Post: #11

About The States going off track about a hundred years ago...my pet theory... the populist movement of the early 20th century delivered a striking blow to the balance of power between the state and federal governments when they weakened the state governments by taking the senate away from the state legislatures and handed it to the states voters. It seemed like a good idea, but taking the power of the senate away from the direct control of the state governments reduced the voice of the individual states in Washington leading to teh concentration of power in Washington.

The House of representatives had long before been taken away from the people when it was decided that the House chamber's limited seating would dictate that the house be limited to fewer than 500 individuals. At the country's founding there was about one representative for every 3,000 Americans, now there is only one for sixty thousand.

Give the individual vote back it's meaning by increasing the number of representatives to say 3000 ( one representative per 10,000 people) and put control of the senate back in the hands of the legislatures. You increase the individuals voice in two ways. One you make the representative more accountable to his constituency than to the political party and two you force the voter to pay more attention to his state legislature.

Post: #12

(03-10-2012 12:00 AM)renny Wrote:  About The States going off track about a hundred years ago...my pet theory... the populist movement of the early 20th century delivered a striking blow to the balance of power between the state and federal governments when they weakened the state governments by taking the senate away from the state legislatures and handed it to the states voters. It seemed like a good idea, but taking the power of the senate away from the direct control of the state governments reduced the voice of the individual states in Washington leading to teh concentration of power in Washington.

The House of representatives had long before been taken away from the people when it was decided that the House chamber's limited seating would dictate that the house be limited to fewer than 500 individuals. At the country's founding there was about one representative for every 3,000 Americans, now there is only one for sixty thousand.

Give the individual vote back it's meaning by increasing the number of representatives to say 3000 ( one representative per 10,000 people) and put control of the senate back in the hands of the legislatures. You increase the individuals voice in two ways. One you make the representative more accountable to his constituency than to the political party and two you force the voter to pay more attention to his state legislature.

Agreed, although your suggestions about the House of Representatives could make things slightly chaotic in that realm from there just being so many people, but I could see it being an improvement possibly.

Most important to me is that the senate be voted in less directly, like through the state legislature. The purpose behind that method being chosen was to keep the Senate as the realm where the older, wiser, more experienced lawmakers would reside, and that they could worry less about the rise and fall of the opinions of the mob (and trying to influence those opinions) and worry more about what they really thought was best for the country. This is why the lawmaking process (within Congress that is) starts in the House and then goes to the Senate. The House is meant to be made of the up and coming young guys with bright new ideas for a bright future, and the Senate is meant to be full of wise old men who generally agree or see the point of the House, but in their wisdom are able to foresee some problems the House didn't think about, and the back and forth begins.

One thing I really love to point out to people with Ron Paul is that he's the only one who talks at all about things in proportion to the power the executive branch actually holds over them.

For instance, whether you are for government health care or against it, the President can only either veto a bill or pass it, nothing more. Thus, he has great stopping power, but almost no power over the bill's creation process or repealling process for that matter. At least compared to his other powers. He has influence, sure, but really it's completely up to the Senators and House as to the creation and repealling of laws.

However... the President now (wrongfully) has a great deal of power over foreign policy that shouldn't be there.

That's why when I argue for Ron Paul, I make a point (like he does) to emphasize foreign policy. It will be great to have a President who influences better lawmaking in other realms as well and especially one who educates people and would bring a whole different viewpoint to the White House, but what's most important is what the President will do with their actual responsibilities and power, not just their influence.

Ron Paul has a record of doing what is the President's job while in the Senate: to never pass a law to pass for any alterior motivations, and to never let it pass until it is flawless, because there are few things as unending as government laws and programs...

Obama (though quite articulate) has little to no achievements to his name in my mind. Nor have many presidents for an extremely long time done their job properly, especially when the changes in foreign policy started being made.

