PDA

View Full Version : Which Candidate Do You Think Will Benefit America The Most?



kotanaf
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 01:20 AM
I think Ron Paul would deliver a much needed shake up. As he is the only candidate with any integrity. Though I think he's just a bit too liberal in terms of immigration.

SpearBrave
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 01:29 AM
It is too early to tell. Although I think all of them would do a better job than the socialist we have now.

I can tell the three I won't vote for and that is Perry, Kaine, and Romney.

Weitgereister
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 01:49 AM
It's hard to say - I suppose Ron Paul though I disagree with him on many issues, but unfortunately he doesn't really have a chance. Between Perry and Romney, I just might not vote. :~(

GeistFaust
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 01:57 AM
I would not mind if there was an option for none of them. I think they are all fakes and are just there to put on a show. Everything has turned into a frivolous means of entertainment these days. Nothing is genuine or authentic but it is all shrouded over in superficiality. I would not be surprised if all them in some way are working as slaves and puppets for the Plutocratic Jews since I think the two party system is all constructed to distract us from what is really going on behind the scene.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 04:59 AM
I would say Ron Paul, since the Jews hate him the most.

By the way, if no one thinks he can win, their mission is accomplished. What suckers for propaganda so many people are. Just vote for him and force them to stuff the ballot boxes.

Austin
Friday, October 28th, 2011, 05:42 AM
I would say Ron Paul, since the Jews hate him the most.

By the way, if no one thinks he can win, their mission is accomplished. What suckers for propaganda so many people are. Just vote for him and force them to stuff the ballot boxes.

Yeah but he doesn't control the immigrant mass voter blocs such as the blacks.

Blacks would never vote en-mass for Ron Paul once they were told by their political overminds that he will cut their welfare checks to zero.

Once they hear that they'll start screaming.

The Hungry Hun
Saturday, October 29th, 2011, 09:37 AM
I think Ritt Momney or Pick Rerry would be great but I think my support is fully behind Herman McBaine and his 666 plan

Bo
Saturday, October 29th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I actually like Newt the best. Newt has the experience at all levels, the intelligence, and the strength to handle a Vladimir Putin or other truly powerful leader. I like Santorum, but I think he is too hot-headed; we'd end up in nuclear war with him. Ron Paul has some good points, but he comes off as weak to me (as do all the others). Romney and Perry will say whatever gets them the job. They're liberals masquerading as conservatives. Bachmann I like but she isn't strong enough to be in charge. In the end, I'll vote for the lesser of two evils...what other choice will I have?

Æmeric
Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011, 08:51 PM
You didn't include BHO. As bad as he is America needs to go through a major upheaval - on the scale of the American Revolution or the US Civil War. BHO is pushing us closer to that moment, the current Republicans would back away from that kind of confrontation. The Traditionalist-Racialist leader who will take us to the promise land has not yet appeared.

Bo
Thursday, November 3rd, 2011, 05:47 PM
You didn't include BHO. As bad as he is America needs to go through a major upheaval - on the scale of the American Revolution or the US Civil War. BHO is pushing us closer to that moment, the current Republicans would back away from that kind of confrontation. The Traditionalist-Racialist leader who will take us to the promise land has not yet appeared.

If by some crazy chance it comes down to Herman Cain and Barack Hussein Obama, I think I'll have to vote for Obama. The reason is that if they're the only two candidates for president then obviously it proves that America hasn't learned the lesson yet and must therefore continue it's decay and tranformation into a third-world cesspool. Maybe another four years of extreme and destructive liberalism is needed to shock people to want true decisive change.

Æmeric
Thursday, November 3rd, 2011, 06:44 PM
I'm suspicious of Cain's sudden surge in the polls. It reminds me of the 2004 Illinois senate race that was essentially thrown to Obama by the GOP.

Lydig
Thursday, November 3rd, 2011, 07:24 PM
If I could vote in America then I think it would be Ron Paul, because of your financial situation etc!
On the other hand, if Ron Paul was running for a party in Norway then he would been the last to get my vote!
His individualism is poisen to my ears, but considering the problems you have with africans on wellfare then I understand that you would turn to Rons ideology!

Lydig
Thursday, November 3rd, 2011, 07:25 PM
Btw: If any of you have missed a GOP debate on TV then you can watch them here! No registration, cost or anything!

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2011-2012-primary-debate-schedule/

Freja_se
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 02:26 AM
I would say Ron Paul, since the Jews hate him the most.



Maybe that is what they want you to think...


In the end the Jews always choose their opponents. That is easy when you control public opinion and media exposure. Paul is a member of a mainstream neocon party. He means MORE OF THE SAME.


He does not even want a proper border fence.

Paul is also quite the prophet, predicting in 1999 a terrorist attack on US soil...

It is easy to predict things and appear wise and enlightened if you have
inside information.


I am a great deal more suspicious now of candidates that receive big media attention.

Jews give media attention only to those they wish to promote as nationalist alternatives..safe puppets they control... Even negative exposure is good if it makes us take the bait.



The good and genuine politician for white people is the one we will hear little or nothing about in a jewish-controlled media.

Dmrs
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 02:44 AM
I would like to see Herman Cain nominated for the Republican side.
I really hope that Obama wins and the Republican party is destroyed.

Primus
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 03:48 AM
I'm suspicious of Cain's sudden surge in the polls. It reminds me of the 2004 Illinois senate race that was essentially thrown to Obama by the GOP.

Cain is being torn limb from limb by the leftists mind you. He might be a blackamoor but as long as he doesn't go on about Israel, obeys the Constitutional laws in regards to the executive branch of the government, etc. he might make a fair chief executive.

The leftists sung the praises of Obama, a pampered half-caste mind you, but they're largely united against Cain, who's an actual self-made negro citizen of the U.S. :D The only thing that the leftists in America hate more than an opinionated white is an opinionated non-white (lol). The [Jewish-controlled] leftists have more or less crucified Alan Keyes, so now it's time to crucify Herman Cain. Hell if Marcus Garvey was alive and running for President the leftist scum would crucify him too. :D

Here you can see the tolerance of the leftists becoming a political mutation; they claim to speak for the non-white minority, yet when a non-white "rebels" against their idiotic and corrupt rule... Well, Uncle Tom, sell-out, etc.

And no, I'm not a supporter of Cain. I know how these Marxists operate.

Leonhardt
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 04:17 AM
Ron Paul is the best out of that bunch.

I think he is a true outsider.

Hesse
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 04:22 AM
Not part of the list but David Duke IMO.

Loyalist
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 04:34 AM
I would go with the best of the worst on that list; Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann, with a preference for the latter because Paul has some views that are excessively libertarian, if not downright anarchist.

Although not on the list, it is a shame Pat Buchanan will not give it another go. He has done much to build up his image and credentials to the public since his last campaign (as a Reform candidate, whereas he has since come back to the Republican fold), the pre-election situation is ideal for his platform, and the age issue is nonsensical; Ron Paul is three years older, yet still works and campaigns vigorously.

Frostbite
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 04:44 AM
Honestly Herman Cain is the only one who seems to know what he is doing. I have yet to hear any of them make an intelligent comment or argument.

I don't like liberals but the conservatives are no better.

I can't take Michelle Bachmann seriously after she said she asked her husband for permission to do anything.

