Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who do you support?

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 10, 2011, 2:40 p.m. EST by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

It's no secret what you support... corporatism sucks. The question becomes this - who do you support in the 2012 elections? Take a moment and state who you supported in 2008 if you were old enough to vote then - and why. Then indicate who you support in 2012 - and why. Also include your political affiliation. Some people will participate, and some won't - that's fine. Just trying to open some dialogue and see what/if any common gron exists between different visitors to this site.

I'll start. I'm registered (R). The only reason I choose one or the other (R or D) is because you can't vote in my state's primaries unless you are registered one or the other. I chose (R) solely because I am fiscally conservative and for no other reason (I'm socially centrist).

In 2008, I voted for Chuck Baldwin (Constitutionalist Party). In my humble opinion, the constitution is written specifically to operate from the center. In context, it neither favors the right or the left. It favors everybody. It's not until the right or left start defining its intent when we start seeing problems and people start believing it's a document that won't work because it is antiquated. it's not. It's every bit as relevant today as it was when it was first penned 230+ years ago. I know Baldwin is a Baptist preacher, but theology has no place in politics and a strict adherence to the principles of constitutionality sees this true. I firmly believe Chuck Baldwin would have been able to retain the necessary separation between his spiritual theological beliefs and his political ideology.

In 2012 - I have seen NO candidates that stand up to my very demanding wants in a candidate.

99 Comments

99 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

i think it's safe to say the candidate and politics are not going to help anyone. you can't kill a fire by batting the flames, you have to aim at the source, viva la OWS

[-] 1 points by wiseoldman61 (9) 3 years ago

Common Sense Solutions to our Demands (posted on CNN)

Please share with everyone. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-686666

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

if you were wise, you would know that.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

yeah. not so much. you guys need to understand one thing you all seem to miss. if you make unreasonable demands or cannot come up with a list of reasonable demands soon enough, you'll just be pissing in the wind. personally i have waited for this day for 15 years, please don't fk it up.

[-] 1 points by hotdoghenry (268) 3 years ago

Actually you can fight fire with fire. It's done all the time.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

on occasion there may be back burning

to remove available fuel for the main blazes border

so it doesn't further spread

but generally water is used

[-] 1 points by hotdoghenry (268) 3 years ago

Ok there fireman Matt. But here is my point. Only 25% of Americans vote. I would venture to say that very few of the people that are occupying vote.

These people can vote and effect a change. Pelosi saying she supports this movement is a joke. The Left controlled Senate could do something Today to start a dramatic change in this country. Like end the exemption of all insurance companies from our Anti-Trade laws. But they won't

This movement should be bashing the left, but instead the left is owning it!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

trade ends up gambling in prospects

and the gambling house always wins in gambling

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

I think that's a naive way to view things. bring down corporate America and you still have the same shitty politicians running the show - what then?

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

nobody is trying to bring down wallstreet, at least not me. but... i want what i work for. there is no excuse for people working 40 a week, can't feed their kids, while some a$$ hat takes his kids to Disney on the backs of someone else. you wana treat your kids, make sure your employees can at least feed theirs. everybody wants to b!tch about wlefare, well make the companies pay it and they won't need gov cheese. people have to provide, from their employer of the gov. make the employers pay it. the alternative is very ugly.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

With all due respect, the OWS is very dedicated to bringing down Wall Street -- They know very well that they can't disassociate Wall Street from Politics without bringing one down, and right now, WS is the bigger (and more vulnerable) target.

[-] 1 points by RichardGates (1529) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

well not everyone protesting is so nihilistic.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Fair enough... I guess I took your "viva la OWS" comment out of context. Thanks for the input and for clarifying your position.

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

No asshole, you chose republican because you are the 1%, just like Benedict Arnold was a 1% during the American Revolution. Who the fuck do you think the declaration of independence was drafted against? Morally corrupt ass holes like you. The country is in the shits, because when you racists, evil asshole of a Republicans were in power, you flushed the economy down the drain. You assholes only care about your pocket, even if its means you get to ride around in your big boats in a cesspool. You call your selves American, while you plot to destroy our environment through corporate pollution. And lets say OWS is being ignorant to the true facts of how capitalism can be beneficial to our society, at least they are not plotting the destruction of their fellow citizens. Get the fuck out of the conversation you evil assholes, you have nothing of any real patriotic value to say, just like most traitors and Tea Baggers. Fucking two faced devil.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Obviously, intellectual debate is not in your blood. You have too much misguided passion and its easier for you to shout down anybody with a differing opinion than to have open and respectful dialogue -- so i guess we're done talking here. I sincerely hope that you aren't near the epicenter of the movement because you are too explosive and destructive and your representation would be a huge contributing factor to any lack of success this movement would face. I assure you I am not the 1%. I have nothing more than my word for you to go on, but it is truth and fact - whether you choose to accept that or not. Not everyone has to think exactly like you in order to support your causes. I'm not plotting destruction. I am here to have civil discussions. If you are beyond civility, then go demonstrate that lack of civility and see how that helps your cause my friend... Good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

Well, since you've decided to get off your high horse and speak to me with the same level of respect you would like me to speak to you with, I will do the same.

