Are There Any Candidates That Will Change Your Usual Alignment?

[smoker6146]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

Well, I'm talking about something a little more concrete than just sharing some views with white supremacists. That I could forgive him for. I mean, hell, I probably share some obscure view with a white supremacist or two, and I'm a gay social democrat. I'm talking he actually linked to their organizations on his web site until right before the campaign.

Social democrats are traitors to this country.

Ron Paul DID NOT link any white supremacist sites from his site. That is a flat out lie.

How in god's name are social democrats traitors to this country? Oh, that's right...we want to make sure there's a more equitable distribution of resources so people aren't destitute as opposed to supporting policy that favors corporations and the rich, who are the real Americans, after all.

Oh, and you may be right that Ron Paul didn't link to white supremacist web sites. He apparently wrote for their newsletters and schmoozed with their leaders.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html
My apologies.

And yes, I realize that this is not the best source, but it's the best I can do in the five minutes since I've read your response.

Don't give me that bullshit, trying to make me sound like I don't care about the poor and only have special interest groups and corporations on my mind.
It's not the responsability of the government to take care of it's citizens from cradle to grave. The government is mean to protect it's citizens and provide them with basic services.
Helping the poor is for individuals and private charity foundations.

[SmokingDjinn]

Socialism looks good on paper, but the fact of the matter is it is un-constitutional to deprive citizens of wealth that they earned. Anyhow we have social programs like that enacted, its called wellfare, and look how many people abuse that. Free market encourages people to develope better products and work harder. Oh and Ron Paul looks like a good candidate, and I'm a centrist.

[Scalliwag]

Okay. I will go on this. Let's go ahead and throw away any type of affirmative action. Let's start with white-collar prisons. If a person regardless of their color or social status commits a crime let's put them in more of a "survival of the fittest" scenerio.
After all their is no need for any special treatment of criminals.
Why has Rush Limpdick avoided jail? He was taking enough prescriotion drugs to become an addict right? Either some doctors should be in jail and/or he should. Let's not just pretend a crime never happened because a few rabid repubs wanna act all stupid. Let Rush go to a bad ass prison and get his bad ass beat down. That is the society HE has always promoted.... well at least unit him being a dopehead came to life. Whoever really thought someone like him ever had a legitimate argument?

Oh, BTW I think all prisoners should serve time in violent prisons. Edited December 8, 2007 by Scalliwag

[ubernerd83]

ooo he's crazy! He values the constitution and small government, and actually sticks to his beliefs instead of making up a bunch of bullshit to win votes! We don't want someone like that in the government, someone please stop him!

As a democrat I disagree with his stance on government involvement, but I still respect him and believe that he is capable of solving a lot of our country's problems.

As for these "links to white supremacist organizations"... That's just a load of bullshit. Some white supremacist groups may see his anti-globalization policies as positive because they don't want us to be involved with foreigners and thus vote for him, but that hardly means he has links to white supremacist organizations. If you think it does then one could argue that every previous president has had links to white supremacist organizations. White supremacists vote too, and I'm sure at least some of them vote for different candidates.

Well, I'm talking about something a little more concrete than just sharing some views with white supremacists. That I could forgive him for. I mean, hell, I probably share some obscure view with a white supremacist or two, and I'm a gay social democrat. I'm talking he actually linked to their organizations on his web site until right before the campaign.

Social democrats are traitors to this country.

Ron Paul DID NOT link any white supremacist sites from his site. That is a flat out lie.

How in god's name are social democrats traitors to this country? Oh, that's right...we want to make sure there's a more equitable distribution of resources so people aren't destitute as opposed to supporting policy that favors corporations and the rich, who are the real Americans, after all.

Oh, and you may be right that Ron Paul didn't link to white supremacist web sites. He apparently wrote for their newsletters and schmoozed with their leaders.
http://pennsylvaniaprogressive.typepad.com...aul_white_.html
My apologies.

And yes, I realize that this is not the best source, but it's the best I can do in the five minutes since I've read your response.

Don't give me that bullshit, trying to make me sound like I don't care about the poor and only have special interest groups and corporations on my mind.
It's not the responsability of the government to take care of it's citizens from cradle to grave. The government is mean to protect it's citizens and provide them with basic services.
Helping the poor is for individuals and private charity foundations.

Did I SAY you don't care about the poor? No. Although I probably was implying it, I do recognize that there are some conservatives and business-men who care aobut the poor. And as to your proposition that the government's only role is to protect it's citizens and provide basic services...says who? There are tomes upon tomes of political philosophy that say just the opposite. In fact, Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, espoused an idea of noblesse oblige, which meant that the powerful and rich elite have a responsibility to take care of and provide for those of lower station using as many tools as they had at their disposal, up to and including the state.

Furthermore, who is to say what a basic service is? It seems to me that being healthy is a basic necessity, but you and I probably have vast disagreements about universal healthcare. I a highway system a basic service? What about an emergency management agency? What about NASA?

And if you wanted this conversation to be civil and for me to avoid implying that you don't care about the pooor, you probably shouldn't have called me a traitor.

