Research says media ignores Ron Paul - Polidicks

Why does everyone seem to dislike Obama? He's been doing good so far with his only failures being due to republican opposition.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827226]Why does everyone seem to dislike Obama? He's been doing good so far with his only failures being due to republican opposition.[/QUOTE] He's the president. All things done in politics, especially shortcomings or failures are automatically attributed to him. He's not completely without blame, but he hasn't done much in the way of harming our situation. I'd certainly rather him be in office than Paul or the like.

[QUOTE=Contag;31826974]I'm saying if Ron Paul huffed petrol and ran about making ludicrous promises and calling Germany the 3rd Reich he'd be getting alot more media attention.[/QUOTE] That's not something a candidate should have to do in order to get attention. [QUOTE=Contag;31826974][editline]20th August 2011[/editline] You expect the mainstream media to report about the fed being terrible? Ahahahah, c'mon.[/QUOTE] It's still something that he managed to do. He was asked to provide "something that Paul has done recnetly" and he did. Whether it's reported or not widely wasn't the point. [QUOTE=Contag;31826974][editline]20th August 2011[/editline] Ramstein Airbase provides a platform for the United States to project it's power throughout Europe and beyond.[/QUOTE] The United States should NOT be projecting ANY of it's "power" ANYWHERE. That's the point. We should not be the world police.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827226]Why does everyone seem to dislike Obama? He's been doing good so far with his only failures being due to republican opposition.[/QUOTE] Obama is a terrible president because it's a political pussy, and his failure to do anything gives the republicans so much more power. Because they frame all failure on him.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827226]Why does everyone seem to dislike Obama? He's been doing good so far with his only failures being due to republican opposition.[/QUOTE] He's the face of the government, basically. If the government fails, he's the spokesman for it. And the government always fails, thus the president always fails.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;31827408]Obama is a terrible president because it's a political pussy, and his failure to do anything gives the republicans so much more power. Because they frame all failure on him.[/QUOTE] Your country needs more than two parties then.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827440]Your country needs more than two parties then.[/QUOTE] We do. I once made a thread in the GD about that. Everyone laughed at me and got 100+ dumbs.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827226]Why does everyone seem to dislike Obama? He's been doing good so far with his only failures being due to republican opposition.[/QUOTE]idk I definitely changed my outlook on Obama after I found this on Reddit: [release] Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/26/us/politics/26gitmo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss"]backed off on closing Guantanamo[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/islam-siddiqui-obama-nomi_n_333972.html"]backed off of his promise to keep lobbyists out of his administration[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://washingtonindependent.com/33985/in-torture-cases-obama-toes-bush-line"]protected the Bush administration from prosecution for torture[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp"]authorized the assassination of U.S. citizens abroad[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he rescinded on his promise to not prosecute marijuana users in states where it is legal, and [URL="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/21/BA1V175SB9.DTL"]pushed for a 5 year prison term for a California-legal medical marijuana dispensary operator[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.truth-out.org/omar-khadr-jury-hammers-final-nail-into-coffin-american-justice64718"]prosecuted child-soldier Omar Khadr using evidence gained through torture[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html"]granted 27 waivers to oil companies drilling in the weeks following the Deepwater Horizon disaster[/URL]. Obama was a sellout when [URL="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/bagram/index.html"]he fought for, and won, the right to deny habeas corpus to detainees[/URL]. He was a sellout when he [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072203281.html"]blocked UN human rights investigations at Guantanamo[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/world/10tapes.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss"]dropped charges against the CIA for destroying videotapes documenting torture of detainees[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0812/Obama-as-border-cop-He-s-deported-record-numbers-of-illegal-immigrants"]deported record number of undocumented immigrants[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html"]continued rendition of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured[/URL]. He continued [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html"]indefinitely detaining alleged terrorists, WITHOUT TRIAL[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms"]extended the PATRIOT Act, with no reforms[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html"]dramatically increased government secrecy, denying more Freedom of Information Act requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008[/URL]. So much for open government. He [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html"]cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while still campaigning on its behalf[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/13/military.gays.appeal/"]defended Don't Ask Don't Tell from legal challenges[/URL]. He [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/112795-axelrod-obama-remains-opposed-gay-marriage"]reaffirmed his opposition to same-sex marriage[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip"]granted waivers to 30 companies, including McDonalds, exempting them from health care reform[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html"]announced the single largest arms deal in history, of $60bil worth of arms, to Saudi Arabian dictatorship[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html"]gave permits to BP and other oil companies, exempting them from environmental protection laws[/URL]. He [URL="http://counterpunch.com/kenfield08142009.html"]appointed Monsanto executive Michael Taylor to the FDA[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/islam-siddiqui-obama-nomi_n_333972.html"]appointed a former Monsanto lobbyist as Chief Agriculture Negotiator[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-15/treasury-secretary-timothy-geithners-wall-street-conflict/"]appointed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/7361630/One-in-three-killed-by-US-drones-in-Pakistan-is-a-civilian-report-claims.html"]increased the use of combat drones in Pakistan[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02krugman.html"]passed a massive Wall Street bailout at the expense of the taxpayers[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/obama-breaks-silence-on-wikileaks-says-nothing-new-in-leaked-documents-40275"]played down the importance of the WikiLeaks documents[/URL]. He [URL="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/26/obama-stance-on-climate-suit-stuns-allies/"]failed[/URL]... [URL="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1897080,00.html"]to address[/URL]... [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/obama-issues-statement-on_n_221821.html"]climate change issues[/URL]. (three separate links here) He [URL="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html"]pushed for mandatory DNA testing for those arrested for crimes, even if they have not been convicted[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/us/politics/17signing.html"]undercuts whistleblowers[/URL]. He [URL="http://www.truth-out.org/israel-seals-unprecedented-weapons-deals-with-us64373"]promised $30bil in military aid to Israel over the next decade[/URL].[/release]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31827462]We do. I once made a thread in the GD about that. Everyone laughed at me and got 100+ dumbs.[/QUOTE] Well, it'd be an incredible task, and it's definitely not a guaranteed success. Funding would be a major issue, any new political parties would likely be bringing in their funds from less than altruistic people or organizations - which would be a major issue in terms of policies enacted by most groups. Given the political leanings of most members of congress, I think it'd only serve to worsen the drift towards the political right - super left leaning persons simply don't have enough backers who actually vote unless they are incumbent in states who don't vote any other party. Plus, it'd also serve to aid the tea party and their likes to controlling more of government, fringe groups would have a chance to control a majority of congress with enough vote diversification. If the voting stayed winner take all, you'd get groups in power who, potentially, only 15% of Americans voted for.

