Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Are You Throwing Away Your Vote if You Vote for Someone Outside of the Two Established Parties?

Posted by   + Show Post

From the website, Butler on Business ...

Are you throwing away your vote if you vote for someone outside of the two established parties? Gary Johnson makes a strong case that we may be throwing away our future if we continue to elect these big-government politicians.

During today's interview with Butler on Business, Gary Johnson separates himself from both Obama and Romney and demonstrates that he is the clear alternative to the failed status quo.

Unlike Romney and Obama, former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson, wants to end the unconstitutional wars, repeal the Patriot Act, submit a balanced budget in 2013, end the Drug War, end cronyism, and fundamentally reform our tax system.

...and Gary Johnson promises to veto any legislation where expenses exceed revenue.

If Gary Johnson can poll 15% he will be on the national debate stage going heads up against Obama and Romney.


"Out of the three men running for president: Romney, Obama, and Gary Johnson...Governor Johnson is the only one of the three to have ever actually balanced a government budget."    - Alan Butler

Listen to Gary Johnson's complete interview with Butler on Business via the link below: http://www.butleronbusiness.com/2/post/2012/05/gov-gary-johnson-2012-presidential-nominee.html

by on May. 18, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Replies (131-140):
paperorplastic
by Silver Member on May. 25, 2012 at 12:21 PM
1 mom liked this

 

I am familiar with you're rhetoric.  Kill em all and let God sort em out huh Blonde.  It's non of our business what other countries do.  But, it's the extreme right winged people like you that believe the US should rule the world.  World domination was not the FF's vision.  You claim to know so much about the constitution, then spout off you're thoughts.  You are a conflict of you're own interest.   

Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

 

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Good answer!  But honestly you're talking to a few people who just don't get it!  It's the people like us who understand what "true" freedom really means.  One of their groupies actually gave me an answer yesterday that was so ignorant I had to laugh.  She said the people that need to worry about the NDAA, SOPA, etc. were probably the one's breaking the laws.  I laughed my butt off!  I couldn't even bring myself to answer such an ignorant question.  The average American can't seem to think out of the box programmed in their head regarding the government, let alone fathom Dr. Paul's platform.  I also think it's very funny these woman think Dr. Paul supporters are left wing, Obama lovers!  I have been a fairly conservative Republican my entire life.  Well educated, financially independent, and have worked very hard to get where I am in life.  They don't understand voting for Obama or Romney is voting for the same person.   

Romney and Obama are Not the same person.  Groupies...hmm. Sounds like some Ron Paul supporters. Many Americans have worked hard during their lives and struggled to reap the benefits this beautiful Country offers us. And we do not support Ron Paul nor many of his policiesI would never trust Paul with America's Nat'l Defense!

True freedom!? Are you referring to Ron Paul, the isolationist who denies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is building a nuclear weapon? The same man who wants to bring all of our troops home from around the world and leave the rest of the free world to fin for themselves? Ron Paul who refused to sign the pledge to preserve traditional marriage? The same Ron Paul who wishes to legalize all drugs even heroin? Drug dependency under a Paul Presidency will keep many addicts oblivious to reality and the Nation in chaos! In terms of Nat'l Security, America's enemies would love a Ron Paul Presidency. He is naive and fails to understand the real dangers facing America. No need to worry about big gov't control and intrusion when we fall to our enemies. The economy will be the last thing on our mind. Only survival and protecting our families~

 

 

National Organization For Marriage Ads Take On Ron Paul Over Marriage Stance

"Many people think that Ron Paul is a conservative, but when it comes to marriage, he's no conservative - his position is radical and will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage in America," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Preserving traditional marriage matters to Iowans and NOM wants Iowa voters to know that Ron Paul is the only major candidate to refuse to pledge to preserve marriage."

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5134145&ct=11564393¬oc=1 

Ron Paul favors legalizing heroin

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/article/Ron-Paul-favors-legalizing-heroin-1374192.php

GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT! 

I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)

They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.

"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions.

It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.

But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.

Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:

"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?


Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course, those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.)