[ubernerd83]

Socialism looks good on paper, but the fact of the matter is it is un-constitutional to deprive citizens of wealth that they earned. Anyhow we have social programs like that enacted, its called wellfare, and look how many people abuse that. Free market encourages people to develope better products and work harder. Oh and Ron Paul looks like a good candidate, and I'm a centrist.

Alright, first of all, I'm not a socialist. Socialists advocate that the state should take over all means of production, which I do not support. Had I labeled myself as a democratic socialist, you might have had an argument. Social democrats also share a commitment to working toward the goal of equitable (not necessarily equal) allocation of resources through existing democratic structures, whereas your run of the mill socialst shares no such allegiance to a system he sees as unfair and a tool of the oppressors.

Second, where in the constitution does it say that we aren't allowed to deprive citizens of wealth they have "earned"? There is in fact a sixteenth amendment, which allows the federal government to do just such a thing in the form of a direct income tax. So it would seem that your ideas on American constitutional law are out of date by about a century. You might be drawing on the Lockean idea that every person has a right to life, liberty, and property, but the founders changed that when they said we all have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Note: the Declaration isn't a governing document anyway.)

[smoker6146]

Socialism looks good on paper, but the fact of the matter is it is un-constitutional to deprive citizens of wealth that they earned. Anyhow we have social programs like that enacted, its called wellfare, and look how many people abuse that. Free market encourages people to develope better products and work harder. Oh and Ron Paul looks like a good candidate, and I'm a centrist.

Alright, first of all, I'm not a socialist. Socialists advocate that the state should take over all means of production, which I do not support. Had I labeled myself as a democratic socialist, you might have had an argument. Social democrats also share a commitment to working toward the goal of equitable (not necessarily equal) allocation of resources through existing democratic structures, whereas your run of the mill socialst shares no such allegiance to a system he sees as unfair and a tool of the oppressors.

Second, where in the constitution does it say that we aren't allowed to deprive citizens of wealth they have "earned"? There is in fact a sixteenth amendment, which allows the federal government to do just such a thing in the form of a direct income tax. So it would seem that your ideas on American constitutional law are out of date by about a century. You might be drawing on the Lockean idea that every person has a right to life, liberty, and property, but the founders changed that when they said we all have an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Note: the Declaration isn't a governing document anyway.)

Ah, you brought up Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Excellent because it happens to have been part of what I was going to say next.

We have the right to life. The right to work towards having food, clothing, in this case health insurance etc.
Having the right to live does not mean it is my neighbors job to be forced to pay for any of these things.

Look, I'm going to stop here actually, even though my argument isn't very strong yet. It's 3am, and after starting to write this, I realized how tired I am. I really don't have the energy to continue especially since I'm not going to change your mind.

I'll close by saying, the answer to problems in the country will never be more taxes. It will never be more government. The less taxes and the less government interference in our daily lives the better.

[gaia.plateau]

Alright, first of all, I'm not a socialist. Socialists advocate that the state should take over all means of production, which I do not support.

This isn't true... socialism is an ideology of degrees. American education is an example of socialism. Canadian healthcare is an example of socialism. Socialists may advocate the nationalization of electricty and water, for example, but the privatization of alarm clocks, or whatever.

It's really quite pathetic that the words 'socialist', 'socialism', and 'socialization' have become so stigmatized in Western and especially American culture. Universal Healthcare? Hey, that sounds pretty good, I would gain economic freedom from debt. Oh snap, they're calling it Socialized Medicine now, fuck that commie bullshit!

[iamian4life]

If you guys want Ron Paul, like I do, change your party and vote in your primary. He will need all the votes he can get. Personally I am doing just that, as is I am registered Democrat, but I will do whatever it takes to get Ron Paul a primary win and subsequently a Presidential election.

So, first of all I am changing my registration and second of all, I will be donating online to his campaign on December 16th. . .The anniversary of the Boston Tea Party


P.S. I am not some crazy Ron Paul campaign worker, just a young, concerned U.S. citizen.

Much Love

[fizzgig]

Why change your party... write him in.

[Bulldog_916]

Why change your party... write him in.

People are lazy in that way. If they dont have name association the moment they look at a ballot, they immediately vote for someone who, 1. has the name recognition, and 2. shares their views the most. I wish it was the other way around, but people - as a group - are simple creatures that you cannot have much faith in. When you have more votes as a percentage of possibility for an American Idol singer than you do for a presidential election, then there must be something wrong with the populace, and not the system. Small problems such as locating a polling place can be solved as simply as calling a phone number, but people are busy and cant (bullshit). It's simply people being simple and cringing at complication. That's why even with all this fervor over Ron Paul that Paul doesnt stand a chance. Of course I'm behind him, of course I want to see him win, but I'm also an immovable realist. The 40 or so percent that vote at all will do so under 2 party pretenses, 2 candidates, not 3. Democrat or republican. Pick your suicide pill. Doesnt matter if it's red or blue.

GO RON PAUL!

Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!

[JtowninAtown]

I'm down like a clown Charlie Brown for Ron Paul...

[jayson]

Why change your party... write him in.

Most states have closed primaries now... so if you aren't a registered Republican, you can't vote in a Republican primary.

I support Ron Paul, and since I live in California, I had to switch from an Independent to Republican. But it was worth it.