I actually often wonder if congress would pull the executive branch's power over war and foreign policy just because they were scared of what Ron Paul was doing (if he made it in), and how it hurt their ability to chase the almighty dollar. At first I would be frustrated, but in the end that would be great, so long as it returned to the way it used to be: requiring a declaration of war from Congress.


In short, I think the most important thing to educate and remind people of is where the President's power actually lies first. The other stuff is all great, but that is what is most important. It also almost inevitably seems to lead the conversation towards foreign policy.

My favorite quotes for summing up why our foreign policy is wrong:

"If the new government is not made by the people, then it is by its very nature NOT for those people. Instead, it is made to serve the interests people who made it, and will serve them only."

"If the scariest sentence a man can hear is: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help,' then how much scarier is the sentence: 'I'm from somebody else's government, and I'm here to help.'"

Besides that, I find the video ad about "What if China invaded Texas?" to be the most useful in convincing people of foreign policy arguements, with the 13 minute one about blowback and listening to veterans as a close second.

Btw I know you guys have probably heard this a ton before, so sorry if I'm

Above all I admire the man's patience. He's been fighting this stuff his entire (long) political career, and it always amazes me how he is able to stay patient and kind with even the most bumbling of idiots. It truly blows me away, far more than his knowledge or honesty.

I mean, who among us would be able to give that speech from 2002 where he predicted all kinds of problems we'd create over the next (last) decade so accurately, and not say "TOLD YA SO! TOLD YA SO! TOLD YA SO!" like a little kid. ESPECIALLY after it went viral.

Post: #13

(03-10-2012 1:23 AM)gentlmentlemen Wrote:  Agreed, although your suggestions about the House of Representatives could make things slightly chaotic in that realm from there just being so many people, but I could see it being an improvement possibly.

Most important to me is that the senate be voted in less directly, like through the state legislature. The purpose behind that method being chosen was to keep the Senate as the realm where the older, wiser, more experienced lawmakers would reside, and that they could worry less about the rise and fall of the opinions of the mob (and trying to influence those opinions) and worry more about what they really thought was best for the country. This is why the lawmaking process (within Congress that is) starts in the House and then goes to the Senate. The House is meant to be made of the up and coming young guys with bright new ideas for a bright future, and the Senate is meant to be full of wise old men who generally agree or see the point of the House, but in their wisdom are able to foresee some problems the House didn't think about, and the back and forth begins.

One thing I really love to point out to people with Ron Paul is that he's the only one who talks at all about things in proportion to the power the executive branch actually holds over them.

For instance, whether you are for government health care or against it, the President can only either veto a bill or pass it, nothing more. Thus, he has great stopping power, but almost no power over the bill's creation process or repealling process for that matter. At least compared to his other powers. He has influence, sure, but really it's completely up to the Senators and House as to the creation and repealling of laws.

However... the President now (wrongfully) has a great deal of power over foreign policy that shouldn't be there.

That's why when I argue for Ron Paul, I make a point (like he does) to emphasize foreign policy. It will be great to have a President who influences better lawmaking in other realms as well and especially one who educates people and would bring a whole different viewpoint to the White House, but what's most important is what the President will do with their actual responsibilities and power, not just their influence.

Ron Paul has a record of doing what is the President's job while in the Senate: to never pass a law to pass for any alterior motivations, and to never let it pass until it is flawless, because there are few things as unending as government laws and programs...

Obama (though quite articulate) has little to no achievements to his name in my mind. Nor have many presidents for an extremely long time done their job properly, especially when the changes in foreign policy started being made.

I actually often wonder if congress would pull the executive branch's power over war and foreign policy just because they were scared of what Ron Paul was doing (if he made it in), and how it hurt their ability to chase the almighty dollar. At first I would be frustrated, but in the end that would be great, so long as it returned to the way it used to be: requiring a declaration of war from Congress.


In short, I think the most important thing to educate and remind people of is where the President's power actually lies first. The other stuff is all great, but that is what is most important. It also almost inevitably seems to lead the conversation towards foreign policy.