So Rep. Paul is a swashbuckling individualist when it comes to civilization's most crucial building block for raising children, but willing to be a run-of-the-mill government statist when it comes to the Ponzi-scheme entitlements bankrupting the country. He's like a vegetarian who says, "I'm not a fanatic -- I still eat meat."

Some of those legal incidents of marriage can be obtained by private contract -- such as the right to inherit and make medical decisions. Gays don't need gay marriage to leave their electric spice racks to loved ones.

But there are more obtuse Americans than there are gay Americans, so courts are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract.

Under Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest -- or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)

If one spouse decides he doesn't want to be married anymore, couldn't he just say there never was a marriage because the Wiccan wasn't official or the tennis coach wasn't a pro?

Under Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth -- as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.

There are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage. As in landscaping, you don't remove a wall until you know why it was put there.

Marriage is a legal construct with legal consequences, particularly regarding rights and duties to children. Libertarians would be better off spearheading a movement to get rid of stop signs than to get rid of officially sanctioned marriage. A world without government stop signs would be safer than a world without government marriage.

It's true that eventually -- theoretically -- there could be private institutions to handle many of these matters. But for anyone calling himself a libertarian to put eliminating official marriage above eliminating Social Security and Medicare is certifiable.

It's exactly like drug legalization: Sure, all good libertarians want to legalize drugs, but the question is whether that is more important than legalizing the ability to locate your widget factory where you want to put it. Even purists can have priorities.

Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient answers when it comes to the taxpayers' obligations under Medicare and Social Security.

If they could only resist sucking up to Rolling Stone-reading, status-obsessed losers, they'd probably be interesting to talk to.

In my book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America," I make the case that liberals, and never conservatives, appeal to irrational mobs to attain power. There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."

 

 

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on May. 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting paperorplastic:

 

I am familiar with you're rhetoric.  Kill em all and let God sort em out huh Blonde.  It's non of our business what other countries do.  But, it's the extreme right winged people like you that believe the US should rule the world.  World domination was not the FF's vision.  You claim to know so much about the constitution, then spout off you're thoughts.  You are a conflict of you're own interest.   

Your comment is riddled with so many lies and distortions of the truth, not worthy of a response.  I have Never said anything of the kind. When you can be honest I will be happy to debate you!

Quoting blondekosmic15:

 

 

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Good answer!  But honestly you're talking to a few people who just don't get it!  It's the people like us who understand what "true" freedom really means.  One of their groupies actually gave me an answer yesterday that was so ignorant I had to laugh.  She said the people that need to worry about the NDAA, SOPA, etc. were probably the one's breaking the laws.  I laughed my butt off!  I couldn't even bring myself to answer such an ignorant question.  The average American can't seem to think out of the box programmed in their head regarding the government, let alone fathom Dr. Paul's platform.  I also think it's very funny these woman think Dr. Paul supporters are left wing, Obama lovers!  I have been a fairly conservative Republican my entire life.  Well educated, financially independent, and have worked very hard to get where I am in life.  They don't understand voting for Obama or Romney is voting for the same person.   

Romney and Obama are Not the same person.  Groupies...hmm. Sounds like some Ron Paul supporters. Many Americans have worked hard during their lives and struggled to reap the benefits this beautiful Country offers us. And we do not support Ron Paul nor many of his policiesI would never trust Paul with America's Nat'l Defense!

True freedom!? Are you referring to Ron Paul, the isolationist who denies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is building a nuclear weapon? The same man who wants to bring all of our troops home from around the world and leave the rest of the free world to fin for themselves? Ron Paul who refused to sign the pledge to preserve traditional marriage? The same Ron Paul who wishes to legalize all drugs even heroin? Drug dependency under a Paul Presidency will keep many addicts oblivious to reality and the Nation in chaos! In terms of Nat'l Security, America's enemies would love a Ron Paul Presidency. He is naive and fails to understand the real dangers facing America. No need to worry about big gov't control and intrusion when we fall to our enemies. The economy will be the last thing on our mind. Only survival and protecting our families~

 

 

National Organization For Marriage Ads Take On Ron Paul Over Marriage Stance

"Many people think that Ron Paul is a conservative, but when it comes to marriage, he's no conservative - his position is radical and will lead to the destruction of traditional marriage in America," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "Preserving traditional marriage matters to Iowans and NOM wants Iowa voters to know that Ron Paul is the only major candidate to refuse to pledge to preserve marriage."

