Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Well you can't spend a billion dollars from donations from the public. It obviously has to be corporations.

You two ignored the part relevant to this thread:
"On a very related note, Chase Bank (one of the one's who helped cause the financial meltdown) just "donated" 4.2 million dollars to the NYPD. The timing and the fact that they've never done anything like that before is indicative that they are trying to buy the cops to get the protesters to be quiet because people are starting to take notice."

Ah, so much pessimism. Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets That will tell you who is paying Obama.

NOT EVERY candidate gets corporate backing; Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force. No other candidate has them in the top 20.

But you're right, any candidate who wants to easily win will be backed by corporate interests. BUT... with enough people voting for the anti-corporatists, Paul and Kucinich, maybe we can send a message to corporations that not everyone can be bought? I recommend doing that, which is why I'm registering Republican just to vote for Paul in the primaries.

Since I can't protest corporatism with my time, I'll protest it with my vote.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Ah, so much pessimism. [url=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638]Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force. No other candidate has them in the top 20.

But Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He's a novelty candidate that a few people vote for mostly just to be different. He's the Ralph Nader of this generation of politics.

Originally Posted by tommo

"On a very related note, Chase Bank (one of the one's who helped cause the financial meltdown) just "donated" 4.2 million dollars to the NYPD. The timing and the fact that they've never done anything like that before is indicative that they are trying to buy the cops to get the protesters to be quiet because people are starting to take notice."

Now lets bring the discussion back to occupy wallstreet.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

But Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. He's a novelty candidate that a few people vote for mostly just to be different. He's the Ralph Nader of this generation of politics.

Yeah, I'm sure they're all just voting for him to be hipsters.

What a load of shit.

No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.

So they're not doing it "just to be different." They actually have a justified reason.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, they are voting for him to make a statement that they dislike the corrupt two party system, same reason they voted for Nader.

So, they are voting for a Republican to show that they don't like the Republican vs Democrat only dynamic. Either you didn't think before you wrote that...or you somehow deduced millions of people's stupidity in choosing how to vote....

During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot. His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party. If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement. Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement. Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot. His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party. If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement. Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement. Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.

You know the motives of every person that voted for RP or Nader? Interesting.

... maybe we voted for someone against the war, against the war on drugs, against insane government debt, against the Federal Reserve (which is one of the primary causes of the recession, NOT Wall Street.), and against interventionism?

Or maybe you're right. Maybe my vote is just to "stick it" to everyone else. I'm sure everyone else knows better why I'm voting than me.

But when asked about Occupy Wall Street, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader did a mini media "tour" together speaking out against the stupidity that is the Federal Reserve, to enlighten people about how we have a government within a government causing so many problems. Kucinich did the same, "Where did this problem arise?" He responded that they'd have to go back to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to find the answer. (See? Still on topic!)

Guess which [what Fox would call] leftist socialist said this?

‎We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. … They sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver is paying 10 percent of his salary—and that's crazy.

Spoiler for Answer:

Ronald Reagan

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You know the motives of every person that voted for RP or Nader? Interesting.

The thing is, if people are too stupid to vote properly, they don't say "oh I'm gonna be koolz and votez Ron Paul, man".
They post on their facebook "WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR!??? I DON'T KNOW WHO I SHOULD CHOOSE!"
And they end up going with one of the two main candidates, because they probably don't even realise any other parties exist. (Unless I convince them to vote Greens of course )

So the people who vote Ron Paul are the ones who are making an informed decision and realise the two main candidates are a turd sandwhich and a douchebag.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

During the 2008 election he was on the Ballot as "Constitutional Party" in the few states that placed him on the ballot. His views are Republican, but because he can't get their nomination, he went third party. If the voters who voted for Paul wanted a Republican, they would have voted for McCain, they knew Paul wouldn't win the election, so they voted for him purely as a statement. Same way Nader was a Democrat in most of his views, but ran under the Green Party's nomination, no one thought Nader would win, the votes for him were just a statement. Now drop it and go back to the Occupy Wallstreet thread.

That does not make sense. Firstly, Ron Paul never ran as a third party candidate. If people decided to write him in as a write-in vote, he has no control over that. So he did not go third party. Secondly, you can only vote for McCain if you are voting Republican...that is the whole point of the primaries. You couldn't vote Ron Paul AND vote Republican.

Now how you turn this previous action into a belief that "this is why people are voting for him now" is beyond the bizarre.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

NOT EVERY candidate gets corporate backing; Paul (I know, I'm a broken record) has all branches of military servicemen as three of his top four donor groups, Army, Navy, and Air Force. No other candidate has them in the top 20.

Wait, how does that work? I hope the US military isn't using federal money to fund a single political candidate?

Originally Posted by tommo

The thing is, if people are too stupid to vote properly, they don't say "oh I'm gonna be koolz and votez Ron Paul, man".
They post on their facebook "WHO SHOULD I VOTE FOR!??? I DON'T KNOW WHO I SHOULD CHOOSE!"
And they end up going with one of the two main candidates, because they probably don't even realise any other parties exist. (Unless I convince them to vote Greens of course )

So the people who vote Ron Paul are the ones who are making an informed decision and realise the two main candidates are a turd sandwhich and a douchebag.

Solid logic there...

I don't see how it isn't. Obviously it doesn't apply to everyone, nothing does.

But it is obvious that most people who would vote for a non-main candidate/party are doing so because they realise their policies are better, and the two main candidates suck.

Rather than just "oh I'm gonna be cool and vote for this random dude".

The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.

I know that he is against abortions and wants to leave them to the states, but where do you see him being "anti-gay?"

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The two main candidates are def. a turd sandwich and a douchebag, but Ron Paul isn't a bed of roses either. In economic matters he may be spot on but he's still the anti-gay anti-abortion type.

Anti-gay? He's stated on many occasions that he's for equal rights for ALL, and that would include gays. He's also stated that he's against gay marriage because he's against all government marriage, gay or straight.

Ron Paul ran on the libertarian ticket in 1988. He has not since run with a 3rd party.

I like Ron Paul because he's not a fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is the most corrosive taint to ever lactate the GOP. Liberals are capable of fundamentalism, too. I would define it as any agenda to push the values of one group of people on everybody else. Ron Paul may have deeply conservative values aligned with the traditional core of this country, but he doesn't act like everyone else needs to adapt that view too.

Defending the sacredness of marriage is a perfect exampled of a fundamentalist argument being twisted into something else to hide it's true nature. A very vocal base of this country believes gays and liberals are actively trying to destroy the country, they put themselves on the victim side of things and suddenly fundamentalism becomes not only excusable but your only option left.

CLINTON, a Democrat, signed the Defense of Marriage Act... that's real progressive of him eh?

Also, I'm quite happy, a bunch of Occupy Wall Street protesters were chanting "Fuck the Fed" today. Successful breakthroughs!

Yeah, I think I made the mistake of repeating something I read without checking to see if it was true.

Ron Paul on Gay Marriage:


I think Ron Paul could preside over the new American Renaissance except he would almost surely be assassinated if he were ever elected.

He makes a good point but what protocol should a hospital follow for visitation rights? What protocol should a judge follow when someone dies absent of a will? Marriage is not purely a religious issue.

They should allow any "significant other" in. We could have "civil unions" for all consenting couples of legal age... and your state can call it marriage.

He wants it to go to a state level if necessary.