My favorite quotes for summing up why our foreign policy is wrong:

"If the new government is not made by the people, then it is by its very nature NOT for those people. Instead, it is made to serve the interests people who made it, and will serve them only."

"If the scariest sentence a man can hear is: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help,' then how much scarier is the sentence: 'I'm from somebody else's government, and I'm here to help.'"

Besides that, I find the video ad about "What if China invaded Texas?" to be the most useful in convincing people of foreign policy arguements, with the 13 minute one about blowback and listening to veterans as a close second.

Btw I know you guys have probably heard this a ton before, so sorry if I'm

Above all I admire the man's patience. He's been fighting this stuff his entire (long) political career, and it always amazes me how he is able to stay patient and kind with even the most bumbling of idiots. It truly blows me away, far more than his knowledge or honesty.

I mean, who among us would be able to give that speech from 2002 where he predicted all kinds of problems we'd create over the next (last) decade so accurately, and not say "TOLD YA SO! TOLD YA SO! TOLD YA SO!" like a little kid. ESPECIALLY after it went viral.

What an excellent post.
I wish I could vote for him.
It's very sad to think that we Canadians can do nothing to affect the outcome of the US elections (short of trying to educate our American friends); yet, much of our political, financial & economic lives are determined by what happens "south of the border".

Post: #14

(Today 12:41 AM)MagicMan Wrote:  What an excellent post.
I wish I could vote for him.
It's very sad to think that we Canadians can do nothing to affect the outcome of the US elections (short of trying to educate our American friends); yet, much of our political, financial & economic lives are determined by what happens "south of the border".

Why thank you!

And I understand. Thank God I'm finally old enough to vote for him... would've voted for him last election but never could.

I find it very interesting, particularly with how the media rationalizes him where possible, and downplays him, as well as how his campaigning just in general doesn't work as well for just really quickly picking up a bunch of "sheeple" as they say.

Makes me feel like its a test to see whether the internet is strong enough to beat out the mainstream media yet, although they do have their hold in the interwebs as well... Still, you can see the effects when you look at how many young people support him (like me) and how incredibly over-educated compared to their peers and other voting groups they are, even on history, especially on history. Mainly because of Ron Paul's urge to do so, and his sayings making us curious, as well as the fact that back when things actually happened, there was far less transparency on the same events as there is today (which still is not much).

So on a higher level, it makes me feel like its a test to see how far educating people can go, and I hope that the man runs until he gets in (although obviously I hope he just gets in this time around). Every year that man runs the American people suddenly get a ton more educated on the issues.

Yes, it is sad that you cannot affect it much. I don't think it would be safe or right to let other countries vote on our leaders, but I wish Americans would pay more attention. The saddest part in my mind is how all the neo-conservatives (the vast majority of the Republican party nowadays) would immediately comment that "Of course they want ____ voted into office, they want us as weak as possible so they can take over!"

I can't tell you how many times I've heard neo-conservatives (particularly ones with a lot of media influence) have blown off the opinions of generally concerned citizens of other countries with such a comment.

Of course... like I said, if the government is not by the people, it is decidedly not for them, so we can't let you guys vote. But when a country like Israel (who so many put so much weight on our support of) tells us they don't need, nor do they want our "help," you would think it would stop being this big thing to campaign on "supporting" them a ton.

Anyways, if you're not from America, probably your best arguement would be along the lines of that IMAGINE China Invades Texas video, at least for starters. That one does a real good job of getting the incredibly non-empathetic people who would've blown off your opinions to be more understanding of you and listen to foreigners more in general, and that (I expect) would be your biggest problem wi the general American public. Of course your friends may be different...

Post: #15

good post.

Quote:you can see the effects when you look at how many young people support him (like me) and how incredibly over-educated compared to their peers and other voting groups they are, even on history, especially on history.

note also the mainstream media's attempt to deprecate these people by claiming they don't understand 'proper' economics.