On the other hand, since they are all Senators, maybe the wheels will get greased and Congress and the President will get more done together.

 

The more they do, the worse it is.

The more they do, the worse it is.

Maybe. But there are some really important things that need to be done, and soon. Particularly on energy policy.

 

It sure makes him the most qualified to talk about the troops and how they should be handled, which is one of the MAJOR issues in the war.

 

It will be an odd election in the sense that none of the candidates has any executive experience, so it will be interesting to see which of them is perceived to be better in budgetary matters because there isn't a one of them who has done it before.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Congress is the one who sets budgets, not the president? I thought all the president does is approve or veto.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Congress is the one who sets budgets, not the president? I thought all the president does is approve or veto.

 

In the rubberstamp era, it is nothing like that. The President tells congress the budget he wants, and his congressional lapdogs jump up and do it. It has been that way forever. Yes, technically you are correct, but in practice, the President is doing the leg work.

In the rubberstamp era, it is nothing like that. The President tells congress the budget he wants, and his congressional lapdogs jump up and do it. It has been that way forever. Yes, technically you are correct, but in practice, the President is doing the leg work.

That's a failing of this rigid 2-party system, if you ask me. Plus, what's the point of having checks and balances if the president and both houses of Congress are controlled by the same party?

That's a failing of this rigid 2-party system, if you ask me. Plus, what's the point of having checks and balances if the president and both houses of Congress are controlled by the same party?

 

That's a great point, however I don't see anything other than a 2 party system for a long time, maybe the rest of my lifetime. I think this because each party isn't going to want to give up people from their party to start a new one. If there's one thing both parties agree on, keeping a 2 party system might be one of them.

That's a great point, however I don't see anything other than a 2 party system for a long time, maybe the rest of my lifetime. I think this because each party isn't going to want to give up people from their party to start a new one. If there's one thing both parties agree on, keeping a 2 party system might be one of them.

less people = less political power, you're right. In order for it to fix it'd mean both parties had to give up people at the same time, and unless 2 parties were splintering off at the same time from each party, they would lose influence and be dominated by the other party indefinitely. So whenever there is some kind of election form it's only to solidify the 2-party system more so that can't happen.

I know the GOP nomination race is over, but, I found a really good article about what Ron Paul means to the Republican party. Just a solid read.

 

Reading that about Paul just reinforces the belief that I have that American is ready for a third party consistant with small government and limited social policy. So many of those people exist, and NO ONE speaks for them.

Reading that about Paul just reinforces the belief that I have that American is ready for a third party consistant with small government and limited social policy. So many of those people exist, and NO ONE speaks for them.

If that was true, then where are Paul's voters? I could probably package just about any collection of ideas in this country, put a candidate in a race with that set of ideas, and he'd probably pull a couple percent in most primaries. That doesn't mean there's nearly enough people who believe in that set of goals to push a 3rd party. Paul happened to have a set of ideas that crossed with a particular strain of people who were willing and able to give him a lot of money, and despite having as much or more money to spend as McCain, he was in Giuliani territory in almost every state.

To lots of people the messenger is more important than the message... Ron Paul wasn't exactly the easiest guy to vote for on the planet, and not all of his positions fell into the category I am talking about.

If Paul had the speaking skills and charisma of, say, Obama, he would've gotten a lot farther. He's a terrible public speaker

 

When I first found out about him I figured he was right in principle on a lot of things but some of his methods were just crazy and over-the-top. It's not functioning efficiently? Get rid of it!

If Paul had the speaking skills and charisma of, say, Obama, he would've gotten a lot farther. He's a terrible public speaker

I agree. I've said it for a while. I think some of his ideas would resonate with the American public, but he comes off as some wackjob politician.

I agree. I've said it for a while. I think some of his ideas would resonate with the American public, but he comes off as some wackjob politician.

 

Its because he IS a whack-job. Its one thing to want to take the government from point A to point Z. Its pretty stupid to understand that you cannot skip steps B through Y without blowing up the American way of life. That was my biggest problem with Ron Paul from day one. He would put America into the Great Depression to get something done.

Its because he IS a whack-job. Its one thing to want to take the government from point A to point Z. Its pretty stupid to understand that you cannot skip steps B through Y without blowing up the American way of life. That was my biggest problem with Ron Paul from day one. He would put America into the Great Depression to get something done.

yeah what turned me off of him is the fact that for anything he doesn't like or thinks isn't running at full efficiency, his answer to it is "get rid of it, the Constitution doesn't say we can have it anyway!" He was right in principle on a lot of things, his ways of executing those ideas were borderline insane though. This is 2008. It's romantic to think our government can return to the simpler version of itself overnight but that's not reality.

 

He also has by far the most die-hard, fanatical supporters of any political candidate I've ever seen. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, far from it actually because that kind of dedication in politics is good. But they've all convinced themselves everything Paul says is gospel and infallible, even the ridiculous ideas.

yeah what turned me off of him is the fact that for anything he doesn't like or thinks isn't running at full efficiency, his answer to it is "get rid of it, the Constitution doesn't say we can have it anyway!" He was right in principle on a lot of things, his ways of executing those ideas were borderline insane though. This is 2008. It's romantic to think our government can return to the simpler version of itself overnight but that's not reality.

 

He also has by far the most die-hard, fanatical supporters of any political candidate I've ever seen. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself, far from it actually because that kind of dedication in politics is good. But they've all convinced themselves everything Paul says is gospel and infallible, even the ridiculous ideas.

 

I don't know, some of the Obama stuff is getting there anymore.

I don't know, some of the Obama stuff is getting there anymore.

They even have Obama supporters beat.

They even have Obama supporters beat.

even as a strong Obama supporter, even I think Paul's guys have gone nuts.

They even have Obama supporters beat.

 

I will say that I don't ever remember the Ron Paul supports doing as much negative stuff about other people in their own party. It was almost all pro-Paul stuff.

Why don't they just get this over with and "survivor" Clinton's ass and vote her off the island?

even as a strong Obama supporter, even I think Paul's guys have gone nuts.

 

There's some wackjob Obama supporters out there too. Fwiw.

There's some wackjob Obama supporters out there too. Fwiw.

absolutely and without a doubt, not denying that

I will say that I don't ever remember the Ron Paul supports doing as much negative stuff about other people in their own party. It was almost all pro-Paul stuff.

I think you're kind of lumping the anti-Hillary crowd who are only Obama supporters by default (like me) in with the new crowd of supporters Obama's attracting on his own. They are separate entities in and of themselves. They don't hate Hillary because they love Obama, they just hate Hillary.

McCain's first national campaign ad.

 

Don't work for corporate America, just sit on their Board of Directors and earn the really easy money...TREE HOUSE FOODS. How much did they pay you Michelle?