Subjects concerning Ron Paul

[Joe]

I agree that vote fraud is a big issue, but even if he doesn't win - the fact that his ideas are becoming more popular is what is important here. Even if he doesn't win, his supporters won't just shut up and go away. I think that most Ron Paul supporters are completely "changed" in that they will not support the old corrupt system anymore.

Good point. There is some use in him doing what he is doing, I suppose the important point is that no one gets carried away with false hopes and learns to see things as they are.

 

[realitybugll]

At first I disagreed, but I also think your comment is very true ajx.

Vote fraud is an issue. Let's hope its not the deciding factor in the Iowa Caucus so I get to hear a RP victory speech.

Seriously, I do not know if voter fraud is the deciding factor whether he is elected or not. I assume it is significant but I have not read much about it. One this is that I do think RP supporters are more aware of vote fraud (I would hope so). I don't know the odds though that the subject of vote fraud would be picked up by the mainstream media if in-fact their was evidence and allegations by the RP campaign. It's not impossible. And, i guess success or not of vote fraud depends on the vote fraud method, the transparency of the act.

That interview makes me mad. I found myself feeling a lot of sympathy for Ron Paul a few days ago. I mean, I do not know him or what his emotions are like, I had to realize this, but after wading through some of these interviews it is just made me very sick, how they treat him. because a lot of interviewers show contempt and hostility for whatever reason...

So I guess I can understand the "fervor" or identification of Ron Paul supporters which the media talks about. because probably THEY feel 'attacked' when he is. there is not such a candidate that is such an underdog with the media.

 

[Joe]

I don't know the odds though that the subject of vote fraud would be picked up by the mainstream media if in-fact their was evidence and allegations by the RP campaign.

Well, if you read the book I cited, you'll see evidence that it is the owners of the media corporations themselves that have been directly involved in vote fraud in the USA. From that perspective, the idea that the media would "pick up on" it seems very unlikely. I don't think people are willing to "go there" when faced with the idea that there are no free elections in the US (the same is true in many other so called Democratic countries). Today people are so invested in the idea that it is "democracy" that makes them privileged and better than others that they simply cannot allow themselves to seriously contemplate the idea that they have been living in a Corporatocracy for many decades; the idea that there is no democracy in the USA, there are no free elections, and that they are, in effect, slaves, and have been for a long time. If they were to consider the evidence for all of that, what could they do about it? Nothing. Many people intuitively realise this and chose not to go there.

 

[realitybugll]

Yes I see what you are saying. I am thinking about those people that cannot even consider Ron Paul for one second because he is anti-american. They cannot consider that America is bad (in proportion to other countries) ...because then they are bad, or, because what could they do about it.

I think vote fraud could be brought up, with some agenda perhaps. It depends if RP supporters see it or not. and how much of an outrage there is. But the idea that vote fraud is an endemic, as you say since the JFK election, probably not!

 

[RflctnOfU]

do you remember the Obama Hype before he was "elected" ?

I don't just remember the hype, I helped create it

I sincerely thought that if anyone had a shot at bringing about real change, he did. Freshman senator, person of color, no obvious corporate ties, etc. I went against most of my feminist friends who wanted to see Hillary in office, and most of my "good 'ol boys" friends who wanted anyone but a black man, and spent untold hours campaigning for Barack the Betrayer.

My biggest fear as he climbed in the polls was that someone would try to kill him because he wasn't a corporate puppet. We had crawlers coded for any possible threat to him, on some of the most obscure forums you can imagine. It wasn't until he took office that I realized how badly we'd been scammed, and that he was just another Corporate owned shill.

somehow it is hard for me to believe that it is possible in the current state of the US that somebody rices to the "Top" that is neither a puppet or/and a Psychopath

I don't think it is. The entire system has to change across the board, and I'm not sure that's even possible at this point without extreme violence? I just hope I'm dead and buried before that happens.

FWIW, I had an opposite reaction to Obama's 'rise' from obscurity. Several of my colleages (I'm an orchestral musician), as if 'out of the blue', were wetting their pants over this guy - and they showed me his book. My gut 'said' no waaaay!!, upon just seeing his picture. I didn't trust him from the get go. Once the hype in his campaign re: change and hope started, it seemed as though I was the only person asking -- "Just what, exactly, does he mean by 'change' and 'hope'. Inevitably, I took minor tongue lashings from his supporters, along with receiving an earful of what THEY meant by change and hope. Some poetic justice in this particular little 'situation universe', is that his most vocal supporters (who paid at least a little attention to what was going on in politics and not just what was on the evening news) around me IRL became quite pissed off at what he was doing :)

Kris

 

[agni]

I do not think even if RP is elected anything would change. World has been more or less the same for thousands and thousands of years, just illusions associated with it change, that's about it. It is still pretty much the very same feudal system and slavery (covert nowadays) as it was hundreds of years ago, it just looks different, yet beneath it's all the same mechanism.