[QUOTE=that1dude24;31827556]Well, it'd be an incredible task, and it's definitely not a guaranteed success. Funding would be a major issue, any new political parties would likely be bringing in their funds from less than altruistic people or organizations - which would be a major issue in terms of policies enacted by most groups. Given the political leanings of most members of congress, I think it'd only serve to worsen the drift towards the political right - super left leaning persons simply don't have enough backers who actually vote unless they are incumbent in states who don't vote any other party. Plus, it'd also serve to aid the tea party and their likes to controlling more of government, fringe groups would have a chance to control a majority of congress with enough vote diversification. If the voting stayed winner take all, you'd get groups in power who, potentially, only 15% of Americans voted for.[/QUOTE] Why couldn't you do what we in the UK do?

[QUOTE=that1dude24;31827556]Well, it'd be an incredible task, and it's definitely not a guaranteed success. Funding would be a major issue, any new political parties would likely be bringing in their funds from less than altruistic people or organizations - which would be a major issue in terms of policies enacted by most groups. Given the political leanings of most members of congress, I think it'd only serve to worsen the drift towards the political right - super left leaning persons simply don't have enough backers who actually vote unless they are incumbent in states who don't vote any other party. Plus, it'd also serve to aid the tea party and their likes to controlling more of government, fringe groups would have a chance to control a majority of congress with enough vote diversification. If the voting stayed winner take all, you'd get groups in power who, potentially, only 15% of Americans voted for.[/QUOTE] I never said it was going to be easy nor simple...

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827584]Why couldn't you do what we in the UK do?[/QUOTE] I'm not well versed at all in UK politics. Does it differ from the US a good deal? [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31827654]I never said it was going to be easy nor simple...[/QUOTE] They're the issues that would have to be overcome in order to make it plausible.

[quote]The United States should NOT be projecting ANY of it's "power" ANYWHERE. That's the point.[/quote] If you honestly believe that, I should begin learning arabic, russian and chinese, because American dominance is over.

in defense of omar khadr's prosecution, he was given an incredibly lenient plea bargain considering he killed a united states medic.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31827440]Your country needs more than two parties then.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure any informed american wants more than 2 parties.