KingOvGermania
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 09:26 AM
As I, and others have said on this thread before me, Ron Paul is really the only one who would truly challenge the System and bring REAL change.

Freja_se
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 03:25 PM
Ron Paul:


"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. [187]"




"Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200]

Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]


In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.



Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration—defended its right to do so.



Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 "truther", arguing that the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.

[66][67] He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness—not […] to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war […]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul






ANDERSON COOPER: Congressman Paul, there’s some Latino voters who believe that some of these strong anti-immigration laws — anti-illegal immigration laws are actually anti-Latino laws. What do you say to them?

RON PAUL: Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that. And I can understand why somebody might look at that.




Particularly insulting is Ron Paul’s Sept. 7th response when asked if we need a border fence: “I suppose machine guns and barbed wire would do the trick…” Paul has been in Congress since long before the inception of the Duncan Hunter style border fence stretching from San Diego to the Yuma area.

Thanks to this reasonable and affective fencing the U.S. Border Patrol reports a 95% decrease in apprehensions for all illegal traffic.

We already know a reasonable and respectful fencing solution exists. Paul ignores a successful solution to inflame the discussion with “barbed wire and machine guns.”



Here is the Libertarian Platform, which states in part “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” Libertarian Platform: http://www.lp.org/platform I believe this explains Paul’s stance against a border fence and interior enforcement.



Rep. Ron Paul adamantly opposes a border fence and e-Verify.

Paul’s opposition to a national ID record is indeed his condemnation of America’s best tool for preventing illegal alien employment, the e-Verify system.

Ron Paul supporters explain his opposition to e-Verify stems from the belief it is not the private entrepreneur’s job to perform citizenship checks for the federal government. What short memories.

Consider the Greatest Generation and their personal sacrifices to achieve our victory in World War II. Commodities rationing, purchasing war bonds and salvaging materials were contributions made by private citizens in support of national defense. It is no less urgent that we stop the illegal invasion by making employment prospects difficult if not impossible.



http://thepatriotscorner.com/?p=210


http://i.imgur.com/4hGwl.jpg

I'm NOT a liberal, I tell you!!


http://i.imgur.com/RkiBX.jpg

Méldmir
Friday, November 4th, 2011, 04:17 PM
Who cares what Ron Paul thinks about this and that, it's not relevant because he is one of few that actually wants the citizen to make their own choices, not follow the choices of one single leader. If Ron Paul personally detests racism, it doesn't mean he wants to make everyone detest racism, which is usually the norm with state leaders ie they want everyone to share their own personal feelings about everything. That's not what libertarianism is about.

Leonhardt
Saturday, November 5th, 2011, 12:55 AM
If not Paul, then the only one to fall back on is Jesse Ventura.

Primus
Saturday, November 5th, 2011, 01:02 AM
If not Paul, then the only one to fall back on is Jesse Ventura.

What about Buchanan?

Leonhardt
Saturday, November 5th, 2011, 02:08 AM
Oh yeah, Buchanan is probably better than Ventura.

ChaosLord
Saturday, November 5th, 2011, 08:27 AM
I'm all for Ron Paul. This country is too fukked to deal with 4 more years of political incompetency. Dr. Paul is the infusion and political credibility that the U.S. needs. all the other candidates are just puppets to the status quo.

Ward
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 03:47 AM
Who cares what Ron Paul thinks about this and that, it's not relevant because he is one of few that actually wants the citizen to make their own choices, not follow the choices of one single leader. If Ron Paul personally detests racism, it doesn't mean he wants to make everyone detest racism, which is usually the norm with state leaders ie they want everyone to share their own personal feelings about everything. That's not what libertarianism is about.

Huh? I can't follow your logic here. Ron Paul actively promotes an ideology that is antithetical to any kind of national or racial preservation (see Freja_se's post). Do you honestly think that he and his supporters aren't trying to influence the way people think? That they're not trying to turn people into Libertarians? What exactly do you think his campaign is trying to achieve?

Vintersorg
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 04:56 AM
No Herman Cain in the poll?

Two black men running against each other for president of the Unites States is going to piss off a whole lot of middle class, disenfranchised white men. That is what is going to cause any real positive change for a more racial America.

Hesse
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 05:21 AM
Two black men running against each other for president of the Unites States is going to piss off a whole lot of middle class, disenfranchised white men. That is what is going to cause any real positive change for a more racial America.

I'd probably wouldn't even bother voting if it came to that...

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 09:10 AM
Huh? I can't follow your logic here. Ron Paul actively promotes an ideology that is antithetical to any kind of national or racial preservation (see Freja_se's post). Do you honestly think that he and his supporters aren't trying to influence the way people think? That they're not trying to turn people into Libertarians? What exactly do you think his campaign is trying to achieve?

You must understand the difference in being a libertarian and ones personal believes. Ron Paul might like cheese, however that is not part of the libertarian ideology, and he has no wish to make you like cheese just because he does. Now, most state leaders, libertarian or not, would obviously not bother to enforce their liking of cheese on the population, the point here is that Ron Paul extends this mindset to more important topics as well. Libertarianism is about being free to have your own views and live by them without other people stopping you.

In a libertarian society, you could have shops, clubs or whatever where you could only let Germanc people come in. Ron Paul might think this was silly but he wouldn't hinder you from discriminating against non-Germanics. That Ron Paul is a libertarian hasn't anything to do with his views on racism, his favourite tv-show, his favourite food, or how much he likes or doesn't like that people carry guns. The libertarian ideology has no opinions on race. Libertarianism is not liberalism. Ron Paul is campagining for the libertarian ideology, not his personal views beyond that. Understand?

Ediruc
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 10:05 AM
Of course Ron Paul is at the top and gets the most votes. :oanieyes

Are any of you aware Ron Paul doesn't give two shits about Germanic Preservationism? Do any of you realize he is actually against creating a border defence between us and Mexico. Funny enough, Herman Cain, a black man, is more for stabilizing the border than Ron Paul. Mr. Paul also doesn't believe in the separation of church and state. Doesn't anyone have an issue with this?

I wish David Duke had the presidential ticket. He's the only one who genuinely cares about the Germanic Preservationist movement.

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 10:16 AM
Some of you people need to look up better sources and not believe everything you hear. There are some people who attack Ron Paul because he isn't a White Nationalist. They are bitter because a true WN can't win and thus attack Paul because many nationalists and paleo-conservatives are fond of him, despite that he is no WN.

From ronpaul.com



Illegal Immigration

A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with welfare-receiving illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

What's so bad about all that?

Þoreiðar
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 10:36 AM
Are any of you aware Ron Paul doesn't give two shits about Germanic Preservationism?So what you're saying, is that Germanic people are either too stupid or too weak to be able to take care of their own ethnic preservation if there's no governmental body in place to collectively coerce them to do so?

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 10:46 AM
So what you're saying, is that Germanic people are either too stupid or too weak to be able to take care of their own ethnic preservation if there's no governmental body in place to collectively coerce them to do so?

Exactly what I've been thinking, Þoreiðar. Our Germanic ancestors didn't sit around and wait until some daddy President/Prime Minister far away created a community for them. Communities are created locally by the will of those people. Germanic people need to become stronger, and if one is so dependent on the government to fix problems, one isn't really strong enough.

