This is why Rand Paul will be President come 2016

I think he has a decent chance, but it is by no means guareenteed. Ron Paul's problem was getting the nomination. Rand has a much higher chance of success there.

I know of the Ron Paul fans that do not like Rand. I am on a forum dedicated to the Liberty Movement. They are a very vocal minority of the group (<10%), and they generally are the conspiracy types. The grand majority are dedicated to two things. Liberty and getting Rand elected to help with liberty.

The only reason Rand gets support, is because of his stance on the issues. These people flat out refused to vote for Romney, because he was a fraud. R, D, and personalities do not matter much there, unless you are a Ron Paul loving, Rand Paul hating diehard.
 
Murky said:
Any Republican candidate is going to get media attention from the Right-Wing echo chamber.
Click to expand...
That is certainly not true with Ron Paul. He is vilified and shown in a negative light more by Fox News than he is by any other media. He was even asked why he was even on the stage during the Republican debates during the Fox News sponsored one.

[YOUTUBE-OLD]hXhDWacm-Bk[/YOUTUBE-OLD]
 
Arakhor said:
Are you even running a democracy then? :)
Click to expand...

For the last time: The United States of America is a R E P U B L I C. I don't know why this misunderstanding persists.

Anyhow, we're a one-party state now:sad:. Whoever wins the Democratic primary wins the election.
 
Farm Boy said:
Actually, it just requires the Electoral College. 51% of the public vote isn't a requirement at all though it does generally work out that way.
Click to expand...
You can actually win the presidency by taking 22% of the popular vote:

[YOUTUBE-OLD]7wC42HgLA4k[/YOUTUBE-OLD]

This is not democracy. This is indefensible.
Click to expand...
 
"In a fair democracy"

Okay, well when stop being a Republic I'll listen to this claptrap. :)
 
Formaldehyde said:
You can actually win the presidency by taking 22% of the popular vote:
Click to expand...

You can also gain the presidency without being elected in a national vote at all. Does our method of presidential succession make this not a democratic government? That has happened more times than than a president with less than 30% of the popular vote. Lincoln himself was elected with just under 40%. I find it humorous that people go after the EC so hard when they totally fail to go after the far more distorting(from "simple" democratic representation) body in the form of the US Senate. Or appointed justices in the judiciary. But, I guess, the president is a flashy sort of position. It sparkles and catches our attention. Wanna go ride bikes? :)
 
EvenStranger said:
"In a fair democracy"

Okay, well when stop being a Republic I'll listen to this claptrap. :)
Click to expand...

Would you care to furnish us with your description of a republic then? (And while you're at it, agree to never say that the US is a bastion of modern democracy and the leader of the free world.)
 
Perhaps I shouldn't say "we're a Republic" so much as "we're not a direct democracy."

I also don't consider direct democracy to be the freest kind of state, so *shrug* on the rest of it.
 
Ron Paul seemed to be the best candidate last time around (i did not know of him before that). Maybe Rand Paul can get the nomination.

That said, i hope there is not another Kennedy-type event for him :/ Not meaning a conspiracy here, just the mere brutality of the JFK assassination.
 
I would love to see a Libertarian elected if for no other reason than to watch everyone on both MSNBC and Fox go on live suicide watch.

Shameless propagandists.
 
Formaldehyde said:
That is certainly not true with Ron Paul. He is vilified and shown in a negative light more by Fox News than he is by any other media. He was even asked why he was even on the stage during the Republican debates during the Fox News sponsored one.

[YOUTUBE-OLD]hXhDWacm-Bk[/YOUTUBE-OLD]
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was all positive attention did I? Just that anyone seeking the GOP nomination is going to get media attention from the right-wing echo chamber. It could go either way as to how they are treated. If the big-wigs in charge like them then they will be presented positively as the likely winners. If they don't like them then they will be vilified.
 
EvenStranger said:
For the last time: The United States of America is a R E P U B L I C. I don't know why this misunderstanding persists.
Click to expand...

Ah, this takes me back. I believe it was 2007, or 2008. Ghostwriter was still Domination3000 and Lincoln was his hero. And he made this exact same claim. It was wrong then. It's still wrong now.

I think this misunderstanding persists due to the way the two parties named themselves. Republicans. Democrats. Names don't really mean much. The DPRK is a monarchy. China is still ostensibly ruled by a Communist Party. The Liberal Party here in Australia is run by staunch conservatives.

Democracy is not the same as mob rule. It is a form of government in which all citizens have a say in the political process. Most countries including the United States are representative democracies, where citizens elect people to make decision on their behalf.

A Republic is simply any state that does not have a monarch. Originally, the distinction used to be that in monarchies supreme political authority rested with a private individual, whereas in republics that authority was shared between elected or appointed officials. The invention of the Constitutional Monarchy has made this obsolete in practice, however.

A republic may not be a democracy; a single-party state like China is an example. A democracy doesn't have to be a republic; my country is an example of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The United States happens to be both a republic and a democracy.

I don't expect you to understand it right away; Ghostwriter took about a month to get it.
 
Even if we go by your terms (which flies in the face of US historical definitions), that by no means that the majority voting should elect a president. There is nothing out there that suggests a simple majority is any more moral than the minority.
 
Yes, your definitions would not change the circumstances of the Electoral College.
 
I didn't read the rest of the thread. I just responded to that one post because it was a cheap way of getting post count.

Oh, and I maintain that my definitions are essentially the mainstream definition and anything else is abusing the English language to score political points.
 
taillesskangaru said:
Ah, this takes me back. I believe it was 2007, or 2008. Ghostwriter was still Domination3000 and Lincoln was his hero. And he made this exact same claim. It was wrong then. It's still wrong now.

I think this misunderstanding persists due to the way the two parties named themselves. Republicans. Democrats. Names don't really mean much. The DPRK is a monarchy. China is still ostensibly ruled by a Communist Party. The Liberal Party here in Australia is run by staunch conservatives.

Democracy is not the same as mob rule. It is a form of government in which all citizens have a say in the political process. Most countries including the United States are representative democracies, where citizens elect people to make decision on their behalf.

A Republic is simply any state that does not have a monarch. Originally, the distinction used to be that in monarchies supreme political authority rested with a private individual, whereas in republics that authority was shared between elected or appointed officials. The invention of the Constitutional Monarchy has made this obsolete in practice, however.

A republic may not be a democracy; a single-party state like China is an example. A democracy doesn't have to be a republic; my country is an example of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy. The United States happens to be both a republic and a democracy.

I don't expect you to understand it right away; Ghostwriter took about a month to get it.
Click to expand...

No no, you're right. I clarified before you made this post.

What I mean to say is that the United States is not ( and I don't want it to be ) a direct democracy.
 
Democracy, historically (since its invention) was not about morality by itself. In ancient Athens there were many cases were people rose to power democratically, but were not moral, and caused all sorts of serious problems (Cleon being elected after the death of Pericles is a good example).

Republic, as far as i know, comes from the Roman terms "Res publica" which mean "Public object". So even in etymology- let alone roots- it is quite different from Democracy. That said, nowdays the definitions have changed, so it is no longer two distinct political systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
[RD] War in Gaza: News Thread
22 23 24
Replies
462
Views
16K
danjuno
danjuno
Narz
Globalization
3 4 5
Replies
93
Views
4K
Narz
Narz
Zardnaar
NZ Election
Replies
3
Views
522
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
So How Bad Is It Overseas?
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
4K
Kouvb593kdnuewnd
K
Crezth
World War 3
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
5K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Top Bottom