Doesn't the elite money mongering war mongers and banksters actually run things anyway?

What difference does it really make who the installed president is?

I am sure of one thing.
I didn't do it.

I have to keep a faith that one day, we will get us someone who has real integrity and values the American way of life.

I haven't seen that in my lifetime.

If we all love to be taken for a ride by the Federal Reserve bank (jp morgan, goldman sachs, bofa, etc etc, the mega banks that are the share holders of the private Federal Reserve bank) keep voting fo the clowns who are being pushed by the mainstream media.

when the mainstream media does not like someone (Ron Paul), they know he's the one who can turn the ship that is heading for the ice berg.

Yep. Can people write in a candidate?

When criminals are running the country, there are no real laws, only consequences for crossing them.

It seems to me that the president doesn't have as much power as people think he does.

I would be really curious to see what would happen if Ron Paul was elected. I believe he is completely sincere in his desire to severely reduce american war mongering. I'd like to see if he gets transformed into a puppet like all the others.

I feel sorry for him if he gets elected. I would hate to see what they will do to him. I wonder if he has a clue what he is up against.

I see your point. Obama admin is exactly like George W Bush
and Biden is indistinguishable from Dick Cheney.



The disagreements between the White House and the GOP members
of Congress is all a made up show like Jerry Springer. Actually
they are just doing that in public but they are all chums after
work having drinks and joking about how they fool the American
people with their fake discord.

I have pictures which PROVE it.

You may laugh at what you just said... but you have spoken the truth. Its all just a show. It always has been.

I think it matters in terms of our military role around the world and the way the world views us and our international relations

I also think it matters in terms of the intended checks and balances of our government


despite what people may think, presidents dont side with congress on everything

Everybody squabbles about everything. Its a constant power struggle. But a lot of the political debates are all just for show. The Elite know who they are going to put into office. They will control who ever gets in there.

I will tell you how... bribery, blackmail, threats, etc. Most people that get pushed into office have something to hide. That is part of the process. You have to have something to hide so they can pull your strings.

I don't think there's a great deal of significance to whomever holds the position. I think subscribing to a two-party system is ridiculous. Really ridiculous. If the party system was abolished along with the electoral college and a direct popular vote was instituted then I think the position of president would have some validity or relevance.

And I like Ron Paul. I don't agree with several of his viewpoints but I can listen to him talk without wanting to punch him in the face for constantly pandering.

That. If you don't play their game, you won't make it. Just ask JFK, he balked against the system and it got him killed. Ron Paul is an example for now as well.

Honestly, I want to see everyone stop bitchin' about the government and the system, and actually DO something about it. There ARE options, but the vast majority of people aren't willing to put in the effort.

Instead, they would rather back Ron Paul who is still part of the system whether you want to believe it or not. He switched parties. He's spent 30 years in Congress. He has to receive funding somehow, and not just from newsletters and $20 donations. Campaigns, especially national campaigns, are VERY expensive. Four million dollars isn't enough. Ten million isn't even enough. He has run several times for Congress, and he has run for President three times. Without some kind of major funding, Ron Paul would, and should, be completely bankrupt.

People are just choosing from whatever candidates we are offered. And yet, if someone lacks experience they are quick to point it out as a flaw. To have any significant amount of experience, one has to become part of the system. Ross Perot lacked experience, but look how far he got as an independent. Obama had more experience in 2008 than Perot had in 1992.

So I see a bunch of people clamoring for change, pointing at some group of elitists as a scapegoat, but who are totally unwilling to break the cycle by doing the unexpected. It's time for a monkeywrench....a blindside....a ninja stealth attack....something they don't see coming, or which they think can never happen. It's time to make the impossible possible.

All the complaints I see now, I also saw here in my home state almost 20 years ago concerning state politics. This is nothing new, and I see the same mistakes being made by the voters.

We are constantly bombarded with arguments of how a third party candidate cannot win. Some blame the media because the don't give exposure to independent candidates. Well, Ross Perot got plenty of exposure. He just had to purchase airtime like every other candidate. Why do you think national campaigns are so expensive? Airtime....and lots of it. Others claim that it is difficult for a third party to gain access to debates because of support in polls. Once again, this was not a problem for Ross Perot. Another claim is that ballot laws are biased against independent candidates. There's a simple way around such problems: begin with smaller campaigns which focus on state Congressional elections, i.e. actually build a third party rather than going straight for the Presidency. This is how every third party in U.S. history achieved success, no matter how short-lived. This also refutes another claim as to why a third party candidate cannot win a Presidency: the Electoral College.

In order for a third party to have lasting success, it must gain enough momentum to actually replace one of the two prevailing parties within the two-party system. Both the Democrats and the Republicans replaced older outdated political parties. In the case of the Republicans, it was a third party which caused another third party to be short-lived. Thrice in U.S. history has one of the two major parties been supplanted and replaced. Democratic-Republicans became Jacksonian Democrats (now just the Democrats) and Whigs. The Democrats replaced the Democratic Republicans. The Whigs replaced the Federalists. The Republicans replaced the Whigs. As a result, the Republicans are the one true third party which has had long-term success. It serves as proof that a third party can indeed succeed and thrive within a two-party system.

The Republican party required 6 years to gain roots prior to Lincoln's election. At the time, the nation was much smaller, both geographically and residentially, which means establishment of a successful third party would likely take longer today. It also asborbed elements from a number of factions, such as Whigs, Democrats, Free Soilers, and Know-Nothings. It further gained a regional foothold, and secured a number of gubernatorial and Congressional seats despite failing in its first Presidential bid with John C. Fremont in 1856. So it had 2 years to take root, and another 4 years to gain momentum prior to Lincoln.