Say we had two examples, a society that was free and people could form their communities as they wished, or a society where a pro-racial separatist President pointed at what communities was to be created. In both soceities, Germanic communities would be founded, but I actually think the communities in the first example would be more genuine and longer-lasting, because they were actually created by the people for the people, not by a leader far away ordering them and giving them no choice. As soon as that President was gone, the communities would likely wither away in time.

Freja_se
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 11:42 AM
One has to read or listen carefully when a deceitful politican speaks.

A nation without borders is no nation...is NOT the same as saying he wants a border fence.

In fact, Ron Paul is a dangerous liberal and anti-racist who despises the group mentality that we need to protect our race. He thinks same sex marriage is fine, and he wants NO border fence, so when he says he wants to do "whatever it takes" to protect the US border, he is in fact lying.

His excuse for not wanting a proper border fence? It could be used to keep Americans in. Just as stupid as saying you should not have a front door
as it could theoretically also be used to keep you inside.


Ron Paul is the last thing the US needs.


A vote for Ron Paul is a vote against a proper border defense of the United States.


Please see my post number 22 in this thread for more.

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 12:06 PM
Ths USA does not need a border fence, they did fine without one for a very long time. That's because people more like Ron Paul were in control, and there were no reasons for the Mexicans to mass-immigrate. I can't believe people on here take the word of people like Cain or Perry, it reminds me of when European politicans promise to take a hard stance on immigration. Remember what Sarkozy, Cameron etc has said? That they were going to fix the immigration issues. I'd rather have a honest politicans who doesn't rant about immigration all the time, just to do nothing when he's elected.

Freja_se
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 12:19 PM
Ron Paul is also against Arizona's right to protect and defend itself from being flooded with illegal immigrants, using the same lame scare tactics to justify his refusal to let Americans defend their states and national border:


"Nor, now, does Paul support interior enforcement. He comes out against SB 1070. He asserts:

"Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."



"Police power to question individuals where they believe there is "reasonable suspicion" was established in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, and local police had been using this authority in criminal investigations long before then.

SB 1070 simply applied this pre-existing standard, which was used by police in other crimes and federal immigration authorities, to local immigration enforcement."

So much for scaremongering.



http://www.vdare.com/articles/worse-than-a-crime-a-blunder-ron-pauls-tragic-turnaround-on-immigration

Bo
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 01:22 PM
Most likely any new candidate that gets in office will be ineffectual and yet another pawn of those with the real power who run the United States from behind the scenes. This nation is becoming a very unsettled cauldron that looks ready to explode and it really has me concerned. If the American people get their replacement for Obama and then there is no significant change in the direction this country is going, I'm afraid there is a very real chance in the near future that the lid will blow off and there is going to be mass violent revolt.

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 01:36 PM
Ron Paul is also against Arizona's right to protect and defend itself from being flooded with illegal immigrants, using the same lame scare tactics to justify his refusal to let Americans defend their states and national border:


"Nor, now, does Paul support interior enforcement. He comes out against SB 1070. He asserts:

"Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges ever being made."





http://www.vdare.com/articles/worse-than-a-crime-a-blunder-ron-pauls-tragic-turnaround-on-immigration

Good quote from Ron Paul. Seems he's against a 1984 type of society where people are being surveilled by governemnt agencies. I believe Paul opposed the bill since it would restrict freedom, and was not in line with the US Constitution. The solutions the bill offered weren't very good anyway. Stop giving benefits to immigrants, as well as securing the border, would be much wiser than to survelling your own citizens.

Freja_se
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 03:39 PM
So what you're saying, is that Germanic people are either too stupid or too weak to be able to take care of their own ethnic preservation if there's no governmental body in place to collectively coerce them to do so?

Take a look at Germanic countries and tell us what it looks like. I think the answer to that is rather self-evident.

The last thing we need now is more liberalism/libertarianism. That is what got us into the mess we are in.

I dont think liberalism in any form can work in a society that is run by people who want to ethnically cleanse us. A liberal society is ideal for their purposes. People forget that Ron Paul is part of that sick system.

Primus
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 03:43 PM
Oh yeah, Buchanan is probably better than Ventura.

Ventura has announced that he's moving to Mexico. :D

Méldmir
Sunday, November 6th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Take a look at Germanic countries and tell us what it looks like. I think the answer to that is rather self-evident.

The last thing we need now is more liberalism/libertarianism. That is what got us into the mess we are in.

I dont think liberalism in any form can work in a society that is run by people who want to ethnically cleanse us. A liberal society is ideal for their purposes. People forget that Ron Paul is part of that sick system.

We don't live in a libertarian society. Obama isn't a libertarian. You use the words liberal and libertarian interchangebly. I would like to ask you to define them both, please.

You think Germanic people are too weak to take care of themselves, alright. But I am curious: Why do you think Obama, Perry, Romney, Bachmann etc are better than Ron Paul? I would really like to know. Are you pro the current economic system in the US? Are you for the wars and occupations by the US in other parts of the world? These are important issues as well.

Freja_se
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 02:52 AM
We don't live in a libertarian society.

Yes, you do, in some respects.



Obama isn't a libertarian.

Yes, he is, in some respects.



You use the words liberal and libertarian interchangebly. I would like to ask you to define them both, please.

Although not identical, there are many similarities between them as we can see just by examining Ron Paul's views on many issues.


Yes, Paul says he wants a small government, but really, politicians say so much in order to get elected, don't they? Don't count on him keeping his word once he is part of that pesky government.


Anyone who votes for someone within the Republican party, expecting change, must be as thick as a plank.


I am saying that because I have lost patience with people who make the same voting mistakes over and over and then get surprised when they get more of the same.


At least people can see where he stands on some very important issues and that is why I participated in this thread.


It saddens me to see Americans about to make the same mistake again of voting a Republican into power..or a Democrat for that matter, but that is human nature, I guess, making the same mistakes again and again.


You are presented with a set of candidates to choose from, and the one who could really make a difference will not be among them as he will not get media coverage in Jewish-controlled media, or the backing of the Republican party.




You think Germanic people are too weak to take care of themselves, alright.

I have seen no sign of any strength, that is correct, and we are losing our nations because of it. I see indoctrination, resignation and an incapacity to see how manipulated we are by the political system.

A liberal/libertarian is not what is needed. The opposite is needed, actually, until the country is safely on the right track, at least.




But I am curious: Why do you think Obama, Perry, Romney, Bachmann etc are better than Ron Paul?

Strawman. Never said they were.



I would really like to know. Are you pro the current economic system in the US?

No, I am not. I just don't think a puppet Republican will change much.




Are you for the wars and occupations by the US in other parts of the world? These are important issues as well.


Oh please. Give me a break. Paul says what he thinks will get him elected. Once in power he will find an excuse to do what his puppet masters tell him to do.

The US will be waging war in different parts of the world as long as it is a Jew-run country. See reality for once!






I found this article:

"Why Do Liberals Love Ron Paul?

Why do liberals love Ron Paul? That's the pressing question of the moment, since everywhere I turn lately a liberal is praising the Republican presidential candidate"

Yes, why do they? Could it be because he shares their views on many issues?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211681/20110910/why-do-liberals-love-ron-paul-jon-stewart-daily-show.htm

Primus
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 03:35 AM
Ron Paul is a one-hit-wonder who is favored by libertarians et al. As a Congressman he's fine due to his pro-Constitution stance but it's as if he's only aware of the Constitution and looks at government as a member of the legislative branch of the U.S government.