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5134145&ct=11564393¬oc=1 

Ron Paul favors legalizing heroin

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/article/Ron-Paul-favors-legalizing-heroin-1374192.php

GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT! 

I consider all Republican debates time-fillers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie jumps in, but Monday night's debate did crystallize for me why I dislike libertarians. (Except one, who is a friend of mine and not crazy.)

They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.

"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions.

It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.

But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.

Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:

"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?


Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course, those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.)

So Rep. Paul is a swashbuckling individualist when it comes to civilization's most crucial building block for raising children, but willing to be a run-of-the-mill government statist when it comes to the Ponzi-scheme entitlements bankrupting the country. He's like a vegetarian who says, "I'm not a fanatic -- I still eat meat."

Some of those legal incidents of marriage can be obtained by private contract -- such as the right to inherit and make medical decisions. Gays don't need gay marriage to leave their electric spice racks to loved ones.

But there are more obtuse Americans than there are gay Americans, so courts are going to be bulging with legal disputes among the unalert, who neglected to plan in advance and make private contracts resolving the many legal issues that are normally determined by a marriage contract.

Under Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest -- or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)

If one spouse decides he doesn't want to be married anymore, couldn't he just say there never was a marriage because the Wiccan wasn't official or the tennis coach wasn't a pro?

Under Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth -- as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.

There are reasons we have laws governing important institutions, such as marriage. As in landscaping, you don't remove a wall until you know why it was put there.

Marriage is a legal construct with legal consequences, particularly regarding rights and duties to children. Libertarians would be better off spearheading a movement to get rid of stop signs than to get rid of officially sanctioned marriage. A world without government stop signs would be safer than a world without government marriage.

It's true that eventually -- theoretically -- there could be private institutions to handle many of these matters. But for anyone calling himself a libertarian to put eliminating official marriage above eliminating Social Security and Medicare is certifiable.

It's exactly like drug legalization: Sure, all good libertarians want to legalize drugs, but the question is whether that is more important than legalizing the ability to locate your widget factory where you want to put it. Even purists can have priorities.

Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time. So they dodge the tough questions when it suits their purposes by pretending to be Randian purists, but are perfectly comfortable issuing politically expedient answers when it comes to the taxpayers' obligations under Medicare and Social Security.

If they could only resist sucking up to Rolling Stone-reading, status-obsessed losers, they'd probably be interesting to talk to.

In my book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America," I make the case that liberals, and never conservatives, appeal to irrational mobs to attain power. There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."

 

 

 

Friday
by Platinum Member on May. 25, 2012 at 1:29 PM
7 moms liked this

I just wanted to say thank you to the Libertarian and truly Indy ladies here. Y'all have given this lifelong Dem some things to think about and I have learned a lot from you.

I also think it's a crying shame that so many are so hard wired into the 2 party system that they would attack and insult anyone who doesn't toe that line instead of at least respecting others choices. People like that must love the status quo because they seem willing to do anything to keep it instead of encouraging more people to step out of the box and make real changes. Nothing will change until we the people change our mindset. If everyone who thought their vote doesn't count stepped up and voted their conscience instead of who has the best chance of winning we could make difference. A journey of a thousand miles and all that.

 


Thank God......it's Friday!!!

asfriend
by on May. 25, 2012 at 1:41 PM
2 moms liked this

You have converted THOUSANDS to Ron Paul?

Holy smokes you must have a connection to every one that actually voted for Paul. Instead of 3 steps to Kevin Bacon , next party we are playing 3 steps to paperorplastic.

I may be alot of things, maybe even a lot of bad things, ignorant is not one them. I know all about the Country before WWI we are not going back there, we also aren't going back to 13 states.

4 years ago, 4 years from now - Ron Paul, no different. No affect on the world.

Most people fight to have some kind of relevance, Paulanistas fight harder than anyone - to be irrelevant.

