he goes off into his own world and rants. Guliani, even if you don't agree with him, is capable of getting something done. The way I see it anyway.

[Mr. Happy]

I don't understand why people like Guilliani, he was one of the least popular mayors in a long time. Sure, he was there when 9/11 happened, but anyone can stand on a pile of rubble and say that it sucks.

[RawMeat3000]

I don't know very much about the electoral college and how it works, I just think that the people should decide who their officials are, without the interference of a third party. That's true democracy.

And Guliani is too much like Bush, we as a country need someone different because the same formula over and over again won't work. Ron Paul is a true Republican, and I like that about him, even though I'm sort of a Liberal. He's one of the only candidates that makes sense when his mouth opens, and anyone who denys gay people the freedom of being American, anyone who turns a group people into second class citizens should never, ever be the president of America. If Guliani became president, he'd be just like Bush.

[theCommie]

Ah, but let's not forget that democracy is only an adjective in the States' government system; namely, a democratic republic.

I tend to view these sort of posts as pointless, as its just a bunch of people debating amongst themselves, who, in the end, aren't actually paid attention to anyways.

[DrGlass]

Guliani would be a great choice if the American public were in danger of being killed by Terrorists. Fact is that we aren't. You are going to die of heart disease or cancer, not from a bomb. Yet our government spends BILLIONS "protecting" us from bombs and guns and very little on health care.

On that note, yes Ron has some fantastic ideas and seems like he could get some of them done. But less government isn't the best way I feel.

When we remove the power from the government it is private business that takes up the slack. The problem with private business is that PROFIT is the bottom line. You can see how poorly that works with our current health-care system. Mr.Moneybags wants you to pay for insurance but doesn't want you to collect. The government on the other hand, assuming it is run by the people for the people (which atm it is not), will take a loss in profit to make sure you are well.

Many of us don't have to worry about this, we can afford (or our parents) to live in a privet system. However our brother's and sister's who are part of the lower class can not. If you have two classes of citizens (the have and the have not) you are going to have more problems (crime, etc.)

Sadly most of the population doesn't see this because they don't know what poverty really is and when they do they assume it is the fault of the poor person.

[firedfns13]

I believe in less government, except for the systems that need to be fixed (social security, healthcare, etc)
Cities shouldnt blame problems on states who blame it on the Feds.

Plus I ashamed people get paid to come up wtih the "Student Reflection and Prayer Act" instead of balancing a budget.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm suprised more people don't support the guy from new mexico. He's a democrat, BUT, he's got more experience than anyone else, especially in the middle east, AND for all the Republicans out, there he's anti-gun control!

[BlekksPoncho]

Boom, this is what ya be wanting: this=cool

And as he will never be appreciated over here in the UK, get Rainbow George as your president, it will make it fun at least.

[Mr. Happy]

Unforutanetly a completely pure democracy isn't possible when there are 300 million people spread around a huge area.

Personnally, I think the electoral college accomplishes it's purpose really well, though it's purpose is complete bullshit. The point of democracy is that its the people's choice, it doesn't matter where those people are. One man one vote, not one region three votes.

[RawMeat3000]

I tend to view these sort of posts as pointless, as its just a bunch of people debating amongst themselves, who, in the end, aren't actually paid attention to anyways.

I'm addicted to this kind of banter. Debate is my life.

[RawMeat3000]

Guliani would be a great choice if the American public were in danger of being killed by Terrorists. Fact is that we aren't. You are going to die of heart disease or cancer, not from a bomb. Yet our government spends BILLIONS "protecting" us from bombs and guns and very little on health care.

On that note, yes Ron has some fantastic ideas and seems like he could get some of them done. But less government isn't the best way I feel.

When we remove the power from the government it is private business that takes up the slack. The problem with private business is that PROFIT is the bottom line. You can see how poorly that works with our current health-care system. Mr.Moneybags wants you to pay for insurance but doesn't want you to collect. The government on the other hand, assuming it is run by the people for the people (which atm it is not), will take a loss in profit to make sure you are well.

Many of us don't have to worry about this, we can afford (or our parents) to live in a privet system. However our brother's and sister's who are part of the lower class can not. If you have two classes of citizens (the have and the have not) you are going to have more problems (crime, etc.)

Sadly most of the population doesn't see this because they don't know what poverty really is and when they do they assume it is the fault of the poor person.

I'm not in favor of too small a government, don't get me wrong on that. What I want to see gone or less powerful are entities like the FDA, or at least the "D" part of the FDA. They are corrupt assholes who make us eat shit food, then give us shit drugs to cure the diseases we got from the shit food. And the DEA, gone, the CIA, gone, Homeland Security, do I even have to say it? Gone. We talk about freedom all the time, but why aren't we given the freedom to smoke the stuff most of us already do/have? We should be free to own assault rifles, with permits, after training, with high gun taxes, and you should have to be a natural born citizen to buy one. After the schools are fixed and teachers are forced somehow to care about teaching again, we won't have the sort of gun violence and drug problems we do today, so all of the previous changes shouldn't be detrimental.

[DrGlass]

I'm not in favor of too small a government, don't get me wrong on that. What I want to see gone or less powerful are entities like the FDA, or at least the "D" part of the FDA. They are corrupt assholes who make us eat shit food, then give us shit drugs to cure the diseases we got from the shit food. And the DEA, gone, the CIA, gone, Homeland Security, do I even have to say it? Gone. We talk about freedom all the time, but why aren't we given the freedom to smoke the stuff most of us already do/have? We should be free to own assault rifles, with permits, after training, with high gun taxes, and you should have to be a natural born citizen to buy one. After the schools are fixed and teachers are forced somehow to care about teaching again, we won't have the sort of gun violence and drug problems we do today, so all of the previous changes shouldn't be detrimental.

I agree on most points, but I think that regulatory agencies are very important. If there was no agency that regulated food and drugs then we would have con-men selling us snake oil.

I think you are absolutely right, better education and domestic policy would solve many problems. I feel like government keeps trying to treat the symptoms of stuff (gun & drug control) rather than the cause.

Why only natural born citizens? shouldn't all citizens of the US have the right to bare arms. A little while ago I would have said that no one needs assault weapons so they should be banned. But we live in the age of private militias lead by fundamentalist Christians (BlackWater). So all citizens should have a weapon. [imagine all the people getting f**ked over my the government marching into Washington with a rifle and side arm... that would get things done]

[Dionysos]

...
Why only natural born citizens? shouldn't all citizens of the US have the right to bare arms. A little while ago I would have said that no one needs assault weapons so they should be banned. But we live in the age of private militias lead by fundamentalist Christians (BlackWater). So all citizens should have a weapon. [imagine all the people getting f**ked over my the government marching into Washington with a rifle and side arm... that would get things done]

All citizens? So you can buy one no matter what, you just have to be a citizen? I think assault rifles rock, but I wouldnt want anyone owning one who has the slightest of a police record or other smudge on him.