The U.S. government is broken down into three co-equal, or supposedly co-equal, parts:

Executive, i.e. the President.

Judicial, i.e. the SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the U.S.A.

Legislative, i.e. a bi-cameral Congress. IMO the legislature is the most vital part of of government in that this is where the representatives of the sovereign people are elected and speak to the executive and judicial branches.

Checks and balances; the President isn't all-powerful, nor is Congress or SCOTUS. :)

In theory this is how it's all supposed to work.....

Méldmir
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 09:01 AM
Yes, you do, in some respects.


Yes, he is, in some respects.

Increasing taxes and such is hardly libertarian.


Although not identical, there are many similarities between them as we can see just by examining Ron Paul's views on many issues.

IMO, the definition of an American liberal today is a person who is pro-immigration, pro-gay, pro-high taxes, and generally pro-Obama. A libertarian is mere small government, and personal freedom. A liberal can be a libertarian, but so can a WN. A liberal can also be a Socialist, and so can a WN. I'd say there are just a few liberal libertarians though, since they nowadays are generally pro-welfare and such. You'll find most liberals support Obama and not Paul. There is no real good definition of liberal, so I used what modern people would associate with the term, rather than what is perhaps its true meaning.


Yes, Paul says he wants a small government, but really, politicians say so much in order to get elected, don't they? Don't count on him keeping his word once he is part of that pesky government.

Ron Paul has been saying the exact same thing since he was elected into congress decades ago. Other politicians change their minds all the time. Ron Paul has also voted in line with his opinions all the time, no matter what public opinion has been. Don't you think that would give the man at least an ounce of credibilty compared to other policticians.


Anyone who votes for someone within the Republican party, expecting change, must be as thick as a plank.

David Duke ran in the Republican Party once, you don't like him either for that reason? You must realize that the parties in the US are unlike parties in Europe. The parties in America work more as tools for individuals to have a chance to become elected. Independets can't win.



I am saying that because I have lost patience with people who make the same voting mistakes over and over and then get surprised when they get more of the same.

Do you vote at all? If yes, what you are saying applies to your voting choice as well.



It saddens me to see Americans about to make the same mistake again of voting a Republican into power..or a Democrat for that matter, but that is human nature, I guess, making the same mistakes again and again.

As I said, the Republican Party can house anything from WNs, Paleo-conservatives, Marxists and Lbertarians. However, its biggest group is probably those who are known as Neo-cons, they are far from Libertarian. I'd say most candidates except Paul are Neo-cons, even though some are more liberal than others. There is also a pseudo-Libertarian candidate known as Gary Johnson.



You are presented with a set of candidates to choose from, and the one who could really make a difference will not be among them as he will not get media coverage in Jewish-controlled media, or the backing of the Republican party.

Funny you should mention that, since little media coverage is exactly what Ron Paul is getting. There are good example showing this on Youtube, and it has been mentioned in the media as well. Jon Stewart (A Democrat), mentioned it on his show as well. Ron Paul is not treated the same as other Republicans.



I have seen no sign of any strength, that is correct, and we are losing our nations because of it. I see indoctrination, resignation and an incapacity to see how manipulated we are by the political system.

All are not the same, those Germanics who want could create their own communities. The others could stay where they are.




Strawman. Never said they were.

Well, you did put it this way


Ron Paul is the last thing the US needs.




Oh please. Give me a break. Paul says what he thinks will get him elected. Once in power he will find an excuse to do what his puppet masters tell him to do.

The US will be waging war in different parts of the world as long as it is a Jew-run country. See reality for once!

As I said earlier, check the man's political history, and you may trust him more than you do now. I am not the first to believe empty promises from politicians, but the fact the media companies don't like Paul, and his stable voting record, makes me want to give him at least a chance.





lol

I found this article:

"Why Do Liberals Love Ron Paul?

Why do liberals love Ron Paul? That's the pressing question of the moment, since everywhere I turn lately a liberal is praising the Republican presidential candidate"

Yes, why do they? Could it be because he shares their views on many issues?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/211681/20110910/why-do-liberals-love-ron-paul-jon-stewart-daily-show.htm[/QUOTE]

Anyone who wants to live their lives without government-interference could like Ron Paul, whether liberal or nationalist.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 10:31 AM
I have read some very good things in this thread. However I would like to point one thing out about American politics. There are a lot of labels thrown around and most of them mean nothing. These labels change on a regular basis and are used to either promote a person or destroy them. A good example of this is neo-con. According to all leftist every republican is neo-con, simply not true.

The things I look for the most are people willing to revert back to the US Constitution in it's original intent. The liberals do not want that they want a fluid set of laws that they can bend and twist in order to bring in communism. I talked about labels, some good definition of liberal are leftist, marxist,communist, multiculturalist, socialist, social marxist and a few others. For the 100+ years these people have been bent on the destruction of the original American idea.

The case is the American people are no longer taught what the Constitution is in school. America has for far too long let the media pick their candidates for office. We all know what the mainstream media is about in America. What that leaves us is the voting for the lessor of two evils. That is how we ended up with Bush and that led to people supporting obama.

I am not a person that looks for change I look for restoration and preservation. Meaning I would like to see America get back to the ideas of the 1700's removing all the social issues and restoring State's rights. I also believe that people are naturally racialist and if left alone from the media and government they will segregate themselves.

So who am I going to vote for......the lessor of two evils according to my views.;)

Horagalles
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 12:49 PM
Why isn't Obama on that list above;)?



Originally Posted by Méldmir http://forums.skadi.net/images/atlantis/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1134523#post1134523)
You use the words liberal and libertarian interchangebly. I would like to ask you to define them both, please.



Although not identical, there are many similarities between them as we can see just by examining Ron Paul's views on many issues.

...Actually even "liberalism" doesn't have to be identical with itself. The present definition of liberalism would to some extent exclude classical liberals. Classical liberals and libertarians are very similar, yet you'll get libertarians that would take matters even further (stateless societies). What they all share classical liberals, present liberals and libertarians, is the opinion that the state shouldn't be intervening on the behalf of conservative morality. I.e. not punish homosexuals, drug users and not ban pornography or the like. It's quite difficult to argue against any form of immigration from any of those view points, too.
Present day liberals do however favor the state to intervene on behalf of political correctness or the poor. Something libertarians or classical liberals would strongly object to vehemently.

I also recall having a left libertarian on that forum here. Who subscribed to most libertarian tennets concerning personal freedom, just that he wanted universal health insurance as an institution, too (Concerned that the pot-smoking would have unwanted consequences?). Perhaps he would better called a welfare anarchist or something like that;).

Freja_se
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 02:28 PM
I am not a person that looks for change I look for restoration and preservation.


Some things might not be possible to restore and preserve UNLESS we change things first.





So who am I going to vote for......the lessor of two evils according to my views.;)


Ah, tactical voting..the kiss of death to change..


I used to think like that until I realized that a lesser evil is STILL always an evil, and that voting for it is not an option. I am not going to actively be a part of that.