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Funny, the thousands of people I have talked to, and converted over to Paul never dismissed me.  You're opinion is of no importance.  As far as the occupier statement, that does not pertain to me.  I see insults are the only way you communicate.  Again, educate yourself on the constitution, how the country was run before WW1, and then when you have an intelligent thing to say, come back and talk to me.  Otherwise, move on.  I don't have the time or inclination to debate with ignorant people. 

Quoting asfriend:

It is almost as if Paulanistas are from another planet. Earth's reality has no affect on their life.

You might be dismissed a little less quickly if you stop using the "Corporate Puppet" rhetoric, you simply sound like occupiers.

 

Quoting paperorplastic:

 My problem?  Probably not a really good way to start out a conversation with me!  But, since I have seen how you address others, and who your friends are here at CM I will take it with a grain of salt.  Here is the thing most people don't realize.  Regardless if Paul wins or not, we (Paul supporters) have gotten people with his same principals with-in the government.  Which in essence means Dr. Paul's constitutional vision is going to happen regardless.

Deal with it?  I already deal with Obama in office.  I am not just one voice, there are many just like me, and in case you forgot, it's we the people, it's OUR country!  The government works for us, not the other way around, and never forget it!  I am sure you have heard of the revolution, well get ready because it's coming.  You may be surprised what may happens if Obama gets in office again.  Impeachment processes are already in progress.  Romney is a corporate puppet, and pretty much the same as Obama, I don't see him winning.

A little brush up on history might serve you well as far as your isolationist comment goes.   And, as far as the Federal Reserve goes it''s a privately held organization, one that could easily be well let's just say "dissolved."  I don't do analogies.  I like to talk in real time, real issues.  When the size of the government is reduced, and the powers return to the states, and congress is stripped of the power it was never suppose to have to begin with, we will be the great nation we once were.  The one our founding fathers envisioned for us all.

That's my reality, and many, many, others.  Like it or not the shits about to get real.

 

 

 

Quoting asfriend:

You might want to take a look in the mirror.  Your problem is that you are talking with realistic people and not idealistic people. I actually agree with most of the goals that Rachael has, I differ from her in two areas.

(1) Ron Paul can not and will not ever be President. (2) If he was President he can not do what he says.

I am unclear who thought that Paul supporters are left wing, who ever said that is I believe, very wrong.

Here is reality, our next President will be, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. (deal with it)

The question is how do we make one of those better, because one of those will be President.

For Ron Paul to do the things that he says that he wants to do, Abolish the Fed, Become an Isolationist, remove Goverment from our daily lives, he can't do. It would take a dictator to do this things. He is an idealist, the things that he says that he wants to do, he can not do. I know how much supporters want this. It is impossible. Congress would never let him do those things.

So moving on, do we want to continue the path that we are on, because the path that we are on is 180 degrees away from Pauls' ideals, or do we want to work with someone closer to Paul's Ideals that can be President?

It doesn't make make any sense to come to my ice cream store, that sells chocolate and vanilla and demand strawberry and get mad at me for not selling strawberry.

Pick from the choices available.


 

Quoting paperorplastic:

 Good answer!  But honestly you're talking to a few people who just don't get it!  It's the people like us who understand what "true" freedom really means.  One of their groupies actually gave me an answer yesterday that was so ignorant I had to laugh.  She said the people that need to worry about the NDAA, SOPA, etc. were probably the one's breaking the laws.  I laughed my butt off!  I couldn't even bring myself to answer such an ignorant question.  The average American can't seem to think out of the box programmed in their head regarding the government, let alone fathom Dr. Paul's platform.  I also think it's very funny these woman think Dr. Paul supporters are left wing, Obama lovers!  I have been a fairly conservative Republican my entire life.  Well educated, financially independent, and have worked very hard to get where I am in life.  They don't understand voting for Obama or Romney is voting for the same person.   

