http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days I don't think either party grasps the idea that the citizenry would like them to do less, and not more. Instead, the name of the game is still "bringing home the bacon".
I agree. The citizens want smaller government, but the socialists in control want bigger and more controlling government. At some point in time if the socialists don;t start listening to the citizenry, they'll find themselves in the minority in federal government.
Or people will become so dependent on their government, they become slaves to it. And when that happens, they'll vote for whoever "gives" them the most. Power and control are the currency of the Big Government crowd. As for me, I'd rather be responsible for my own life.
Small government sounds great in theory, but neither party is for it when they are in power. So if both parties expand it, you might as well put the one that is an expert on the matter in control.
I'll stab first at that one- I think he was. I strongly considered voting for him, but he seemed a bit 'out there' to me.
Why did he seem "out there" to you? How was he covered during the campaign? All I know is I didn't see him at any of the Presidential debates nor did I see him discussed in the polls much. Nader got more play and (IIRC) received fewer votes. Hmm.... My point is he was a third party candidate in a two party system. He was ignored by the media and therefore, wasn't given a real shot.
Another meaningless poll addressing nothing. Neither party is all that concerned about the actual size of government. They would simply eliminate the huge emphasis the other party has on certain things and redirect it to their concerns. Repubs will always vote for enlarging government for more cops, jails, homeland insecurity, military programs, wars... Dems will always vote for enlarging government for more assistance to the needy, education, oversight of commerce to ensure the safety of our products and environment. Bottom line is our government is tiny compared to it's mandates. It worked just fine until the uber-wealthy stopped paying their share to support it. Tax the rich or live in a ditch.
I guess you don't count the internet as a part of the media? Ron Paul does not represent anything that Americans could identify with. He offered little direction and no solutions.
It's probably not important to you that the "rich" currently pay a higher percentage of the total tax receipts than at any time in the country's history.
Not in a substantive way. Thank you once again for willingly placing your ignorance in the limelight. You may not have liked his policy prescriptions, but that doesn't mean he didn't have them.
I hate politics and there is nothing I can do about any of it. So why bother? The rich are in charge and always will be. There is nothing we can do about it.
Interesting. Being a "Ron Paul supporter" must be the hip thing to say these days. Judging from your other posts on this forum, you and Ron Paul share very, very little in common with respect to political views.
Good point! 2 people on this forum saying that > what I think. Anyway, I agree with plenty of his stances, and also disagree with some. Primarily, I agree with his foreign policy. I think his foreign policy is exactly what we need right now. I think he is the only candidate out there that will actually bring change, something our country needs. He is probably the only politician I could have trust in as well. I definitely agree with his stance on the Fed also. You will never agree 100% with someone (unless you are a complete ideologue, I'm not sure if you are so I won't speak on your behalf), but overall I think he would be my first choice of candidates right now. As for the traditional 2 party system, I'd take left over right any day because I agree with them on more things than I do the right (who I've been disgusted with in the last 5 or 6 years). I'm not against what the republicans supposedly stand for, but the party isn't the once great party of the past, and has turned into a bunch of dangerous neo-cons like Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, and John Bolton *that hasn't advocated for small government and fiscal restraint while in power.* *edit*
Uh, you said that "you get that a lot". I didn't know that 2 == "a lot". Fair enough More Obama brainwashing. Not all change is good, as evidenced by Obama's governing. The way you strongly defend Obama, you appear to be able to put all your trust in him as well. Ok. If you think that Ron Paul has more in common with the left than the right, even the current and recent group of Republicans, then you clearly haven't spent time learning about Ron Paul's positions. And again, you must just think it is hip to say you are a Ron Paul supporter.