If I cannot give my vote with a good conscience, knowing that immigrants will continue to flood my country if the ones I vote for get power, then of what use is a vote that will facilitate my own country's and my people's destruction?


The only thing one can do is to look for nationalist alternatives that are not part of the malignant, anti-white system, and that DO NOT receive backing from parties that are part of that.

ANY and ALL votes for that sick system is a vote for our demise.



If people just STOPPED thinking tactically and instead voted with their heart for something they really WANT, even if they are very small parties, then we might see some progress.

SpearBrave
Monday, November 7th, 2011, 11:57 PM
Some things might not be possible to restore and preserve UNLESS we change things first.


You can always go back, that is why recorded history is very valuable.;)

I would get into a discussion about the difference in laws and statutes, but that would take a entire forum just to discuss, laws should not be changed and statutes can be removed.






Ah, tactical voting..the kiss of death to change..


I used to think like that until I realized that a lesser evil is STILL always an evil, and that voting for it is not an option. I am not going to actively be a part of that.


If I cannot give my vote with a good conscience, knowing that immigrants will continue to flood my country if the ones I vote for get power, then of what use is a vote that will facilitate my own country's and my people's destruction?


The only thing one can do is to look for nationalist alternatives that are not part of the malignant, anti-white system, and that DO NOT receive backing from parties that are part of that.

ANY and ALL votes for that sick system is a vote for our demise.



If people just STOPPED thinking tactically and instead voted with their heart for something they really WANT, even if they are very small parties, then we might see some progress.

People should not vote with their hearts they should vote with their minds based on education, so before you vote educate yourself. If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils eventually that evil becomes smaller and smaller, meaning we get more and more conservative as time goes on.

As I said I don't want change I want restoration and preservation. I will keep my rights, my land and my freedom you can have the change.;)

Really, look at what we got from the last guy that was screaming change...change to what is not what the people asked loud enough.

Yes, Americans should look to being Nationalist- Constitutional Nationalist and restore our Constitution to what is was intended to be.:)
( of course you have to study the Constitution and who wrote it and why to make that statement )

Freja_se
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 12:29 AM
Well, people can judge for themselves whether or not this Republican will mean less multiculturalism and decadence for the US.

Ron Paul:


"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-
called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. [187]"



"Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of
two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200]


Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call
it whatever they want."[199]


In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.




Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and—unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration—defended its right to do so.




Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 "truther",
arguing that the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.

[66][67] He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness—not […] to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war […]




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul








ANDERSON COOPER: Congressman Paul, there’s some Latino voters who
believe that some of these strong anti-immigration laws — anti-illegal
immigration laws are actually anti-Latino laws. What do you say to them?

RON PAUL: Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that. And I can understand why somebody might look at that.




Particularly insulting is Ron Paul’s Sept. 7th response when asked if we
need a border fence: “I suppose machine guns and barbed wire would do the trick…”

Paul has been in Congress since long before the inception of the Duncan Hunter style border fence stretching from San Diego to the Yuma area.

Thanks to this reasonable and affective fencing the U.S. Border Patrol
reports a 95% decrease in apprehensions for all illegal traffic.

We already know a reasonable and respectful fencing solution exists. Paul ignores a successful solution to inflame the discussion with “barbed wire and machine guns.”




Here is the Libertarian Platform, which states in part “Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.” Libertarian Platform: http://www.lp.org/platform I believe this explains Paul’s
stance against a border fence and interior enforcement.




Rep. Ron Paul adamantly opposes a border fence and e-Verify.


Paul’s opposition to a national ID record is indeed his condemnation of America’s best tool for preventing illegal alien employment, the e-Verify system.

Ron Paul supporters explain his opposition to e-Verify stems from the belief it is not the private entrepreneur’s job to perform citizenship checks for the federal government. What short memories.

Consider the Greatest Generation and their personal sacrifices to achieve our victory in World War II. Commodities rationing, purchasing war bonds and salvaging materials were contributions made by private citizens in support of national defense. It is no less urgent that we stop the illegal invasion by making employment prospects difficult if not impossible.



http://thepatriotscorner.com/?p=210


http://i.imgur.com/4hGwl.jpg

I'm NOT a liberal, I tell you!!


http://i.imgur.com/RkiBX.jpg[/QUOTE]

Freja_se
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 12:34 AM
Anti-state defense and anti-national border defense.

Hey Paul, Mexico sends you a giant thank you card! :thumbup




Ron Paul is also against Arizona's right to protect and defend itself from being flooded with illegal immigrants, using the same lame scare tactics to justify his refusal to let Americans defend their states and national border:

"Nor, now, does Paul support interior enforcement. He comes out against
SB 1070. He asserts:

"Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of 'suspicion' is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position
of assassinating American citizens if deemed a 'threat,' without charges
ever being made."



"Police power to question individuals where they believe there is
"reasonable suspicion" was established in the 1968 Terry v. Ohio case, and
local police had been using this authority in criminal investigations long
before then.

SB 1070 simply applied this pre-existing standard, which was used by policy
in other crimes and federal immigration authorities, to local immigration
enforcement."


False scaremongering by Paul, in other words..



http://www.vdare.com/articles/worse-...on-immigration

Patrioten
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 12:59 AM
The fact that illegal immigration, and the enforcement against it, is the major immigration conflict in the US seems really outlandish. So first you are supposed to argue over whether illegal immigration should be halted, how, and to what degree (partial or full amnesty). The "hardliners" in the illegal immigration debate sugar coat their stance by standing up for the legal immigration to the US "the problem isn't Mexican immigrants but the procedure by which they enter the country". So then if the debate ever turns to legal immigration, if somehow the illegal immigration issue is solved, what sort of positions will the Republican candidates assume then considering the support they have thrown behind procedurially correct immigration (of which there has been a great deal since the altered immigration laws in the 1960s)?

It just seems as though the American immigration debate has derailed completely when it can't even get past the issue of illegal immigration.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 02:54 AM
The fact that illegal immigration, and the enforcement against it, is the major immigration conflict in the US seems really outlandish. So first you are supposed to argue over whether illegal immigration should be halted, how, and to what degree (partial or full amnesty). The "hardliners" in the illegal immigration debate sugar coat their stance by standing up for the legal immigration to the US "the problem isn't Mexican immigrants but the procedure by which they enter the country". So then if the debate ever turns to legal immigration, if somehow the illegal immigration issue is solved, what sort of positions will the Republican candidates assume then considering the support they have thrown behind procedurially correct immigration (of which there has been a great deal since the altered immigration laws in the 1960s)?

It just seems as though the American immigration debate has derailed completely when it can't even get past the issue of illegal immigration.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the liberals and the media. They keep the issue distracted all the while we slide further down the slope.


I think people would be surprised if a candidate stood up and said that they were for stopping immigration and even supported mass deportation they might get elected. They could use the unemployment issue to popularize good sound thinking.;)

Gugnir
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 03:00 AM
All politicians are liars and criminals and should be treated as such. I wouldn't vote for any of these idiots. Where's our National Socialist candidate? Oh, that's right, America can't run a National Socialist candidate because we don't have any true, serious NS parties who can put up a guy who has the balls to stand up for real NS and not sell out. If voting could change anything, it wouldn't be legal... Don't waste your time at the polls when you could be better prepping yourself for the coming war...