 

 

 

 

 

 


KhaysJadie
by Member on May. 25, 2012 at 1:59 PM
3 moms liked this

I've been thinking about how to answer this for the last couple of days and think I know now. My answer is.....I don't care if someone else thinks I'm throwing away my vote because I choose to not vote Rep or Dem. It's my vote and my voice and if I give to someone who is not part of the two party system that is my right as American voter to do so. There is nothing that says I have to vote for the lesser of two evils and nothing changes if everyone doesn't wake up to the fact that is exactly what we are dealing with.

jcribb16
by Primrose Foxglove on May. 25, 2012 at 2:06 PM

I don't believe voting for Romney and Obama as being the same.  I cannot see where this is so coming from a couple of you. 

As for 3rd party, if there is someone running who I feel would be an effective leader for our country, I would go with them.  However, at this stage of the campaigning, how is this going to pan out?  Romney is in the lead with this so far, with the one to run against Obama.

 

asfriend
by on May. 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM
i don't believe that anyone is qustioning your right to do it, you, of course, have that right.
i believe the question is - is that an intelligent, well reasoned strategy?


Quoting KhaysJadie:

I've been thinking about how to answer this for the last couple of days and think I know now. My answer is.....I don't care if someone else thinks I'm throwing away my vote because I choose to not vote Rep or Dem. It's my vote and my voice and if I give to someone who is not part of the two party system that is my right as American voter to do so. There is nothing that says I have to vote for the lesser of two evils and nothing changes if everyone doesn't wake up to the fact that is exactly what we are dealing with.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
KhaysJadie
by Member on May. 25, 2012 at 2:28 PM
3 moms liked this

I don't know asfriend, after reading some of the comments on this thread, there is more than a hint of "how dare you not conform". (Not saying it's coming from you personally.)

As for intelligent and reasonable. Is it intelligent and reasonable to vote for someone who you don't agree with or whose party's policies you don't ascribe to just because they are one of the two big names on the ticket? Just hold your nose and check the box even while you want to puke a little doing it? Just lay back and think of America while you're taking in the rear? That doesn't seem reasonable or intelligent to me.

At this point, what do I have to lose by voting third party? I don't really believe anything in this country is going to get better under a Republican any more than it will a Democrat.

Quoting asfriend:

i don't believe that anyone is qustioning your right to do it, you, of course, have that right.
i believe the question is - is that an intelligent, well reasoned strategy?


Quoting KhaysJadie:

I've been thinking about how to answer this for the last couple of days and think I know now. My answer is.....I don't care if someone else thinks I'm throwing away my vote because I choose to not vote Rep or Dem. It's my vote and my voice and if I give to someone who is not part of the two party system that is my right as American voter to do so. There is nothing that says I have to vote for the lesser of two evils and nothing changes if everyone doesn't wake up to the fact that is exactly what we are dealing with.



asfriend
by on May. 25, 2012 at 2:41 PM
ok
i think there are several layers to your post, there are the ones that say, i know paul (for example) has no chance, i know that i am throwing my vote away, i am okay with that -those people are honest
then you have the ones that actually think paul (for example) could win, i don't know what could be said, that hasn't already been said.
the key, and where the republican party has apparently failed is that obama and romney, democrat and republican , are not the same. republicans must show that there is a huge difference, because that is the truth. a lot of paul supporters hate that money is behind elections, money is behind everything, they don't mind that money fuels the internet or money fueled the invention of the i-phone or anything else, apparently when it is something really important like being president only poor people should be involved in making that happen.


Quoting KhaysJadie:

I don't know asfriend, after reading some of the comments on this thread, there is more than a hint of "how dare you not conform". (Not saying it's coming from you personally.)

As for intelligent and reasonable. Is it intelligent and reasonable to vote for someone who you don't agree with or whose party's policies you don't ascribe to just because they are one of the two big names on the ticket? Just hold your nose and check the box even while you want to puke a little doing it? Just lay back and think of America while you're taking in the rear? That doesn't seem reasonable or intelligent to me.

At this point, what do I have to lose by voting third party? I don't really believe anything in this country is going to get better under a Republican any more than it will a Democrat.

Quoting asfriend:

i don't believe that anyone is qustioning your right to do it, you, of course, have that right.

i believe the question is - is that an intelligent, well reasoned strategy?