Today, this would likely require 8 to 12 years. Most importantly, it would need to forgo the first Presidential election - which is likely to be a loss - to avoid a loss of momentum in today's information age. This is the failure of modern third parties - they go for the Presidency too soon, then try to gain lesser seats afterward.

This "start at the top" mentality is very costly for a fledgling party compared to state elections. It also relies upon one person to establish the party platform rather than a consensus of party members, limiting the party's appeal to a wide cross-section of voters. The Presidential election brings a ton of national exposure which quickly fades as many local elections lack both candidates and adequate funding. It's a typical "all eggs in one basket" scenario. It is much more important to begin at local levels and build a strong foundation first. This foundation will later provide the funding necessary to sustain a number of seats in Congress and a run at the Presidency. Ultimately, winning the Presidency is essential for any long term success, but it should not be the focus in the early stages.

It can happen. We are just being brainwashed that it can't because every attempt in the past century (other than perhaps the Libertarians) have gone about it backwards. The only reason the Libertarians have failed to succeed is because they lack broad popular appeal. The Republicans and Democrats don't want a third party. They know it would send shock waves throughout both parties. It would also force them to actually bargain with another party just to gain enough votes to push through legislation. Lastly, they know a strong third party would mark the end for one of the two parties. If everyone is so dissatisfied with the Republicans and Democrats, then why are we still looking to their candidates for leadership? If we want control of our government, shouldn't we step forward and become leaders ourselves? It can be done.

And oh yeah....if they try to kill people for political reasons as some seem to believe, then use it to unify the party that much more. They can't kill everyone without some kind of backlash, and they know it. Use it against them instead of using it as excuse to do nothing.

Is there a difference between a liberal democratic system and a totalitarian communist system?

I would say yes there is.

Who is President was less important years ago, since Congress was an equal branch, but today the executive branch continues to do what it wants and circumvents the authority given to Congress.


You can see a perfect example of this with Obama making recess appointments when the Senate is in Pro forma session and not in recess.

The first President EVER to make such appointments.

This should be the makings of a really good debate/thread.

I look forward to page 49/50 and then flipping it......

Forget about party politics folks.

The President has to do what he is told.....or else...

Here in the UK PM Cameron has stayed aloof from the EU because the Bank of England told him to do so.

No one man or woman can stand the pressure that can be brought to bear by those who hold real power.

Real power is held by those who control the money.

Ron Paul will be no different.

Politics is a sham...a side show for the bewildered herd.


The herd is too divided to make any difference.


One planet......X amount of resources

There is no third way actionlynx...

I agree. And, anyone who does get in there and actually try to change things will be killed.

Ditto. I dislike a number of things about him. But, I also do not want to punch him in the face. I can't even stomach the other candidates.

But, like I said, anyone who manages to get elected and tries to make changes to the system (causing those with all the money to stop getting more money) will be killed.

It is all secretly run by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett!
George Bush and Barak Obama only do what they tell them to do.



That's why we went to war in Iraq and why we are going toward
socialized single payer medicine. It is only what Bill and Warren want.

So everyone is supposed to just give up? Didn't we just see a number of governments toppled by the people?

There is ALWAYS another way. It's just up to the people to grow a pair and do something about it.

All these people complaining about elitism, the Federal Reserve, and the banks are nothing more than modern Jacksonian Democrats.

Did you know there was once even an Anti-Masonic Party in the United States?

Power is in numbers. Money is just one set of numbers. Population is another set of numbers. Money does not always equal power. If it did, then Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was actually an elitist. And yet the Libertarian Party - the very source of Ron Paul's ideals - was founded upon many of the tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophy. However, Ms. Rand had one key point: the government only has power so long as they are permitted to have it. Her argument in Atlas Shrugged can be applied both ways. In fact, those who are claiming an elitist conspiracy are arguing the anti-thesis of the storyline in Atlas Shrugged on one hand, and crying out against the same government scenario Ms. Rand described in her book, i.e. Socialism. Don't they realize that if their claims are true, then removing or cutting back on social programs only serves the elitist agenda? And why would the government overregulate so many areas if the wealthy elite were in control? They would be handcuffing themselves!

As was mentioned by someone on the morning news today, campaign money does not pay for things to get done (favorable legislation). It pays for making sure some thing are NOT done. So yes, there is influence at work here that involves money, but the wealthy are not in control, pulling all the strings like some would have us believe. I listened to multiple people yesterday, including Ron Paul, decry military spending and the defense industry. Those contracts sustain jobs, and buy time for regional economies to adapt to life without defense contracts. I live in such an area. There has been a lot of public pressure on our politicians to make sure defense contracts don't just dry up over night. There has been pressure to make sure the Sub Base isn't closed. We have Electric Boat, Sikorsky, Pratt & Whitney, and more in this state. There has been a very large drop in defense contracts for these companies compared to levels from 25 years ago. It's had an impact. But if they had just disappeared overnight because of military cuts, the whole economy of this state would have collapsed. Back in the 1990s, that was exactly what the government wanted to do until the public stepped up and put pressure on them. The people, not the defense contractors. So people are making assumptions based on incomplete information, and certain politicians are only fueling that fire for the sake of gaining votes.

We still have the power, it's just a matter of having the will to use it. Whoever is the most active has the most influence, and the people are one of the checks and balances intended by the Constitution. If politicians aren't doing there jobs, it's because WE haven't been doing OUR jobs.

Even if all the women on the planet grew balls it is easier for the tail to wag the dog when the tail has the money and everyone knows, even the dogs in the street without tails know..