RIP John Edwards Campaign

[ebbomega]

Churchill was PM of England until he was 81.

Reagan was voted in when he was 69.

[rawb]

RON PAUL MOR LIKE RON LOL AM I RITE o

[j3rk]

Originally Posted by Vitamin-X

His problem is that he comes accross as "crazy as a loon" while he's ranting. All the sense he makes gets eaten up by this crazy image he projects.

I've never once seen him come across as a "Crazy loon", but this is how the media portrays him. I've never seen him anything but well informed and passionate about his message.

Please provide links to transcripts or videos where he's acting like a "loon".

Issue there is Ron Paul speaks the truth and says stuff like "US Foreign policy caused the hatred which caused 9-11" and then he gets roasted in the media as a Quack because they sensationalize things and say "OMG RON PAUL BLAMES 9-11 ON THE US. ZOMG HE"S CRAZY!!!~~2"

and tools like you believe what they hear on CNN/Fox. No offense.

[j3rk]

"zomg, Ron Paul Wants To Remove The Federal Reserve And Bring Us Back To The Gold Standard. Zomg He"s Crazy. The Fed Like Totally Gives Us Wicked Interste Raetes. He"s A Loon" - Cnn

[ebbomega]

I don't think he's a loon, I just think he's misguided. He makes more sense than anybody in arguments against the current administration, but that didn't win Kerry an election either.

[j3rk]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

I don't think he's a loon, I just think he's misguided. He makes more sense than anybody in arguments against the current administration, but that didn't win Kerry an election either.

I don't believe he's misguided...but i do agree he's idealistic. I don't see this as a negative like you do though. I see this as a positive thing which will not help you get elected :D

[ebbomega]

There's a reason that public perception of idealists is negative though.

Idealistic usually means they need special powers in order to get their ideals accomplished. And if they do institute those powers, are people really ready to trust whoever the next elected representative is with the same powers? Because the precedent will be such that those powers will then bleed to the next one. And as much as you might be willing to trust Ron Paul with those powers, what happens when the next Dubya gets into power? Now the whole world is fucked.

Putting idealists in power is dangerous. Lenin assuming power is arguably the best thing that ever happened to Russia.... at the time. But the holes he left in the system made it such that Stalin could exploit the system and then bam, one of the most dangerous and longest-running totalitarian governments of the modern world.

Idealism is frowned upon because it's not an ideal world and never has been. Anybody claiming to be able to fix it all is destined for failure. We need a mitigator, not a visionary. Obama strikes me as the most capable in that respect.

IMHO, YMMV.

[Grapes]

Nice posts ebbo.... good insight

Seems like you have a hell of a lot of time on your hands though :)

[Grapes]

A couple of relevant links:

Get to know the Candidates....

And just for Galaxie....

[Senior]

do any of you really think it matters who gets elected in the US?

the reality is that you can vote for the "corporate war party" or if you'd rather you can vote for the "corporate war party lite." but the choice is up to you!

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Grapes

Nice posts ebbo.... good insight

Seems like you have a hell of a lot of time on your hands though :)

Digg during the lull periods at work is a curse.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by Senior

do any of you really think it matters who gets elected in the US?

the reality is that you can vote for the "corporate war party" or if you'd rather you can vote for the "corporate war party lite." but the choice is up to you!

Yep, it's between the douche and the turd, but frankly the turd is going to trample less rights and be a bit lesser of an evil, so I'd rather go with that one.

Yeah, politicians suck. But refusing to discuss them and saying that they don't matter almost assures you that you'll get the worse one.

[Grapes]

Hey senior, which did you enjoy more, 8 years of Clinton as president or 8 years of Bush as president?

Oh right, they're pretty much the exact same thing. Remember that time Clinton ignored the UN and world opinion in general, bombed the fuck out a country, invaded it and disposed of its leader and left it mired in a civil war? Remember when he botched the economy so badly he helped spur a potential worldwide recession? Remember when, great orator that he was, he let fly with this inspirational quote:

"Fool me once, shame on you..... fool me twice.... uh...... ..... you can't fool me again!"