So if your not a part of the !%, why are your posting so angry at the 99%?

[-] 1 points by theOnlineGovernmentDotcom (97) 3 years ago

Please select R or D. YOU WILL ASSIMILATE. Please comply immediately

[-] 1 points by TimUwe (39) 3 years ago

Stop crony capitalism support Ron Paul. Libertarianism is the only philosophy that supports liberty and peace.

[-] 1 points by Poplicola (125) from Jersey City, NJ 3 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-are-vox-populi/

Our government does not have the constitutional authority to hire a private bank to manipulate global currencies.

We will not fix any of our economic problems as long as the Federal Reserve is employed by the US government.

We the People wage war against the multinational corporate lobbyists who have assumed control of our government.

We the People will not give up until our goals are achieved.

We the People will continue to educate our fellow countrymen on these issues.

We must take the state of the economy into consideration when choosing our battles.

Our economy is unstable, and unsustainable.

Our economy will become infinitely more unstable if we take money out of politics without firing the Federal Reserve. This is not a "your opinion" "my opinion" type of thing...this is the current economic paradigm.

We are a movement against the current socio-political paradigm.

We are a movement for, of, and by the American populous and constitution.

We do not align ourselves with any politician.

We are the politicians.

We understand the issues at hand.

We cannot provide all of the solutions. Solutions lie within a new body of legislators, free from greed and corruption.

We are Vox Populi.

We do not forgive. We do not forget.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 3 years ago

I would vote for Paul if he made it to the general election, which I doubt he will.

In the primary I will likely vote for Romney as he gives the best chance of beating Obama.

[-] 1 points by Opal (57) 3 years ago

First of all, the real question is "WHOM" do you support. (Sorry, I just hadda do that. My mother was an English teacher, and I'm probably going to wind up doing the same thing.)

I take issue with the statement "corporatism sucks". Not only am I not sure there's any such word as "corporatism", but I think corporations are just fine, as long as they obey the laws, don't try to buy politicians to run the government, and behave responsibly. They haven't been so good about that, in the last few decades. We can mostly thank Reagan for that (thanks, Ronny, for removing all those pesky regulations).

Now, let me make a much more profound point: many people revere the Constitution as the literal Word of God, and to be sure, it's an amazing document and we all love it, but it does not favor everybody. Women had no rights, in the Constitution, and the Constitution did not recognize slaves as human beings. Let's get that straight.

I am a Dem, and pretty much vote along party lines unless the Dem running is really an idiot (which happened, once, when I lived in Boston....I voted against the Dem running for Governor....google John Silber and you'll understand why.). When it comes to Prez, I have supported Clinton, Kerry, Gore....and of course, Obama. And btw, I just saw the former campaign manager for McCain/Palin (oh wow, that was a total punch-line, wasn't it??) dismissing OWS as a bunch of kids doing drugs and having sex on the lawn, who all need to get a job.

That's why I'm not a Republican. Because that's pretty much how they think.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

First off, thank you for the grammatical correction. I stand corrected because I have long forgotten the object/subject reference when deciding whether it is "who" or "whom".

I take issue with the statement "corporatism sucks" too. My original post was (for lack of a better phrase) a jab at the lack of consistency coming from the OWS message.

I happen to be one of those people who "reveres the Constitution as the literal word" because, just as various amendments prove, it is a document that allows for its inadequacies to be corrected through the amendment process. It doesn't mean I believe in slavery or that I don't believe in suffrage. It simply means that time and experience provide the means by which those injustices can be corrected. Instead of circumventing the Constitution, our legislators would better serve constituents by abiding by the established framework and offering amendments to correct things when noted.

In any respect, thanks for participating in the discussion. I always appreciate the insight various viewpoints bring to the table (unlike some people who assume an opposing opinion automatically equates to a troll and thus - should be silenced).