Do you really think anyone from the riches who never faced issues that everyday working or poor person deals with can represent best interests of people ? They have no clue how it is, they just make it seem like they do.

 

[Oxajil]

Do you really think anyone from the riches who never faced issues that everyday working or poor person deals with can represent best interests of people ? They have no clue how it is, they just make it seem like they do.

Not sure what your definition of rich is, but I think that as long as the person has a good conscience working, why not? There have been many people with money who have used it in order to help others. I think Gaddafi would be a good example... In the current corrupted system we live in, it's probably impossible for such a person to get into a position which enables him or her to start making some big needed decisions for/with the rest, in order to order some things. But, I'm glad in a way that RP is there and says what he says, but it will be quite a hopeless and sad situation for the supporters when he will not get ''elected'', and I wonder what people would do after that. Well I guess we'll see what happens.

Also. You mentioned ''riches who never faced issues that everyday working or poor person deals with'', well I'm not so sure if that plays that much of a role. If you look at a psychopath, do you think that would matter anything? However, if you would look at someone with the same position but one who has heart, he or she would take interest in how people think/feel/live and act on that, even though the person him/herself has never experienced poverty. So it depends on the person, imo. (And I guess we both will agree with what kind of people are making the decisions for us!)

And on this last bit, I wanted to add that if you look at Obama and all the other fakers, how often have they not gone to visit poor families, people who are broke, chat with them and fake their emotions and compassion, then come back to their White House, eat caviar with wine and whatnot and not do a single bit to help those people out, in any way? It's all just a show, an illusion and it's sickening. So, psychopaths or people close to psychopaths can very well mimic the ''kind-hearted person'', or mimic that they themselves have faced issues that everyday poor people go through. And it's a trap most will fall for.

But in the end, by their fruits you shall know them.

 

[Joe]

I do not think even if RP is elected anything would change. World has been more or less the same for thousands and thousands of years, just illusions associated with it change, that's about it. It is still pretty much the very same feudal system and slavery (covert nowadays) as it was hundreds of years ago, it just looks different, yet beneath it's all the same mechanism.

Do you really think anyone from the riches who never faced issues that everyday working or poor person deals with can represent best interests of people ? They have no clue how it is, they just make it seem like they do.

Well, JFK was from the "riches" and he was a decent man and died for it. While being super rich is definitely a sign these days of corruption, it doesn't necessarily rule someone out. What is really needed is not a candidate that is poor or rich, but rather one with a reasonably well-developed conscience.

 

[Voyageur]

Read the book "Vote scam - the stealing of America", JFK was the last US president more or less fairly elected. All since have been selected.

http://www.amazon.com/Votescam-Stealing-James-M-Collier/dp/0963416308

Or online here

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

As for Ron Paul, I think he's legit, but has no chance of winning, for the above reason.

Listen to his last words in this interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLonnC_ZWQ0&feature=player_embedded

He understands how the system works. He understands that the owners of big media corps essentially choose who will be president, and then sell the theft to the people as if it was their choice. This fact is spelled out very clearly in the above-mentioned book.

Thanks for the links.

Being not well antiquated with RP decided earlier today to look for his historical house vote statistics to address feelings written about prior. Generally he often abstain from voting on bills, but from the look of many of them it is for perhaps good reason, just not important or for other reasons. The link below shows the statistics going back to April 1992. From 2001 he consistently voted with consciousness against the regime of pathocrates of war and patriot acts et al. Some of the votes needed internal reviews to understand why he voted against or for; some I don't understand not living there, however, some bills seem to wrap up both negative point issues and positive points - don't know how someone could vote these In the way they are worded anyway; purposely so perhaps. As an example, HR-1108 was a tobacco bill (he was a Ney) that seems at first to want to force manufacturers to remove toxins or at least have the mechanisms to do that, seems absolutely logical, yet the rest of the bill is package with nonsense. Have not had time to unpack some of the likely controversial bills on environmental issues and energy.

Voting Statistics for RP
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/


Kind of agree with what axi said here:

I agree that vote fraud is a big issue, but even if he doesn't win - the fact that his ideas are becoming more popular is what is important here. Even if he doesn't win, his supporters won't just shut up and go away. I think that most Ron Paul supporters are completely "changed" in that they will not support the old corrupt system anymore.

Shifting understandings of the issues is a good first step for voters (non voters, too) and RP seems to be helping that; who knows how these little seeds of understanding will grow.

 

[Nienna]

I do not think even if RP is elected anything would change. World has been more or less the same for thousands and thousands of years, just illusions associated with it change, that's about it. It is still pretty much the very same feudal system and slavery (covert nowadays) as it was hundreds of years ago, it just looks different, yet beneath it's all the same mechanism.

Do you really think anyone from the riches who never faced issues that everyday working or poor person deals with can represent best interests of people ? They have no clue how it is, they just make it seem like they do.

Well, JFK was from the "riches" and he was a decent man and died for it. While being super rich is definitely a sign these days of corruption, it doesn't necessarily rule someone out. What is really needed is not a candidate that is poor or rich, but rather one with a reasonably well-developed conscience.

