i definitely don’t agreee with that… changing from one side of the same coin to the other every four years is just plain bullls**t.

we haven’t had a revolution for hundreds of years.
and money is one large reason there hasn’t beeen one here.

a revolution neeeds to happpen, but it wouldn’t be the answer.
it’s tooo far gone to do any goood. it would actuallly do more bad than goood in the end

If you look back in history, for what it’s worth, it is noted that the first revolution was started with a mere 100 individuals.

I just don’t think a President can initiate much change because of the Senate and the House. Until we get term limits on those guys, the same stuff will continue to happen regardless of who is in office. I liked what Ron Paul had to say, but being an outsider, he would’ve gotten no cooperation from the Senate, so they would still keep things the same as it has always been.

We do have term limits, it’s called voting every year not once every 2 or 4 years.

If Ron runs as an independent, I’ll probably vote for him. Our other choices are just pathetic.

Sorry that can’t happen in Pennsylvania because Paul was on the ballot. Pennsylvania has what is referred to as the “Sore Loser’s” law. The only way he could get around that would be if one of the third parties were to run a candidate and then substitute that candidate with Paul.

Bobby102 - 23 April 2008 09:41 AM

tim_k - 23 April 2008 08:21 AM

markG - 22 April 2008 02:15 PM

tim_k - 22 April 2008 11:19 AM

If Ron runs as an independent, I’ll probably vote for him. Our other choices are just pathetic.

If he runs as an independent that would be my reason NOT to vote for him.  If you lose the game with the rules that were set out then you abide by the rules and the game is over for you. 

You mean the rules created by the Republicans & Democrats that ensure that 3rd parties will never be able to compete on an even playing field and so ensure their own power?

Nader may get in again and cancel out any affect Paul would have running as an independent. For me, I either vote for a 3rd party or not at all. I can’t bring myself to vote for Obama, Clinton, or McCain. BTW, I’ve been a life long registered independent.

I think I agree with Mark but my thought is Ron Paul’s NOT an independent.  He’s a Republican that will use the independent ticket if (well when) he fails on his own ticket.  Obviously, people didn’t vote for him to give him the Republican nomination, how does he think it will work for him as an independent?

Although, it did work for Joe Lieberman, I don’t agree with it.  And Ralph Nader....if you’ve proven that many times that you’re not going to be elected - let it go!

Until there’s a “viable” independent candidate that can carry some mainstream fervor and not just be “who else is that on the ballot?” to most people, you’ve got a snowballs chance in you-know-where of anyone other than a Dem/Rep making it to the White House.

Sorry I have to disagree with you. As it stands today throughout the U.S.A. registered Independents and Non-Affiliation voters out number in every state the republican or democratic party.

Retiring state legislator Nickols just introduced a bill permitting Independent and Non Affiliation voters to participate in the primary election which would be known as an open primary, something I been pushing for years. If Nickols was truly all for those individuals participating in the primary where was he several years ago when several grassroots folks, including myself came before the state committee? Only Todd Platts who was a state representative at the time had the courage to step up to the plate and speak to the committee. The open primary never happened. Nickols feels safe because he is retiring.

As for Ralph Nader the Green Party throughout the U.S.A. is miffed at him because he decided to run under as a candidate for another third party.

Bobby102 - 23 April 2008 10:25 AM

BevyJean - 23 April 2008 09:56 AM

Maybe the party should pay for their primaries instead of the states, primaries shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers anyway, they are a tool for the party to determine who will represent their party in the real election.  Looks like the superdelegates are going to decide it anyway (on the dem side), what a waste of time and money.

I AGREE!!  The amount of money wasted on these campaigns is ridiculous!  Think of all the problems that the candidates say they ‘want’ fixed (health care, homeless, economy, etc.) - and think of how many they could ‘actually’ fix if they routed all those millions of dollars in a different direction.

Plus, six months of primary voting is just too much.  Get it all over with in a month.  (Personally, I’d like to see one day, but I’ll give you a month) Pick one, doesn’t matter to me which month, but all states have their primaries in a month’s time.  No arguments about “ours is too early/late” or “We feel ours doesn’t count”.  The primary season is over and you can focus on the general. 

Who needs all that extra time anyway?  I mean, it’s not like they haven’t been campaigning for this election since November 2004........

This was something U.W.S.A. [United We Stand America] grassroot folks pushed hard for but it never happened. Maryland was one of the few states that changed their election process back in the ‘90s.