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I would vote for ending wars

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 3 years ago

The Constitution has been reinterpreted many times, depending on the political makeup of the Supreme Court. It has been amended, and it has been ignored. Laws that are on the books, (like EEOC regulations), are made ineffective through underfunding. To just state that the "holy" document is our answer to everything is being disingenuous. And, in the end, it is a piece of paper agreed to by a bunch of aristocratic, slave-owning individuals who were mostly concerned with maintaining their vested interests. (Although the Bill of Rights was a nice touch.) But, today, with the Patriot Act, the right against illegal search and seizure, and freedom of speech has been made moot. So where do we stand with this document? http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

For the very reasons you mention - outside legislation making the Constitution irrelevant, we need to refocus around the principles of the Constitution. The Constitution was expressly written to work from the center (without the left and right grabs). The Constitution's teeth have to be allowed to bite again.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 3 years ago

The original "principles" included the right to own slaves, and the disenfranchisement of anyone who didn't own land, and of women. Is that what you mean about "refocusing"?

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

I really shouldn't have to qualify the intent of what I was saying by dignifying your comment, but you called me out on my faux pas. Fair enough, since it's not obvious and should have been qualified. Of course I don't support slavery or disenfranchisement.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 3 years ago

Who are you to "dignify" anything I say? What kind of condescending crap is that? Am I to assume that I am such a lucky individual to be in the presence of your solitary genius? Give me a break. http://sibob.org/wordpress/

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

hahahahaha ----- lighten up there with the thin skin. You implied I was pro-slavery -- so yeah, I think that warrants my willingness to dignify that. if you find that to be condescending, that's your own issue to work out in yoru own head. Good luck with that.

[-] 1 points by SIBob (154) from Staten Island, NY 3 years ago

Thanks, we can all use all the luck we can get, especially you.

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

Hey guys, I'm an Occupy Wall Street artist and I would like to invite you to my Occupy Wall Street art show called SPANK THE BULL: AN OCCUPY WALL STREET MANIFESTO, which is in the form of an Interactive Theatre.

You can view my art show by going to...

WWW.SPANKTHEBULL.ORG

By the way, do you know why the Tea Party won't join us, because they are the 1%.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Thanks for the useless SPAM michael. I always appreciate it when people contribute with such invaluable information to a discussion...

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

fuck you!!!

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Hahaha... and people wonder why the OWS is struggling to build credibility? I got a nice big bull you can come over and spank tough guy - though I would be leery - he gets a little anxious when he hasn't eaten in a couple of days. Nice language BTW...

[-] 1 points by michael123 (25) 3 years ago

fuck you & your ugly mama!

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Ooooh, grammar school bullying. I love it. Spank Spank Spank... I know - since you are into necrophilia, maybe you should have that added to your website and as a demand for the OWS movement.

michael123's OWS demand # 56716: Free dead mothers for everyone to fuck!

You done trolling and SPAMMING crap sites yet or do you still want to play tough guy?

[-] 1 points by JeffBlock2012 (272) 3 years ago

it makes no difference who we support or who we elect for President. Our Presidents do NOT have the power to do the things we think we elected them to do, then we get disappointed when they don't do the things we think we elected them to do: John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY

and some interesting quotes for you: http://www.jeffblock2012.com/Summary.html

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

You're right, by definition, the executive branch doesn't make policy (or at least they didn't used to, but the last few administrations have taken a shining to the power of the EO). In practice, our presidents DO have the power to influence policy - as they should. Love the site and the idea BTW. Thanks for the link!

The "who do you support" exercise isn't meant to be a poll, but rather to open dialogue and find out what people are thinking, what they want, and whether they even recognize how their own positions actually fall in line with the ideologies of who they support. It's a great exercise to get people talking so people can truly understand where they have similarities and differences...

[-] 1 points by Indie (2) from Beecher, IL 3 years ago

Jeffery Sachs stopped at one of the rallies and spoke very positive about many of the same issues. He believes we need to get money out of politics. Has anyone thought of asking him either to represent the issues or to even run for President in 2012? There is a video of him speaking to the OWS.

[-] 1 points by cassie486 (1) 3 years ago

I won't be voting for Obama, I will be voting against the right, when I vote Obama in 2012. Both parties do suck, but the right is much worse.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Chuck Baldwin summed it up when he compared McCain to Obama in 2008. "A vote for either is not a vote for the lesser of two evils, but rather the evil of two lessers."

Cassie, you are not bound by the two party system. There are plenty of viable third party candidates out there. I encourage you to open your eyes and do some research. Obama is nothing more than Bush III. you say the right is worse and to that I ask - on what front?

War - Bush started two wars - Obama has dropped bombs in THREE OTHER sovereign nations (Pakistan, Libya, and Yemen) AND Obama has continued the war efforts in iraq and Afghanistan.

Lobbyists - Ummmm, I don't think we need to look at Obama's record with regards to the control lobbyists have in his administration.