I just finally was able to read The Secret Team. From what Fletcher has written, I don't see how anyone, no matter how savvy they are to what is really going on in this country could get the upper hand over the CIA/Secret Team, which is so huge and in so many places - the military, the White House, a lot of other countries, in civilian jobs - geesh, it is just endless. How the heck to do get control of something like that so that you can actually make a difference? You wouldn't even know who was and was not working for the CIA.

I like Ron Paul. From what he has said and written, he really seems to want to make changes. As he said, he knows how the system works. And I think he was talking about a much bigger system than the media.

But, then, I also remember in the Protocols where it says that they will have control of both sides of a situation. Which leaves me without much hope to see any changes happening here on the BBM that aren't caused by the coming of comets.

 

[SeekinTruth]

Yeah, and Prouty wrote that a LONG time ago. Imagine how much more The Secret Team has gotten its tentacles into everything everywhere since then. Definitely ain't looking good.

 

[Harold]

My one beef with Ron Paul is that he is most influenced by Austrian School of economics which is a Imperialist monetary system. I really would like to see him win though. I like his platform. I don't think he will be allowed to win, the media coverage of him is just bizzare.

I would like to see someone give power back to the people through a 'Credit' based economy. Gold is not needed so much if we just recognise that to create money in todays electronic system costs nothing. The money is free so why is it lent back to us at 100 cents on the dollar plus interest? Not to mention fractional reserve banking. Whats wrong with no taxes and using new money to run the government? Pay the salaries, use it to fix bridges, build hospitals and schools etc. Just run it(new money) straight into the economy.... it'll never happen probably, but it's just a thought.

I've been giving serious thought to starting a grassroots campaign for a law that requires "None of the Above" to be added to every ballot for political office in the US....local, national, ALL of them. If "None of the Above" wins, then that office is vacant until there's another election and none of those who lost to "None of the Above" can run again.

It's the only thing I can see that would radically change our electoral system, and give a small amount of power back to the voters. It would take a great deal of effort to get such a law passed, and would take years, even decades, and then face constitutional challenges....but boy would it change our entire electoral system. I've yet to meet one person who doesn't think it's a great idea....but getting people off their couches to work for it is the real challenge. Maybe the 99% is ready to work for real change to the system? I don't know.

I think it would attract allot more people to vote. I'm all for people receiving recipts for their votes, also having 2 completely separate ballot counting systems would help. if they choose so and doing away with eletronic ballots altogether but I am open to using technology to enhance the electoral process, for example using bio-metrics combined with a thumb print on each ballot maybe. The PTB will go for chip technology anyways. Just my 2 cents.... FWIW

It's so complex an issue and ties into how the whole matrix runs. It is not our system, whatever the entities involved who fight over control for this planet, it is not the general population.... and in the end it is so this group controlled by psychopaths can have their segregated break-away society. Not knowing they are preparing the ground work to be the next upgraded version of meat puppets.

I will say that the way I eat, breath, pray, believe or non-believe etc. etc. seems like 'I'm' in a breakaway society sometimes. What this forum and it's members see is not what the community and society around me see's. I often wonder what it would be like to try to break-away in some ways(I have tried somewhat before), the 'C's have said we will not be able to escape the system they are rolling out.... but the C's also have said to do what we love to do and enjoy this trip/ride.

I have yet to find an employer who will empower me to be independant of the 'system'. A Co-operative employee owned company may be one solution.

I also wonder too if this light hearted approach is tied into buoyacy and the 'wave'. When the 'wave' comes being able to deal with the 'whole' truth, the one truth about myself/ourselves reality, nature, history etc. etc. That I can see it all and breath through it all.

Our diet and lifestlyes alone are radically against the running of the system. Imagine if our lifestyle was popular... what the world would look like?

 

[Guardian]

Well, JFK was from the "riches" and he was a decent man and died for it. While being super rich is definitely a sign these days of corruption, it doesn't necessarily rule someone out.

I think the biggest difference is that the Kennedy's weren't generational Elite. Joesph Kennedy was the son of a Bar owner, and made his first big money bootlegging during prohibition. He was a essentially a hustler not a "Blue Blood"

 

[Al Today]

Methinks many are aware of this sham called "free" elections. And besides, who amongst the runners are truly in service to others? There is one point that many either ignore, or are unaware. That the popular vote DOES NOT elect the Prez. or Vice-Prez.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

[...]
Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Generally (with Maine and Nebraska being the exceptions), each state appoints its electors on a winner-take-all basis, based on the statewide popular vote on Election Day. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President.

A candidate must receive an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If no candidate receives a majority in the election for President, or Vice President, that election is determined via a contingency procedure in the Twelfth Amendment,
[...]

And btw, those electors can cast their vote in opposition of the popular vote...

 

[Al Today]

And btw, those electors can cast their vote in opposition of the popular vote...

I should back that statement up...

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

[...]
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
[...]