It’s a waste of taxpayers dollars when the primary and general elections are several months apart because the state legislators aren’t doing the business of the people. They are on the road busy campaigning for their re-election. Pennsylvania legislators are way over paid and receive outrageous perks that other states legislators don’t receive. The other states legislators accomplish things not like the dead state legislators we have. A state legislator in Maine is not entitled to the perk of having a taxpayer funded car until they have been in office 12 years!

tim_k - 23 April 2008 03:25 PM

Bobby102 - 23 April 2008 09:41 AM

I think I agree with Mark but my thought is Ron Paul’s NOT an independent.  He’s a Republican that will use the independent ticket if (well when) he fails on his own ticket.  Obviously, people didn’t vote for him to give him the Republican nomination, how does he think it will work for him as an independent?

Until there’s a “viable” independent candidate that can carry some mainstream fervor and not just be “who else is that on the ballot?” to most people, you’ve got a snowballs chance in you-know-where of anyone other than a Dem/Rep making it to the White House.

I believe Ron Paul was a Libertarian first and became a Republican just to get elected. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45231,00.html As long as Democrats and Republicans control the process, there will never be a viable 3rd party candidate. So we’ll continue to get more of the same ol, same ol. I also don’t think taxpayers should pay for the primaries. And I think they should have the primaries all on the same day, just like the general election. They won’t need to keep raising money and you won’t have candidates dropping out which will disenfranchise the people who voted for a candidate only to see them drop out later.

Sorry to disappoint you but Ron Paul has always been a Republican. He has been courted a multitude of times by the Libertarian party to switch his political affiliation but stated he was affraid if he switched his affiliation he would not be re-elected.

Bobby102 - 23 April 2008 10:36 PM

eEL - 23 April 2008 08:42 PM

Bobby102 - 23 April 2008 09:41 AM

Until there’s a “viable” independent candidate that can carry some mainstream fervor and not just be “who else is that on the ballot?” to most people, you’ve got a snowballs chance in you-know-where of anyone other than a Dem/Rep making it to the White House.

do you reallly think Ron Paul is only a “who else is that on the ballot?”
i think he’s actuallly prettty welll known. seeems the independent party is the largest it’s ever beeen before… and it should be!

regardlesss, waiting for a “viable mainstream” 3rd party candidate is what got us in this rut of Dem/Rep… it neeeds to change. but it won’t. without the Dem/Rep Big Businesss money bakking up the campaigns, the 3rd party drowns. it takes tooo much money to run for President.

i vote independent everytime. and i know my vote counts for something. even if alll i can say is, “told ya he would sukk as President” when they do :-D

No, to me, I know who Ron Paul is.  But yes, in the ‘grand scheme of things’, I think the majority of people know nothing about him.  Everyone knows McCain, Obama and Clinton.

And yes, it takes WAY too much money to run for President.  It’s ridiculous and shouldn’t.  That’s why I think primaries should be consolidated.  You have to start somewhere. 

What happened to voting for the person you thought was the best candidate for the job?  Lately, elections have turned into ‘Who do I dislike the least?’

It is unfortunate that most voters do not make informed decisions and rely on the opinions of newspapers or their friends, etc. They don’t take the time to educate themselves on candidates and issues.

I was asked 10 years ago by an elderly man if I thought the American people deserve the type of government we have. I responded with yes stating they deserve it, but I don’t.

All voters had to do is go to YouTube and type in Ron Paul’s name and several video footage films would have popped out and they could have watched them. If they wanted to know where Ron Paul stood, all they had to do is visit his web site.

markG - 21 April 2008 05:33 AM

JH - 21 April 2008 03:31 AM

Hi Folks,

For GOP registered voters go to http://www.ronpaulpa.com for complete delegate information. On the right hand side you will see “Download Sample Ballots,” click on that and then click on whatever congressional district in PA you are in.

We can take our country back via Ron Paul delegates!

I wish there were a viable candidate outside of McCain, but it is not going to happen.  Ron Paul will only act as a spoiler like Ross Perot did in 1992.  Paul has some ideas that really strike home and then he sort of goes off on a tangent ranting an raving about things and it pushes me away from him.  It is time for both he and Hillary to step aside and let McCain and Obama decide the thing.

I’m disappointed that one would be so narrow minded. I’m a statistic freak when it comes to candidates. It was proven and documented that had Ross Perot not run in ‘92, Slick Willy would have won anyway. So much for your theory which was mere propaganda put forth by the republican party back in ‘92.

If Ross Perot was that bad, why did the republican party take the contract in the back of his book “America, Not For Sale At Any Price” and adopt it as their own referring to it as the “Contract with America,” which by the way they broke. I along with thousands of others who were the original founders of U.W.S.A. [United We Stand America] attended a national conference in ‘93 in Dallas Texas. Only one other individual besides myself represented York County. I contributed to that contract. All the republican members of congress did was address each issue within the first 120 days U.W.S.A. gave them. They didn’t pass a single item.

When it comes to a contract no matter what it is for, if one of the contract signers reneges on any of the terms, they are sued and forced to pay restitution. In this case, the restitution would have been for every congressional member to step down which as we all know they did not do. They breached a contract with the American people!