Quoting KhaysJadie:

I've been thinking about how to answer this for the last couple of days and think I know now. My answer is.....I don't care if someone else thinks I'm throwing away my vote because I choose to not vote Rep or Dem. It's my vote and my voice and if I give to someone who is not part of the two party system that is my right as American voter to do so. There is nothing that says I have to vote for the lesser of two evils and nothing changes if everyone doesn't wake up to the fact that is exactly what we are dealing with.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
rachelrothchild
by on May. 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The cost of everything has gone up (food, housing, energy costs, etc), but wages don't go up the way they used to (for some, they have even gone down).  Our house payment is twice as much as my parents' was, just to give you an example.  On top of that, we live in the city, so there's tons of extra fees tacked on to our bills.  

Here's the issue with jobs like my husband's (and my best friend's): these jobs used to require a HS education.  Now they require a Bachelor's degree, but the pay isn't much higher than it used to be.  So, basically, companies are requiring more but they are not willing to pay more.  My husband has 3 (difficult to get) insurance licenses.  He is job hunting (and has been since he passed his exams), and some companies out there want to pay him what he is earning now even though he has the licenses.  Some of them just cannot afford to pay these people what they are worth.  He told the one they aren't going to find anyone to work for that much, and the guy told him that's all they can pay.  I know people who have Masters and Ph.Ds and are underemployed because they can't find suitable positions. How do you pay off all that student loan debt (plus housing, rising energy costs, gas, etc) when you are only making 1/2-2/3 of what you are expected to earn?

I'm not talking down to you.  You asked me about the Fed.  If you already know about the Fed and inflation, I don't know why you asked.

You started making fun of me way before I "talked down to you".  You've been doing it ever since you found out I'm a RP supporter.  You do it to everyone who is a RP supporter.

If our money was worth as much as it was in the 80s-better yet before the Fed was created- (and our bills weren't as high as they are), we would have plenty of extra money.

In 2011, the relative value of $1.00 from 1980 ranges from $2.37 to $5.41.

If you want to compare the value of a $1.00 Income or Wealth , in 1980 there are three choices. In 2011 the relative: 
historic standard of living value of that income or wealth is $2.73
economic status value of that income or wealth is $3.95
economic power value of that income or wealth is $5.41

To put things in perspective, making $40,000 (just an example) in 1980 is about the same as making a little less than $15,000 in 2011, which is below the poverty line.

Here's another example (food prices): 


Ground Beef  (conventional) 1.39 per pound (1980s)

Ground Beef (conventional) ~ $4 per pound (2011)

www.thepeoplehistory.com

That's more than twice as much for one food item.  So, we are making more than 2x less than we should be, and food is more than twice as much as it was.  See the problem?

My parents would have had a hard time paying $4 for a pound of ground beef in the 1980s.  To keep up with rising prices and inflation, a lot of people need to make more than twice as much money as they do.

Quoting asfriend:

I will make an attempt not to make fun of you, if you will make an equal attempt to not talk down to me.

I am very well aware of inflation - we had high inflation, high interest rates, gas lines during the Carter  years. I am familiar with all that.

We have had very little inflation from Reagan through GWB.

If inflation is the problem, that means everything except fixed rates go up. That would hurt people on a fixed income, such as retires (though they get cost of living increases yearly) but it should not hurt your husband. The problem does not sound like inflation, price of gas has up, price of groceries has gone, and wages have gone up.

The problem would seem that your husbands wages are too low. He should not be making the same anount of money as your father did. I certainly could not live on the amount of money that my father lived on, in todays market.

Ron Pauls polices regarding the Fed will not solve this problem.


 

Quoting rachelrothchild:

They print the money.  Ever heard of inflation?  That's why your money doesn't go as far as it used to.  That's why my father and my husband can make the same amount of money in two different decades.  One was able to save and the other is just paying the bills.  Also, there isn't transparency within that agency.  There's a lot of lying going on.

He already introduced a bill to audit the fed, and it has support.

It doesn't matter what I say-you are going to make fun of me.


Quoting asfriend:

I realize that the Fed. is Pauls' number 1 issue. So I will ask about that one.

In your opinion,what is the main problem with the Fed, what is it that you believe that Dr. Paul singularly will do?





Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)