[QUOTE=that1dude24;31827699]I'm not well versed at all in UK politics. Does it differ from the US a good deal? They're the issues that would have to be overcome in order to make it plausible.[/QUOTE] The UK allows just about anyone to make a political party of their own

[QUOTE=Starpluck;31827510]-links-[/QUOTE] So there's no candidates this time that are a good choice, at all? God damn it.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;31827510]<huge list>[/QUOTE] Ok that's convincing. So Obama is shit, but Ron Paul is a horrible candidate, Michelle Bachman even worse. Is there anything else you can vote, or am I right to lose the last tiny bit of faith in America?

[QUOTE=Falstad007;31824116] Also, I would much rather have Ron Paul in office instead of our current president. Ron Paul might actually stick to his promises and get shit done.[/QUOTE] That's all very nice, but the shit he might get done is pretty fucking insane. He basically wants the free market to control everything.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;31828488]That's all very nice, but the shit he might get done is pretty fucking insane. He basically wants the free market to control everything.[/QUOTE] With little to no regulations and no taxes. Sounds like a fun time.

[QUOTE=FPtje;31828128]Ok that's convincing. So Obama is shit, but Ron Paul is a horrible candidate, Michelle Bachman even worse. Is there anything else you can vote, or am I right to lose the last tiny bit of faith in America?[/QUOTE] I'd say if that list is correct, then you are clear to abandon all hope.

[QUOTE=FPtje;31825494]- is against abortion, which isn't progressive[/QUOTE] He may be against it, but the bill he wrote explicitly states that Federal Courts can not prohibit or regulate abortions on the Federal Level [QUOTE=FPtje;31825494]-denies evolution, which can have huge effect on his policy[/QUOTE] No it won't, and this is irrelavent, I highly doubt evolution will be a concern for him with all the major issues around [QUOTE=FPtje;31825494]-doesn't believe in separation between [b]church and state[/b]. Horrible for a president[/QUOTE] I don't believe in it since the Constitution only states the federal legislative shall not federal enact or prohibit religion, and the there shall not be religious tests for public officials, hardly a declaration the church and state shall remain separate, and as you know the Government, or the State in this context, is made of 3 branches, the Legislative, the Executive and Judicial, meanwhile what does this have to do with anything considering he wants to make States as autonomous from the Federal Government as possible

[QUOTE=Contag;31827716]If you honestly believe that, I should begin learning arabic, russian and chinese, because American dominance is over.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because the moment the United States withdraws all it's troops from it's global occupation, everyone is going to jump us and divide us up for themselves. :downs:

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;31825854]Some of his promises [i]include[/i] banning abortion, mind you..[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]H.R.2533 Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 5/20/2009) [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Text of Legislation] `Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof-- `(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or `(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates-- `(A) the performance of abortions; or[/QUOTE] Clearly he wants abortion banned despite writing a bill that explicitly states the Federal Courts can not prohibit abortion in any way

[QUOTE=Falstad007;31824116] Also, I would much rather have Ron Paul in office instead of our current president. Ron Paul might actually stick to his promises and get shit done.[/QUOTE] Obama doesn't stick to his promises? Since when? [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url] Believe it or not it's kind of hard to keep promises when the other party is blocking your every move.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;31829167]Obama doesn't stick to his promises? Since when? [url]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/[/url] Believe it or not it's kind of hard to keep promises when the other party is blocking your every move.[/QUOTE] That fucking excuse 'baww the republicans are blocking everything we do' doesn't fly when the fucking Democrats had majorities in both god damn chambers of congress for 2 years and he still didn't get shit done

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31823866]why does everybody fucking like this guy he's a creationist anti abortion anti gay marriage libertarian idiot who's only redeeming facet is that he's actually thick enough to believe the shit he spouts[/QUOTE] Even if he is all those things, what difference does it make? He's a strong believer of state's rights, so as president, he'll probably let it be up to the states to govern social issues.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;31829242]That fucking excuse 'baww the republicans are blocking everything we do' doesn't fly when the fucking Democrats had majorities in both god damn chambers of congress for 2 years and he still didn't get shit done[/QUOTE] You'd think that, but the Democratic Party isn't a hivemind. Unlike the Republican Party which will near unanimously vote no. And the fact that 60 Votes are needed to end Senate filibusters.

[QUOTE=Billiam;31829351]You'd think that, but the Democratic Party isn't a hivemind. Unlike the Republican Party which will near unanimously vote no. And the fact that 60 Votes are needed to end Senate filibusters.[/QUOTE] What makes you think Republicans are a "hivemind"?

ron paul said we was going to pardon every criminal thats in jail on a non-violent drug crime