-Gugnir

beowulf wodenson
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 03:40 AM
I think Ron Paul would deliver a much needed shake up. As he is the only candidate with any integrity. Though I think he's just a bit too liberal in terms of immigration.

For what little the American citizen's vote counts in this "federal" empire, I supported and voted for Ron Paul in 2008, and will do so again in 2012.
He is indeed the only modern politician with any real integrity and consistency in adherence to the founding principles of the orginal American constitutional republic as intended by the Founding Fathers.
As such, the "powers that be" will never allow him to win a nomination to square off against the mulatto globalist poster-boy.
Ultimately, the answer is secession from D.C. and preparing yourself for any resulting aggressive anti-American acts sure to follow from the imperial regime.
I must admit I strongly disagree with his statements on the importance of race, -biology is as it is-ideology notwithstanding. I expect that is one of the good doctor's more consciously fallacious statements after seeing so much in life.
I

Freja_se
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 03:52 PM
People should not vote with their hearts they should vote with their minds based on education, so before you vote educate yourself.


People should also not send mixed messages. At least you understand that Ron Paul is a liberal and that he wants open borders.


When I said vote with the heart I was obviously saying that you need to vote for someone you can trust at least to some degree, feel good about and be able to support with a good conscience, instead of just voting tactically for someone you know will hurt the country.

If one "educates oneself" one understands that voting tactically for something that is "evil" is EXACTLY what makes us go nowhere.



If you continue to vote for the lesser of two evils eventually that evil becomes smaller and smaller, meaning we get more and more conservative as time goes on.



I am sorry but that is absolute nonsense. The more you give power to evil the stronger it gets. A thing which is evil doesn't suddenly transform itself into something good just because you put it into power again and again. Quite the opposite is true.

"We" may get more conservative but the evil we vote for does not care what we think. They are not our friends.

Æmeric
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 05:59 PM
I think people would be surprised if a candidate stood up and said that they were for stopping immigration and even supported mass deportation they might get elected. They could use the unemployment issue to popularize good sound thinking.;)

Most politicians say "Of course we are not going to deport 12 million illegals" or " It would cause economic collapse if we deported 12 million illegals" - think John McCain & his ilk. These are the politicians who pay lip service to the illegal problem but don't actually want to do anything about. Bipartisanship on this issue means we have laws against illegal immigration but very few actual sanctions against illegals or their employers and practically no enforcement. Once illegals slip past the Border Patrol they are essentially home free.

The US essentially has a service economy, immigrants basically just full the job demand created by their physical presence in this country. A very small number of the wealthy benefit from cheap servants, for everyone else it has been a losing proposition. As for any posible economic disruption cause by the mass deportation of illegals, it get be any worst then the current situation, which in large part was caused by immigrants (legal & illegal), driving down wages, while at the same time stimulating a housing bubble.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 10:19 PM
People should also not send mixed messages. At least you understand that Ron Paul is a liberal and that he wants open borders.


When I said vote with the heart I was obviously saying that you need to vote for someone you can trust at least to some degree, feel good about and be able to support with a good conscience, instead of just voting tactically for someone you know will hurt the country.


I have never supported Ron Paul for the very reason he is for open borders. If he was all so grand about the Constitution and States rights he would never support open borders. That is why I sometimes think he is a wolf trying to wear sheep's clothing.

When I hear someone say they vote with their heart, it usually means they are voting for a feel good candidate that has likability and really is not a good candidate and does not have the qualifications for the job. Then again I don't believe in the all power charismatic leader theory.


If one "educates oneself" one understands that voting tactically for something that is "evil" is EXACTLY what makes us go nowhere.

I am sorry but that is absolute nonsense. The more you give power to evil the stronger it gets. A thing which is evil doesn't suddenly transform itself into something good just because you put it into power again and again. Quite the opposite is true.

"We" may get more conservative but the evil we vote for does not care what we think. They are not our friends.


Can you explain how if you continue to do less of something each time it grows? There is no sudden transformation, this situation did not happen overnight and it will not be fixed overnight without open revolt. If people grow more conservative over time than gradually restoration will happen.



Most politicians say "Of course we are not going to deport 12 million illegals" or " It would cause economic collapse if we deported 12 million illegals" - think John McCain & his ilk. These are the politicians who pay lip service to the illegal problem but don't actually want to do anything about. Bipartisanship on this issue means we have laws against illegal immigration but very few actual sanctions against illegals or their employers and practically no enforcement. Once illegals slip past the Border Patrol they are essentially home free.


There has been a very rapidly growing sense of resentment for the illegals. Beside I can dream that one day the people will stand up and say " lets close the borders and deport these illegals". ;)



The US essentially has a service economy, immigrants basically just full the job demand created by their physical presence in this country. A very small number of the wealthy benefit from cheap servants, for everyone else it has been a losing proposition. As for any possible economic disruption cause by the mass deportation of illegals, it get be any worst then the current situation, which in large part was caused by immigrants (legal & illegal), driving down wages, while at the same time stimulating a housing bubble.


Most of this very true except the US still has a massive manufacturing and agricultural base that far exceeds the service industry. The illegals are working in these fields more and more everyday.

Leonhardt
Sunday, November 20th, 2011, 04:06 PM
While Paul may not be my favorite candidate due to his open border politics, I do not see any other outsiders running yet.

Why would the Republican party shun a candidate who can obviously win against all comers, and instead support candidates they know have no chance of winning anything unless the electronic voting machines are rigged yet again?

The Answer: Obama is their candidate also. As president he has been far more effective at dismantling the Constitution, passing oppressive legislation, issuing unlawful and unconstitutional Executive Orders, and expanding the death grip of the federal government on the states than Bush2 and his neo-conservative collection of psychopaths’, ideologues’, new world order, corporate pandering and UN suck-ups than any of these supposed candidates now offered for consideration. -John Boering
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/the-fix-is-in-republicans-make-sure-obama-serves-second-term/

Lone Rebel
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 02:13 AM
To turn America back into what it needs to be? Ron Paul can try doubt he will get far. I think Obama will get re elected. The only way to help America is to destroy the system and start anew.

Primus
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 02:20 AM
I just turned 35 a month ago; I ought to run for President. I bet I could govern the country more effectively than the entire crop of Congressmen and the current bungler of a President combined.

The secret of being an effective leader is to appoint skilled and effective ministers to undertake various governmental offices, to be seen less as a leader and more of a guardian and servant of the People, to share the burdens of the People, etc. Following the example of Washington I'd even refuse a salary or stipend and, like Cincinnatus, when my term of office expired I'd return to my normal working-class life. :)

Of course it's all just a daydream. :D

Horagalles
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 06:56 AM
To turn America back into what it needs to be? Ron Paul can try doubt he will get far. I think Obama will get re elected. The only way to help America is to destroy the system and start anew.
I also seriously doubt that "getting a conservative in the White House" will solve any problem. What that will do is delaying the ultimate crisis necessary for a rejunivation. Let the left overdue it, that works ultimately in our favour.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 07:19 AM
Ron Paul would do the best job, but frankly it doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is because Mitt Romney has already won.

