-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
Presidential Elections
- Thread starter KingPaulV
- Start date
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
derok;2495306 said:
Technically they don't. McCain is still the presumptive nominee; until the convention it is still technically primary season. Also, knowing McCain, he might die before then.
Presidential candidates' passport files "ACCESSED"
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/21/obama.passport/index.html
Ron Paul as an example, is it a coincidence that the main stream media should purposely hide him from the public view? Why?
Ron Paul wanted to see a limited government, a return to the Constitution, the abolition of the IRS and Federal Reserve, a policy where the USA doesn't police the world, an end to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the things that would effectively put the "Elite" out of business. Is it any wonder they wanted to stop him being heard or becoming president.
yah I know he's out of the race, never had a chance. He's the only one I felt could've made a difference. I mean he's probaby not the best with smaller issues like abortion, gay rights, education etc but in the bigger picture in reforming the political system, he'd be the best candidate THEN you could go for whoever else afterwards.
Obama, Hilary, McCain, doesn't really make a difference on the inside, it'll be the exact same.
Ron Paul wanted to see a limited government, a return to the Constitution, the abolition of the IRS and Federal Reserve, a policy where the USA doesn't police the world, an end to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the things that would effectively put the "Elite" out of business. Is it any wonder they wanted to stop him being heard or becoming president.
yah I know he's out of the race, never had a chance. He's the only one I felt could've made a difference. I mean he's probaby not the best with smaller issues like abortion, gay rights, education etc but in the bigger picture in reforming the political system, he'd be the best candidate THEN you could go for whoever else afterwards.
Obama, Hilary, McCain, doesn't really make a difference on the inside, it'll be the exact same.
Oh man, you Ron Paul fans crack me up.Nettles;2502031 said:
The media did not "purposely hide" Ron Paul. They ignored Ron Paul because he was an obscure candidate with a very, very small following and no chance of winning. There were FIVE Republican candidates who consistently had more supporters than him throughout the election. How much media coverage do you really expect when you're sixth in the polls? If anything, Ron Paul got more than his fair share of coverage because of his opposition to the Iraq war.
Ron Paul lost because he was a kooky, obscure candidate with libertarian positions which the vast majority of Republican voters found unappealing. He never had anything more than a small, committed but slightly delusional following. Blaming the media for Ron Paul's lack of success is like Wrexham blaming the weather conditions for a loss to Manchester United.
Liberalism in a libertarian sense has some good points, but its bad points are way too bad to even consider this form of liberalism viable.
Has anyone actually read the McCain's/Obama's/Hillary's foreign policy essays in Foreign Affairs Magazine that came out last June/July? I feel that if more Americans actually read them, they could understand more thoroughly each candidate's position in many foreign subjects and why they stand the way they do.
Interestingly, Obama's has a historical error within his first two paragraphs.. and I quickly skimmed through Hillary's and it gave me the impression that her foreign policy would not be as ''agressive'' as the foreign policy under Bill Clinton; for those that know about the subject how would you compare Hillary's foreign policy against Obama's?
Has anyone actually read the McCain's/Obama's/Hillary's foreign policy essays in Foreign Affairs Magazine that came out last June/July? I feel that if more Americans actually read them, they could understand more thoroughly each candidate's position in many foreign subjects and why they stand the way they do.
Interestingly, Obama's has a historical error within his first two paragraphs.. and I quickly skimmed through Hillary's and it gave me the impression that her foreign policy would not be as ''agressive'' as the foreign policy under Bill Clinton; for those that know about the subject how would you compare Hillary's foreign policy against Obama's?
hmmm, I'd say look up "Zbigniew Brzezinski Obama connection". He's Obama's foreign policy adviser, also the same guy that set up the Trilateral Commision with the Rockafellers. Also he 'enticed' the Soviet Union to start the Afghan war (idea of weakening your opponents etc under Jimmy Carter). I like this quote
Obama and Clinton both say they stand for change etc etc
In truth, they stand for the status quo because that's the position of those who control them. All the rest is fakery.
Obama and Clinton both say they stand for change etc etc
In truth, they stand for the status quo because that's the position of those who control them. All the rest is fakery.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is a legend. End of.
EDIT: If Ron Paul is such a sucky Republican, he should just start his own party!
EDIT: If Ron Paul is such a sucky Republican, he should just start his own party!
The two major parties are indistinguishable on almost any point, I honestly can't see any difference between
Hillary's campaign and McCain's. How can anyone take this seriously?!!! How is it possible that anyone believes
they are actually fulfilling some kind of societal duty by choosing which one of these corrupt political prostitutes
and demagogues will rob them and further the nation on its slow but sure path to collapse? It doesn't
matter who wins this election, the results will always be the same as the roots and the basis for the
system is corrupt and degenerate. Isn't it better to simply remain aloof of it? None of these candidates
represent my views even remotely, and even if they did, they are not changing anything. So why debase myself
and waste my time voting? Voting simply affirms that we believe in this system and accept its legitimacy.
Tell the government you don't accept its legitimacy, don't waste time voting..
Hillary's campaign and McCain's. How can anyone take this seriously?!!! How is it possible that anyone believes
they are actually fulfilling some kind of societal duty by choosing which one of these corrupt political prostitutes
and demagogues will rob them and further the nation on its slow but sure path to collapse? It doesn't
matter who wins this election, the results will always be the same as the roots and the basis for the
system is corrupt and degenerate. Isn't it better to simply remain aloof of it? None of these candidates
represent my views even remotely, and even if they did, they are not changing anything. So why debase myself
and waste my time voting? Voting simply affirms that we believe in this system and accept its legitimacy.
Tell the government you don't accept its legitimacy, don't waste time voting..
Parra Power
Manager
Integrity;2502112 said:
It's a bit selfish to expect that everyone shares your beliefs isn't it? Nothing was stopping you from voting in a candidate that represents your views except for the fact that the majority of voters did not want to vote for said hypothetical candidate.