rawstory.com— Ron Paul held a press conference urging voters to select a third-party presidential candidate instead of Barack Obama or John McCain...
Sep 10, 2008View in Crawl 4
Which conspiracies and can you disprove them? Some conspiracy theories are probably good assumptions about conspiracy fact. People always assume that because there are conspiracy theories, there are no real conspiracies. Very convenient.
The thing is essentially the same thing would happen with 3rd party candidates being a viable choice a leader who has less then 1/2 or even 1/4 liking them, it would just be with more choice, and just because there is more then two parties dose not mean the other ones stand a chance, look at Canada's multiparty system and look at which two parties Prime Minsters come from.
Where I come from, Canada, there are now 5 leaders in the federal election debates. It doesn't change the fact that only the Liberals and Conservatives ever have a legitimate shot at winning the election.
Polls? Your evidence is coming from polls? You somehow believe in those (which even the pollsters have admitted were rigged) but nothing else in politics? CNN? How does someone speak against the status quo so much but buy into CNN and polls? You seem more brainwashed than me.I'm not throwing away my vote in my eyes, as I feel that Obama WILL move us in the right direction (more than Paul would, though I understand he is coming from a place where he cares, his ideas simply won't work). Is he as perfect as I'd like? No, he is way too conservative still, but it's certainly a step in the right direction for America to regain face in the world forum, which DOES matter diplomatically speaking. He didn't speak against FIFSA, which was a huge letdown for me. He is and has been against the war in Iraq and would bring back the troops policing the world. Democratic presidents have a history of lowering our deficit, unles you think that Clinton was a horrible president too? Are there third party-canidates that may do better, sure.I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Moving towards a multiple party system takes time, and America has made great strides in that field over the years, believe it or not. However, I am not so blind as to think that now is the time that is going to happen, not with so much on the line. When you show me two lame-duck presidents in a time of relative peace, that'd be the time to be idealistic and vote for your third party canidate. When your choices are between a warmonger and a disappointing change advocate, I'm going to go for the guy that won't invade Iran.Vote as you will, I can't stop you, but don't for a second accuse me of throwing away my vote or not caring. I stand by the fact that voting for a canidate that is 100% guaranteed to not win is a waste and offensive, as you obviously want to make a difference. So make a difference and do something that would matter. Voting third party is quite simply not going to cut it this election.
He didn't want to run as independent because he wasn't ready to leave the republican party. And I am sure that he thought he could do more good saying the stuff he is now, instead of focusing on trying to win. Which is probably true.
dafragstaSep 11, 2008
Which conspiracies and can you disprove them? Some conspiracy theories are probably good assumptions about conspiracy fact. People always assume that because there are conspiracy theories, there are no real conspiracies. Very convenient.
darkphenoxSep 11, 2008
The thing is essentially the same thing would happen with 3rd party candidates being a viable choice a leader who has less then 1/2 or even 1/4 liking them, it would just be with more choice, and just because there is more then two parties dose not mean the other ones stand a chance, look at Canada's multiparty system and look at which two parties Prime Minsters come from.
foghornleghornSep 11, 2008
Where I come from, Canada, there are now 5 leaders in the federal election debates. It doesn't change the fact that only the Liberals and Conservatives ever have a legitimate shot at winning the election.
ranthonySep 12, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://ranthonysteele.blogspot.com/2008/09/ron-paul-statement-to-national-press.html">http://ranthonysteele.blogspot.com/2008/09/ron-pau ...</a>The entire press conference is available on the Campaign for Liberty YouTube channel <a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty">http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty</a>-RAnthony
teichenauerSep 12, 2008
Trolling - Herkimer56 - No!! Say it's not so!
dymphnaSep 12, 2008
Polls? Your evidence is coming from polls? You somehow believe in those (which even the pollsters have admitted were rigged) but nothing else in politics? CNN? How does someone speak against the status quo so much but buy into CNN and polls? You seem more brainwashed than me.I'm not throwing away my vote in my eyes, as I feel that Obama WILL move us in the right direction (more than Paul would, though I understand he is coming from a place where he cares, his ideas simply won't work). Is he as perfect as I'd like? No, he is way too conservative still, but it's certainly a step in the right direction for America to regain face in the world forum, which DOES matter diplomatically speaking. He didn't speak against FIFSA, which was a huge letdown for me. He is and has been against the war in Iraq and would bring back the troops policing the world. Democratic presidents have a history of lowering our deficit, unles you think that Clinton was a horrible president too? Are there third party-canidates that may do better, sure.I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. Moving towards a multiple party system takes time, and America has made great strides in that field over the years, believe it or not. However, I am not so blind as to think that now is the time that is going to happen, not with so much on the line. When you show me two lame-duck presidents in a time of relative peace, that'd be the time to be idealistic and vote for your third party canidate. When your choices are between a warmonger and a disappointing change advocate, I'm going to go for the guy that won't invade Iran.Vote as you will, I can't stop you, but don't for a second accuse me of throwing away my vote or not caring. I stand by the fact that voting for a canidate that is 100% guaranteed to not win is a waste and offensive, as you obviously want to make a difference. So make a difference and do something that would matter. Voting third party is quite simply not going to cut it this election.
misternilsSep 12, 2008
He didn't want to run as independent because he wasn't ready to leave the republican party. And I am sure that he thought he could do more good saying the stuff he is now, instead of focusing on trying to win. Which is probably true.