Time to play Spot the Pattern:

Goldman-Sachs

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $367,200 - Mitt Romney - 29% of Lobbying Total
4. $50,124 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (total):
1. $1,005,491 - Barack Hussein Obama - 26% LT
2. $409,850 - Hillary Clinton - 10% LT
3. $240,295 - John McCain - 6% LT
4. $233,175 - Mitt Romney - 6% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $3,816,076
2012: $1,232,408

CitiGroup

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $60,050 - Mitt Romney - 13 % LT
2. $41,887 - Barack Hussein Obama - 9% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $736,771 - Barack Hussein Obama - 18% LT
2. $441,317 - Hillary Clinton - 11% LT
3. $338,202 - John McCain - 8% LT
4. $178,450 - Mitt Romney - 4% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $3,887,032
2012: $451,752

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $109,750 - Mitt Romney - 15% LT
4. $37,439 - Barack Hussein Obama - 5% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $807,799 - Barack Hussein Obama - 18% LT
2. $451,004 - Hillary Clinton - 10% LT
3. $343,505 - John McCain - 7% LT
6. $123,800 - Mitt Romney - 2% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $4,320,345
2012: $695,989

Morgan Stanley

2012 Election Contributions to date:
1. $191,800 - Mitt Romney - 30% LT
4. $27,075 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $512,232 - Barack Hussein Obama - 17% LT
2. $395,830 - Hillary Clinton - 13% LT
3. $271,902 - John McCain - 9% LT
4. $170,350 - Mitt Romney - 5% LT

Total Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $2,863,039
2012: $622,200

Bank of America

2012 Election Contributions to date:
1. $123,000 - Mitt Romney - 15% LT
2. $39,024 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $394,242 - Barack Hussein Obama - 15% LT
2. $167,826 - John McCain - 6% LT
3. $131,221 - Hillary Clinton - 5% LT
6. $66,500 - Mitt Romney - 2% LT

Total Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $2,582,872
2012: $800,738

There's only ever one choice for POTUS, and we don't make that choice.

SOURCE (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A)

Leonhardt
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 11:26 AM
I believe Obama's money came from Soros and small undocumented donors, otherwise we would have had Hillary Clinton for president. Although overall total contributions do play a large role, since many people still watch so much television.

SpearBrave
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 11:26 AM
Time to play Spot the Pattern:

Goldman-Sachs

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $367,200 - Mitt Romney - 29% of Lobbying Total
4. $50,124 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (total):
1. $1,005,491 - Barack Hussein Obama - 26% LT
2. $409,850 - Hillary Clinton - 10% LT
3. $240,295 - John McCain - 6% LT
4. $233,175 - Mitt Romney - 6% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $3,816,076
2012: $1,232,408

CitiGroup

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $60,050 - Mitt Romney - 13 % LT
2. $41,887 - Barack Hussein Obama - 9% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $736,771 - Barack Hussein Obama - 18% LT
2. $441,317 - Hillary Clinton - 11% LT
3. $338,202 - John McCain - 8% LT
4. $178,450 - Mitt Romney - 4% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $3,887,032
2012: $451,752

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

2012 Election contributions to date:
1. $109,750 - Mitt Romney - 15% LT
4. $37,439 - Barack Hussein Obama - 5% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $807,799 - Barack Hussein Obama - 18% LT
2. $451,004 - Hillary Clinton - 10% LT
3. $343,505 - John McCain - 7% LT
6. $123,800 - Mitt Romney - 2% LT

Totals Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $4,320,345
2012: $695,989

Morgan Stanley

2012 Election Contributions to date:
1. $191,800 - Mitt Romney - 30% LT
4. $27,075 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $512,232 - Barack Hussein Obama - 17% LT
2. $395,830 - Hillary Clinton - 13% LT
3. $271,902 - John McCain - 9% LT
4. $170,350 - Mitt Romney - 5% LT

Total Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $2,863,039
2012: $622,200

Bank of America

2012 Election Contributions to date:
1. $123,000 - Mitt Romney - 15% LT
2. $39,024 - Barack Hussein Obama - 4% LT

2008 Election Contributions (totals):
1. $394,242 - Barack Hussein Obama - 15% LT
2. $167,826 - John McCain - 6% LT
3. $131,221 - Hillary Clinton - 5% LT
6. $66,500 - Mitt Romney - 2% LT

Total Spent on Lobbying:
2008: $2,582,872
2012: $800,738

There's only ever one choice for POTUS, and we don't make that choice.

SOURCE (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A)

Yes, I do see a pattern. The pattern that these contributors make is that they don't want anybody else but Romney to run against obama. Think about it for a second. Romney is the beatable by obama, it would make sense these bankers pour money his way right now.

Now this would matter more if it was after the primary election, but it is not. They are trying to pick the opponent at this point in the game.

Æmeric
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 03:31 PM
Reviving an idea they floated last year with an op-ed urging President Obama not to seek a second term, pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen are out Monday with a new op-ed drafting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be the Democrats' 2012 nominee.

Obama should “abandon his candidacy for reelection in favor of a clear alternative,” Caddell and Schoen wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, because “the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern -- not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.”

“Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor -- one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy,” they wrote of Clinton.

The two pollsters have worked for a number of high-profile Democrats -- Caddell for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, and Schoen for President Bill Clinton and for Hillary Clinton in 2008. But they are also known for taking positions that are at odds with the Democratic Party.

Most recently, Schoen has worked with a group called Americans Elect to put a third candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

The group plans to hold a nominating convention next summer to select a candidate to challenge Obama and the Republican nominee. Participants will draft candidates by putting their names to a Web-based vote. Hillary Clinton and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- another former client of Schoen’s -- are often mentioned as potential nominees.

Like they did last year in an op-ed for the Washington Post, Caddell and Schoen argue that running for reelection will prevent Obama from governing.

“By going down the reelection road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength,” they wrote.

The pollster duo believes that: “If President Obama were to withdraw he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate -- especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. “

They argue that Clinton would stand a better chance at winning in 2012 because she enjoys her best-ever approval rating and is favored over Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in a Time magazine poll. And they call on Sen. Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to urge Obama to step aside “for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country.”

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said that she has no ambitions to run again for president. She has brushed aside talk of replacing Joe Biden as the vice presidential nominee on the Democrats' ticket.

"I'm out of politics, happy to be out of politics," she said last week when asked by NBC's Chuck Todd to weigh in on the field of Republican hopefuls.

Source (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-pollsters-clinton-20111121,0,6798616.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewe d+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)

Oh yes! I would love to see a civil war in the Democratic Party between the Clinton & Obama factions. It is obvious that many Dems do not believe Obama can win reelection against whoever the GOP nominates. It was the Kennedy people who helped BHO get the nomination, over Hillary, in 2008 but the Kennedy influenced seems to have died with Teddy.:)

Btw the kind of campaign required for BHO to win reelection would alienate so many independent White voters that Obama would lose & take a good many Democrats down with him. BHO's only hope is that the GOP nominates a total incompetent as the standard bearer in 2012.

Lew Skannon
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 04:47 PM
I would say Ron Paul, since the Jews hate him the most.

By the way, if no one thinks he can win, their mission is accomplished. What suckers for propaganda so many people are. Just vote for him and force them to stuff the ballot boxes.

I disagree with mr. Paul on several issues, but he seems to be the real thing; a decent man with integrity and character.

That is probably why the jews hate him so much.

Eccardus Teutonicus
Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011, 05:38 PM
I disagree with mr. Paul on several issues, but he seems to be the real thing; a decent man with integrity and character.

