Who Would You Vote For?

If I voted (which I don't) and thought that elections (and politics in general) were anything more than the dog and pony show they are, I would vote for Ron Paul. He's the only one speaking the truth. The rest have been clearly bought and paid for.

 

Well, honestly, I'm not sure if anyone ever even reads my posts (I feel the same way about posting as I do about voting), but I'm gonna throw this out there anyway:

Pressed Rat, I basically agree with you about the whole electoral system; most of the time, it doesn't do any good to vote; granted. However, is it possible that once in a while, like when we have a candidate like Ron Paul running, that it really would do some good to vote? I mean, to at least try to affect the whole process for good? I mean, if mass numbers of people got out and voted for Ron Paul, he'd get elected, right?

Paul has no chance of winning in the Republican primaries because too many Bush/Cheney types are going to vote against him-never mind who they're voting for. I don't think Paul has a chance unless he runs as an independent (which is what he really is anyway). Nonetheless, what harm would it do to go down and cast a vote for him anyway? Please tell me that.

 

I wish I had added the question of "Why would you vote for the person you are voting for?", so I'm adding that, if it's not too late. I personally like Ron Paul, he seems like an honest person who would get out of Iraq, and as we all know, Iraq never did anything bad to America. Iraq was not behind the 9-11 attacks. We should have never invaded their country. I think most canidates want to contiue this horrible war. I fully agree with what Charise says. I think she makes a good point. But I would like to hear everyone else's point of view too. I'm trying to be open minded. So thanks for your comments so far, and please keep them coming.
"War is over if you want it." John Lennon
Peace

 

Ron Paul FTW

 

I'd vote for Ron Paul with Dennis Kucinich as VP. But I know it will never happen.

Why? Because both of them respect the constitution and the intelligence of the working class. They both ask questions, and demand answers.

 

Ron Paul and all my friends are voting for Ron Paul

Pressed rat atleast vote to make him look more credible thats the least you could do.

 

toot toot, but what do you actually do? Why propose revolutionary ideas without actually revolutionizing... that is a terrible sort of hypocrisy.

Vote, its a way of making your voice heard, even if you truly believe it won't be counted. You can say yes I voted for the candidate that I believed in... which will help other folks stand up... so on and so forth.

The defeatist attitude may only allow for defeat. The revolutionary attitude may allow for victory or defeat. I'll take a chance so that I may in the future be able to say I did something to change things - no matter what the outcome.

I would and am voting for Ron Paul... I do not believe he will bow out for any reason. If his name isn't on the ballot and my only choices are future despots, I will not vote.

 

should have made a poll.

 

Crankyelbow- you just counterdicted yourself.

 

One thing all voters do when they register is make themselves available for jury duty. At least in California. Maybe Rat has a reason he doesn't want to do jury duty, Remember when you register you name does go on lists. I respect a person's right not to vote.

 

I didn't vote for twenty years. I understand.

 

If I remember correctly he "worked the system" to get his name off the jury duty list.

I don't respect someone who doesn't vote because they don't believe in the election process... thats selfish and does not aid the process. We are all a part of this country, we must all take that responsibility.

 

Had Ron Paul not have run, I would not have ever gained any faith in the system, and would have never voted. I would have played perfectlly into the hands I was always so against.

A vote does not have to count for anything, but its at least your assertment that you want this person to run the country... and your voice.

 

?

 

First of all, for me to vote for Ron Paul would mean I would have to join the Republican party. I don't join parties or clubs or teams or organizations. It's simply against what I believe in. It's not about being pretentious or snooty, it's just in complete opposition to what I believe as an individual.

Secondly, having the knowledge I do about the way the system is run, I know that elections are little more than window dressing for the public to believe in. The true controllers of this system know that the public will never rebel or engage is mass civil disobedience if they think they have a choice when they go to pull the lever for their candidate of choice. This is not OUR system, and I know that's hard for most people to accept, but it's true. The controllers of this system would never allow somebody like Ron Paul to win. He would be killed before they would even allow him near the White House, because unlike the other candidates, he is genuine, whereas the rest are bought and paid for shills of the establishment.

So for any real change to occur, it would require enough people waking up to the things I am talking about, and this change would have to come from outside of the political structure they control. It's not going to come by voting, but by enough people becoming informed and taking real action as individuals, yet collectively at the same time.

 

Well, I don't know about New York, but in Texas you don't have to join anything or register as a member of a party to vote in the primaries-all you have to do is go down and vote. You can vote in the Republican primary one time, the Democratic the next. Honestly, it sounds to me like a nifty excuse for not voting.

And, I suppose if real change isn't going to come about by voting, what's the use anyway, right? So, what kind of real action as individuals, taken collectively at the same time is going to effect this change?

 

Kucinich was also the only one with balls to table the impeachment of cheney.

Obviously, Kucinich's stance on marijuana is sound. My take on the issue is that they keep it illegal because it's an industry unto itself. If they made it legal, that would put a lot of lawyers out of business, and most government officials are lawyers, they take care of their own.

Kucinich is a populist. Most of the other candidates are puppets, who represent the best interests of the corporations that fund their campaigns. What we really need is campaign reform. No candidate should get more exposure just because they can raise more cash. But again, like the marijuana issue, campaign policy is designed to serve the best interests of the politicians, not the best interests of the people they supposedly represent.

 

I understand that a lot of people want to keep it illegal because of that, and because it's possible if it did become widely available the quality might decrease, and the dope would likely be produced with chemicals and fillers just like tobacco. And we who like to smoke it like our fresh green.

Still, because it is illegal, it's causing a lot of other problems. Non-violent drug offenders are crowding the jails. That's probably the main problem with it being illegal.

 

I've heard that argument before, and I've heard the government grown stuff is skank weed. Maybe we're better off as it is, I mean quality control doesn't seem to be a priority of our government, at least not these days. I'll stick to my kind bud, thank you.

 

While I do not smoke or use any form of drug other than alcohol on occasion, I am of the mindset that the government should refrain from taking any part in the regulation of drugs. If the government has any legitimate purpose, it is defending the nation from possible outside attacks (definitely not initiating attacks as is being done now), and protecting its citizens from possible rights infractions committed by other citizens. I do not see how the use of drugs falls into either of these categories. For that matter, we can include the right to abortion and the right for gays to marry with peaceful drug use. I do not see how the government should have the power to either grant or forbid a thing which neither endangers the nation as a whole, nor infringes on the rights of any citizen. In fact, I do not see that these issues should be in the Constitution in any form- either allowing or disallowing such actions. I consider them basic rights, and, as such, they should simply be permissible behavior, and not open to speculation on any grounds.

Too often these issues arise due to religious beliefs, and religious matters should not factor into the political sphere in any form whatsoever. There is possibly no more beautiful concept in this world than the notion of separation of church and state (separation of church and everything, really) . Even in a democracy the majority should not be able to run roughshod over the various minorities, particularly in regard to civil issues which do not result in rights infringements.