Just because the presidential office is subject to extreme pressure from the moneyed elite no matter who's in power, doesn't mean it doesn't matter who gets into office.

[Grapes]

How good does that Nader-esque argument seem now that we've had 8 years of Moronocracy when we could have had a man in power who's become a leader in the fight against climate change?

[ebbomega]

Clinton managed to strengthen and build America's economy. Yeah, sure, he did that, but he didn't turn it into a 7-year occupation. Maybe he went a bit far in the other direction, but he also didn't hold that over his nation's head as a means of controlling dissent.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Yep, it's between the douche and the turd, but frankly the turd is going to trample less rights and be a bit lesser of an evil, so I'd rather go with that one.

Yeah, politicians suck. But refusing to discuss them and saying that they don't matter almost assures you that you'll get the worse one.

don't get me wrong if I lived down in the states I'd be very involved with trying to create changes. but honestly all of these candidates are owned by corporate/war money and when it comes down to it will do what they are told to do. if you aren't owned by one of these interests you have no chance of winning. how is that democratic? if you spend time trying to affect this election you are wasting your energy that could be spent on something real.

first big change that needs to be made in Canada and the US is banning all corporate or union campaign donations. make the parties get donations from individuals. also severe spending limits need to be imposed. if the limits were low enough it would be fairly easy to run a campaign with a realistic chance of winning and we'd see a much broader range of candidates representing different views. right now the amount of money spent on elections is staggering.

I guess my take on the US system as is is that a Democrat victory would be a false or hollow victory. liberal minded people will think they have gained something when they really have not.

just watch and see the US will stay in Iraq and the Patriot act will not be repealed whether the Democrats or the Republicans win. the US will try to sell it as a withdraw and hand over of power to the Iraqi security forces but will still maintain bases there and continue to offer military support to prop up their puppet regime. but this will be called a withdraw. Americans will still live in a nation where their rights have been stripped. health care and education will still be for the rich.

(glad my parents left the US when they did)

[miss.myra]

there's a dem. debate on tonight.

It's really sick, I can't stop watching it..it's like a car wreck or something. I'd have to say that from watching the debates that Hilary is clearly the best of the three. I know a lot of people aren't big fans, and I'm certainly not saying I am, but the woman has balls and she's a powerful speaker, and that between Obama's sense of humor and way of saying broad statements that make everyone feel good makes for a good show. Poor Edwards and his southern charm never stood a chance. haha.

[Senior]

as far as the economy goes Clinton presided over the .com bubble Bush got 9/11... if you switched them the results would have looked similar enough either way. same goes for Iraq, do you really think Clinton wouldn't have invaded? they went there to steal the oil. 9/11 was a convenient pretext but really was besides the point.

sometimes things have to get better before they get worse and maybe 8 more years of Bush would be just the ticket. maybe if things get bad enough Americans will want some real changes made.

Originally Posted by Grapes

Hey senior, which did you enjoy more, 8 years of Clinton as president or 8 years of Bush as president?

Oh right, they're pretty much the exact same thing. Remember that time Clinton ignored the UN and world opinion in general, bombed the fuck out a country, invaded it and disposed of its leader and left it mired in a civil war? Remember when he botched the economy so badly he helped spur a potential worldwide recession? Remember when, great orator that he was, he let fly with this inspirational quote:

"Fool me once, shame on you..... fool me twice.... uh...... ..... you can't fool me again!"

Just because the presidential office is subject to extreme pressure from the moneyed elite no matter who's in power, doesn't mean it doesn't matter who gets into office.

[Vitamin-X]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Churchill was PM of England until he was 81.

Reagan was voted in when he was 69.

That may be true, but as I understand it Reagan was also
diagnosed with alzheimers disease shortly after leaving office.