That is probably why the jews hate him so much.

He can't be bought. That's going to frustrate people who are unable to think outside of their own mercantile worldview.

Bo
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 08:32 PM
I originally thought Newt was the best option for our country, but on November 22 he made it very clear that he supports amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens that have invaded the USA. I don't know what to say other than I'm thoroughly disgusted with all the pathetic candidates we have to choose from. In my opinion, no matter who gets in office they will still merely be a pawn.

Æmeric
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 08:49 PM
Newt's private life has been a mess. If neither wife #1 (his high school teacher) - whom he presented with divorce papers in the hospital after hysterectomy surgery so he could marry wife # 2, or wife # 2 - who he left so he could marry wife # 3, could count on him why should the American people trust him. Gingrich has spent the last 13 years working as a lobbyist for the globalists interests. Gingrich is just as scummy as Bill Clinton.:thumbdown

SpearBrave
Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011, 10:49 PM
The only reasons I even like Newt in this race is that he keeps the media on their toes and he seems to keep the whole group of them focused on beating obama rather than beating each other.

I just think he makes it very interesting to watch and listen to what he is going to say next.

Primus
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 03:58 AM
Regarding Newt, you need to listen to what an outside commentator has to say... Michael Savage, a Jew.

His observation boils down to this, in a nutshell:

Gingrich: Old fat white man who represents The System (i.e. white Christian America).

vs.

Obama: Slick, well-spoken negro who panders to the masses (multiculti America).

I've seriously been considering Herman Cain at this late point. o_O Cain is a slick businessman, sure, but he doesn't seem to belong to the Moral Majority. He's a Christian but he doesn't speak about his religion in public. The fact that he seems less-informed on foreign policy and more well-informed on domestic policy is a good thing to me. O_o

What the hell is going on these days? The token negro candidate making more sense than the whites?!

feisty goddess
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 03:59 AM
I really like Michelle Bachman, she's the only one who is standing up for capitalism. I don't like voting for a female president with health problems, but if she is more qualified I'd much rather have her than a less qualified man in robust health.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 04:53 AM
I really like Michelle Bachman, she's the only one who is standing up for capitalism. I don't like voting for a female president with health problems, but if she is more qualified I'd much rather have her than a less qualified man in robust health.

Michelle Bachman has about a Snowballs chance in Hell of being the Nominee. And Im not saying that just because she is a women.

But if she manages to survive to the General Election, I will gladly cast my ballot for her.

Because the "Messiah" or "Anti Christ" depending on your position really does need to GO, and by "Any means necessary".

Primus
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 05:35 AM
Welcome to the brave new world.....

Primus
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 05:40 AM
Because the "Messiah" or "Anti Christ" depending on your position really does need to GO, and by "Any means necessary".

I loathe anyone who believes in a Christ. Anti-Christ. Etc. :)

Leonhardt
Thursday, November 24th, 2011, 09:42 PM
I still do not see any candidates that I am convinced I would want to vote for.

Given an historic opportunity, the Republican Party has put before the electorate the most amazingly stupid and vile collection of prospects, with the exception of Ron Paul who does not have the party’s support, that Americans have ever seen. by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/11/24/the-roads-to-war-and-economic-collapse/
Roberts ends the article by questioning Germany's responsibility to bail out the Euro countries in debt.

Sometimes I wonder why the US would try to surround Russia with missiles, when they had the whole country collapsed just a short while ago, and did nothing?

Gruno
Sunday, December 11th, 2011, 01:23 PM
I think Ron Paul would deliver a much needed shake up. As he is the only candidate with any integrity. Though I think he's just a bit too liberal in terms of immigration.

Ron Paul, no question. If I where an American he would have my vote. I prefer him any day over that baffoon Perry, the uneducated Pizza-baking groper of women Cain and those other idiots, Romney and Gingrich, who appear to be running for president of Israel rather then president of the United States. Go, Ron Paul! :thumbup

MCP3
Friday, December 16th, 2011, 06:35 AM
Gingrich and Adelson Forge Firm Alliance (http://www.forward.com/articles/147533/)

In the battle for the Republican pro-Israel vote, Newt Gingrich lacks Mitt Romney’s broad base of prominent Jewish donors. But he has something potentially more powerful: the support of one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s most significant American backers, and a relationship with the Israeli prime minister himself that stretches back decades.

Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, one of the wealthiest men in the world and a major donor to Jewish and conservative causes, is widely known as a Netanyahu stalwart. Less well known are his equally close ties to Gingrich, to whom he has been a major giver in recent years.




No government can serve two masters and a candidate who serves Israel cannot and does not serve the American people.

See other stories about Adelson below.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Wicklowwolf
Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, 04:08 PM
Ron Paul! Nobody else will do. Defender of the US Constitution, pro-life libertarian, pro-2nd A, pro curbing illigal immigration, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-war. And on top of all this, he is a great guy as well.

Wicklowwolf
Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, 04:12 PM
Newt's private life has been a mess. If neither wife #1 (his high school teacher) - whom he presented with divorce papers in the hospital after hysterectomy surgery so he could marry wife # 2, or wife # 2 - who he left so he could marry wife # 3, could count on him why should the American people trust him. Gingrich has spent the last 13 years working as a lobbyist for the globalists interests. Gingrich is just as scummy as Bill Clinton.:thumbdown

Gingrich is a typical politician. Always adjusting his opinion to the people paying him most. He is an utterly despicable man.

Perfume
Thursday, December 22nd, 2011, 04:15 PM
Ron Paul, I believe he knows what needst to be done and how it needs to be done.


Gingrich is a typical politician. Always adjusting his opinion to the people paying him most. He is an utterly despicable man.

Yes, you can't get any typical than Gingrich. I look at his past and it says it loud and clear: don't vote for Gingrich :D

Anyway, all I really care about is seeing a conservative republican come out victorious in debates against Obama. Who it will be doesn't matter. I just feel like it's time for change.

Leonhardt
Monday, January 9th, 2012, 03:33 PM
This article shows the top contributors for the candidates. The banks are backing Mitt Romney, and the military is backing Ron Paul.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012

Scario
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012, 06:31 AM
I personally do not see anyone that impresses me. I'm still looking for another Reagan, but don't see anyone like that in the current field of dipshits. I don't trust many politicians. We vote every year hoping for someone better than the last, and we end up with someone worse and worse. Every time a Republican gets in office, I think he is a good conservative, and before they get out of office, they prove me wrong every time. I look to the house and see Bohner fighting the Dems, which I support, only to have him cave each and every time to BO, thinking he's got him against the ropes, only to find out it was what BO wanted. We got duped into putting the Defense Departments budget on the table, thinking the Dems would never cut Defense. Well look what they just did. BO went to the Pentagon and had a speech saying he is all for the cuts in the military that are coming. Until we as a people stand up and get rid of the crooks out of Washington, then we will never be better off and deserve what we get.

Norsestar
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012, 06:39 AM
Ron Paul all the way. His approach to capitalism via Austrian Economics and his understanding of the Constitution are spot on. If we had more men like him in office we would have a bulwark against the corruption of washington.

renownedwolf
Tuesday, January 10th, 2012, 09:56 AM
Ron Paul, because he's the only one with a shred of honesty and integrity.