If you look back to ‘92 and paid attention to what Ross Perot said in his infomercials, everything he addressed has come to light, especially that gigantic sucking sound we were warned about that we would hear of jobs being sent to Mexico.

I hope you don’t have any sons or daughters of draft age because McCain plans on reinstating the draft and the maximum age of draft is now 40, not 35.

I am not a fan of McCain, but did not know he wanted to reinstate the draft.  Where is that documented?

My favorite Ross Perot quote....

“If you see a snake, just kill it - don’t appoint a committee on snakes.”

Ahh.. Ross.  I remember the death blow.  Addressing the NAACP.  He said ‘You People’.  The NAAYP.  Kind of wrapped him in a bow.  But he was a character.  Stockdale for VEEP!  ‘What is that giant sucking sound?’

JustPlainC - 28 April 2008 01:50 PM

Ahh.. Ross.  I remember the death blow.  Addressing the NAACP.  He said ‘You People’.  The NAAYP.  Kind of wrapped him in a bow.  But he was a character.  Stockdale for VEEP!  ‘What is that giant sucking sound?’

Good Lord...with all of the “uncomfortable” moments in presidential/VP debates, Admiral Stockdale’s still has to be the best/worst of all-time.  Is it possible to feel bad for someone, while laughing your a$$ off?!?!?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6n5OQVzVVQ

Stockdale was an excellent admiral in the Navy.  Just not very well equipped for politics.

JustPlainC - 28 April 2008 01:50 PM

Ahh.. Ross.  I remember the death blow.  Addressing the NAACP.  He said ‘You People’.  The NAAYP.  Kind of wrapped him in a bow.  But he was a character.  Stockdale for VEEP!  ‘What is that giant sucking sound?’

Stockdale at the VP debate was a classic.  “Who am I and what am I doing here?”

Perot was right about the giant sucking sound.  He said that was all of the jobs going to Mexico if NAFTA was passed.

JH - 26 April 2008 11:48 PM

markG - 21 April 2008 05:33 AM

JH - 21 April 2008 03:31 AM

Hi Folks,

For GOP registered voters go to http://www.ronpaulpa.com for complete delegate information. On the right hand side you will see “Download Sample Ballots,” click on that and then click on whatever congressional district in PA you are in.

We can take our country back via Ron Paul delegates!

I wish there were a viable candidate outside of McCain, but it is not going to happen.  Ron Paul will only act as a spoiler like Ross Perot did in 1992.  Paul has some ideas that really strike home and then he sort of goes off on a tangent ranting an raving about things and it pushes me away from him.  It is time for both he and Hillary to step aside and let McCain and Obama decide the thing.

I’m disappointed that one would be so narrow minded. I’m a statistic freak when it comes to candidates. It was proven and documented that had Ross Perot not run in ‘92, Slick Willy would have won anyway. So much for your theory which was mere propaganda put forth by the republican party back in ‘92.

If Ross Perot was that bad, why did the republican party take the contract in the back of his book “America, Not For Sale At Any Price” and adopt it as their own referring to it as the “Contract with America,” which by the way they broke. I along with thousands of others who were the original founders of U.W.S.A. [United We Stand America] attended a national conference in ‘93 in Dallas Texas. Only one other individual besides myself represented York County. I contributed to that contract. All the republican members of congress did was address each issue within the first 120 days U.W.S.A. gave them. They didn’t pass a single item.

When it comes to a contract no matter what it is for, if one of the contract signers reneges on any of the terms, they are sued and forced to pay restitution. In this case, the restitution would have been for every congressional member to step down which as we all know they did not do. They breached a contract with the American people!

If you look back to ‘92 and paid attention to what Ross Perot said in his infomercials, everything he addressed has come to light, especially that gigantic sucking sound we were warned about that we would hear of jobs being sent to Mexico.

I hope you don’t have any sons or daughters of draft age because McCain plans on reinstating the draft and the maximum age of draft is now 40, not 35.

I just read this post and I am disappointed that I am called narrow minded.  I did not say that Bush lost the election because of Perot.  I said Perot only acted as a spoiler.  He had no chance to win.  I am glad he ran.  I thought that he had some good ideas just as I think that Ron Paul does.  Both of them have a habit of going over the edge though.  I do not believe that Perot ever wanted to be President just like I do not feel that Ron Paul really wants the job.  I think that he wanted to point out that a 3rd party would work.

I guess my point is that it is going to take a powerhouse politico to take on the 3rd party system.  If Al Gore decided to take a stab at a 3rd party run, he may win.  (he would not get my vote, but it will take someone of that stature to have a chance).

The Contract with America that the Republicans ran on got votes and action on each item of the contract.  Some were picked apart in committee, some never made it through the Senate and some were vetoed by Bill Clinton. 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL549.cfm