Liberty - he voted to extend the unPATRIOT Act.

HUman rights and Constitutionality - The establishment R is a war-mongering faction with the military-industrial complex, and Obama authorized the assassination of an American Citizen on nothing more than suspicion and noformal charges or conviction of said charges.

Out of control spending. yep - Bush was out of control - and Obama is in control?!? Nope.

I'm not sure I understand how/where Obama is better than the Republicans when they are all in the same establishment.

I look forward to you providing some insight on what makes Obama the best choice in your eyes.

[-] 1 points by alwayzabull (228) 3 years ago

Obama 2012! Not.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 3 years ago

No one. Why would i support a broken politician in a broken system ?

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 3 years ago

I support Gary Johnson and Ron Paul because they advocate a "live and let live" social philosophy, understand the deleterious nature of the proliferation of the warfare-welfare state and military-industrial complex, refuse to buy into the "the hate us because we're free" terrorism argument , are philosophically consistent, and will call out bullshit when they see it, even if it is counter-productive to campaigning. They seem to be less influenced by big money donors, a double-edged sword, which effectively makes them "unelectable."

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

It's interesting, and I know this thread is young, but so far, I have seen 3 (R) candidates being proposed (Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and Herman Cain). Now, I believe these guys will probably end up running as Indies after the establishment and corporate media crown Romney as the nominee -- but I wonder why these 3 strike the fancy of people who support the OWS movement? Is there a way to tie their strengths into a common OWS movement strategy (in much the same way the TEA Partiers worked to deliver candidates that would take over Congress)?

I'm not endorsing any particular candidate, but how about Herman Cain/Marco Rubio with Ron Paul as the Treasury Secretary?

[-] 1 points by ForTheWinnebago (143) 3 years ago

Herman Cain I would not support. I liked him when he was more quiet actually, especially after his recent comments about the OWS movement.

He really doesn't seem to "get" what is occurring and sees wealth disparity as a function of people simply not trying hard enough rather than the rules of the game being changed, primarily by means of the direct translation of economic power on the political process. Realizing the 1% have disproportionally accrued wealth gains since the 70's, he would claim this is because of peoples' work ethos, rather than stacking the deck in their favor.

He also fails to note the hypocrisy of those organizations that adhere to free-market principles yet will use the apparatus of the State (ie The Fed) to get loans that are cheaper than would the market would dictate. He fails to understand that one person on social benefits cannot jeopardize the entire world's financial system, yet that one organization, by subsidizing their risk-taking activities on the taxpayer, in fact can. Another point, corporations are holding trillions of untaxed income abroad, yet he would dare not speak out about having that money be taxed at the corporate income rate.

Also, I'm much more socially liberal, I would like us to re-evaluate our relationship with Israel, and his general tone on foreign policy is too hawkish for my liking.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

I have no interest in supporting any of the available candidates in 2012. I'm hoping that the Occupy movement can shake up the system (end of two-party system, public financing of elections, etc). such that there are attractive options out there for the small group which constitutes 99% of the population.

[-] 1 points by jssss (71) 3 years ago

yes. no free rides for politicians..that is not what this is about...end the 2party system where the candidates with the most money wins...

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Agreed. The Democratic party can support OWS if it wants, but OWS will not return the favor.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Gamma - I am glad to see there are actually some people out there who are against the idea of any political party co-opting this movement. There is hope.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Yep, others at my Occupation feel the same way. It's important that we convince the others that this is an important position.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

There's a lot of back lash aimed at the OWS Atlanta Movement for not allowing John Lewis (D) to speak... Now personally, I say let him speak and then remind him that you appreciate his support, but that you are not his minion and that he is part of the problem and not the solution, but hey -- I wasn't in Atlanta, so...

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 3 years ago

Agree with everything you just said. Although it's probably better that they not let him speak than to lend him personal support, but your proposal would have been best.

[-] 0 points by guru401 (228) 3 years ago

Ron Paul. There is no candidate who campaigns harder against corporatism.

[-] 0 points by hotdoghenry (268) 3 years ago

First off you wasted a vote last time around. We have two party system and that's not going to change anytime soon.

I was not a McCain fan at all. But I voted for him but on the conservative line not the republican. Why did I do that? I want to the Republicans to know I do not agree with their entire platform.

I would never vote for Obama! How the rest of the country couldn't see it coming I'll never understand.

I like Herman Cain at the moment. Why?

He's never held political office. He's a no nonsense guy. When he doesn't know or understand something he says so. He honest. He'll run the country like a business and make a profit for all of us. (There's nothing wrong with profit) If we (The People) want something I believe he understand that he represents us and is not there to tell us what to think.