Odds are he was suffering the initial stages during his presidency.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by Senior

sometimes things have to get better before they get worse and maybe 8 more years of Bush would be just the ticket. maybe if things get bad enough Americans will want some real changes made.

If you're saying 8 more years of Bush would be more likely to get people upset and angry than 4-8 years of a more moderate candidate then you're derailing your initial argument that the person elected "doesn't really matter". Societial institutions crumbling under incompetent government directly affect American lives, and that's the sort've shit they've seen down there (the Katrina fallout being a standout case of an overall malaise).

I guess it's pretty easy to sit on this side of the border and preach the big picture (which admittedly is as important if not more important than anything else) and say that a more competent, benevolent American government doesn't matter. Pretty sure it does to those south of the border.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by Senior

same goes for Iraq, do you really think Clinton wouldn't have invaded? they went there to steal the oil.

You know what? Without UN approval? With millions around the world protesting the impending invasion? Yeah, I really do think Clinton wouldn't have invaded. Can you find any evidence in what he's said about the invasion that would indicate otherwise?

He wasn't perfect but as far as I know Clinton didn't put the neocon's manual on par with the Bible when he ran the US of A

(or maybe he did, if he secretly thought they were both ridiculous and dangerous)

[Senior]

Originally Posted by Grapes

If you're saying 8 more years of Bush would be more likely to get people upset and angry than 4-8 years of a more moderate candidate then you're derailing your initial argument that the person elected "doesn't really matter". Societial institutions crumbling under incompetent government directly affect American lives, and that's the sort've shit they've seen down there (the Katrina fallout being a standout case of an overall malaise).

I guess it's pretty easy to sit on this side of the border and preach the big picture (which admittedly is as important if not more important than anything else) and say that a more competent, benevolent American government doesn't matter. Pretty sure it does to those south of the border.

good point. but more what I'm getting at is that the kind of whole sale changes that need to made to the US are not going to be realized by Obama, Clinton or whoever else is running.

[Senior]

Originally Posted by Grapes

You know what? Without UN approval? With millions around the world protesting the impending invasion? Yeah, I really do think Clinton wouldn't have invaded. Can you find any evidence in what he's said about the invasion that would indicate otherwise?

He wasn't perfect but as far as I know Clinton didn't put the neocon's manual on par with the Bible when he ran the US of A

(or maybe he did, if he secretly thought they were both ridiculous and dangerous)

every single US president for at least the last fifty years has sent the army to attack or invade somewhere. is that not enough proof for you? even Jimmy Carter sent Marines into combat...

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by Senior

every single US president for at least the last fifty years has sent the army to attack or invade somewhere. is that not enough proof for you? even Jimmy Carter sent Marines into combat...

What do you mean attack !?

They're spreading freedom & democracy.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by miss.myra

there's a dem. debate on tonight.

It's really sick, I can't stop watching it..it's like a car wreck or something. I'd have to say that from watching the debates that Hilary is clearly the best of the three. I know a lot of people aren't big fans, and I'm certainly not saying I am, but the woman has balls and she's a powerful speaker, and that between Obama's sense of humor and way of saying broad statements that make everyone feel good makes for a good show. Poor Edwards and his southern charm never stood a chance. haha.

are you kidding? if it wasn't for bill clinton's support she'd be another mediocre senator that no one would care about.

beyond the fact that much like Bush Jr she is standing on her last name for support its even more troubling that she sold her self respect out for a shot at the presidency. It is an indication of the type of person she is, Id never want her as a leader. If you're willing to stay with someone who has consistently cheated on you inorder to further your career, imagine what she'd do to improve her popularity the next time there's a terrorist attack.

Also consider the fact that she has minimal support from independants and none from moderate republicans and its clear that she is the only person who is a gauranteed loser against the republican nomination, its hard to beleive that anyone in the democratic party is dumb enough to support her.