Herman said yesterday that this movement should be directed at the White House. He is right!

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

You voted for McCain - the one who lost out to Obama, so wasn't your vote a waste since it wasn't based on principle? I mean, afterall, since I voted on principle for a guy who couldn't possibly win, (and had no effect on the outcome), then I would say I didn't waste a vote at all... You, like my wife, hoped beyond hope that McCain could win because he was the other party's representative... That's a waste of a vote if you ask me.

[-] 1 points by hotdoghenry (268) 3 years ago

McCain had a chance. Thats not a wasted vote. Your guy had NO chance.

You can't vote on principle when it's a two party system.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

No, YOU can't vote on principle in a two-party system as was proven by your vote of McCain. Your guy had no chance either. If he did, then his votes (combined with all other third party votes) would have been enough to win - and that simply was not the case. I put my head on my pillow with a clear conscience due to my vote being based on principle. You most likely hardly slept a wink when you found out Obama won because you so desparately didn't want that to happen -- it's OK that you sold out on a hope. I didn't sell out and look - both of our guys lost. Given that fact, that makes your vote more of a waste. But, we're not here to debate the shittiness of McCain, let's agree to disagree on your point so we can move past this andget on with important matters.

[-] 1 points by hotdoghenry (268) 3 years ago

LOL Kinda hard to move past this one though. But Fine.

I'm liking Cain these days

[-] 0 points by MerchantofLight (46) from Chicago, IL 3 years ago

Buddy Roemer would be ideal. Failing that, Ron Paul

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

I like Buddy Roemer's position on health care because it's the right one. There's been so much focus on "let's get everyone health care", that nobody has stopped to address the REAL problem - the cost of health care. Instead of asking the tough questions (like, why can't someone afford health care and what can be done to make it affordable), the administration completely dismissed the root of the problem and went with a band aid solution that is destined to fail and add undue financial burdens on those who are already hit the hardest with financial burdens (the middle class). I wish Buddy Roemer's message was more widely available to the masses because he is a reasonable pragmatist and if nothing else, it would she light on real problems and solutions instead of the smoke and mirrors games we've been subjected to for the past 30 years.

[-] 1 points by MerchantofLight (46) from Chicago, IL 3 years ago

Hear Hear

[-] 0 points by Selfmade (12) 3 years ago

Mitt Romney, he's intelligent, articulate and the only one with the ability to represent this country in the new world order. Don't under estimate his stance on state rights.

[-] 1 points by MerchantofLight (46) from Chicago, IL 3 years ago

The NWO should scare the hell out of you

[-] 0 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

I agree that Romney is intelligent and articulate - but he's an establishment candidate that is placating to the far right in much the same way Obama placates to the far left. Both of them know they can't hold their party's interest without rallying the bases. Romney will be able to rally some of the far right base, while grasping at indy voters, but soon, he will have to decide which direction he wants to move in, which will be a huge turnoff to the other.

[-] 0 points by traderone (13) 3 years ago

I would vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat! He is the only outspoken representative who would support our economic bill of rights, and return to the republic of states rights in America. Unfortunately, if he were elected, there would be massive layoffs of federal jobs because Ron would cut out the massive waste that continues to pervade our Federal bureaucracy. It may not help the unemployment rate, but it sure would reduce the deficit.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

Same question to you as I asked of powertothepeople - if he does not get the (R) nod, would you support him (to the point of voting for him in the generals) if he ran as an Indy?

[-] 0 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

I've never voted Republican before but if Ron Paul got the nomination I would vote for him.

He is one of very few voices speaking out about issues that are important to me - the hideous PATRIOT act, the drug war, the foreign entanglements.

He believes in leaving people alone and letting power revert back to states and local governments and I support that.

The centralized Federal government is becoming a nightmare police state.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

If Ron Paul does not get the nod, would you be willing to support him as an Indy? That would require a huge act of faith and principle - something many people lack nowadays because they think they have to vote for the "winner". I would have actually voted for him in 2008, but unfortunately, he was not on the ballot in South Carolina and this state does not allow write-ins for national ballots. That's why I turned to Chuck Baldwin.

[-] 1 points by powertothepeople (1264) 3 years ago

Yea, I might do that, I will also look at any candidates the green party puts on the ballot.

the very first time I voted I voted third party, I was so idealistic then. Then I started working and became a "pragmatic adult". I think it is time to go back to a little idealism, not just for me, but for all of us.

I was actually thinking of switching parties just so I can vote for Paul in the "R" primary.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 3 years ago

That's my take too... I went from idealistic kid to pragmatic adult and have settled in as a pragmatic idealist. :)