Oh this post is just for me! You have no idea how it brightened my morning to open my computer and see Ron Paul's face . Honestly, I haven't decided who I'm voting for. Between the major party candidates I'd prefer McCain, but like Dr. Paul said, both parties are more or less the same. So I might vote for Bob Barr. I'm in Texas so one less vote for McCain won't take the state away from him.

I really can't stand this Ron Paul character. He puts too much emphasis on the constitution. Doesn't he know it's not legally binding?

I think we should have more major parties than just two.

i think ron paul supporters should vote with their hearts and not be strategic in this election by voting for john mccain. and while they are at it, they should travel to swing states and convince others there to do the same.

oh and michelin i voted for nader in 2000 under the same auspices - i was living in washington state at the time and i figured that my vote for nader would not impact gore's chances of carrying the state. do it!

When you look at the Constitution and the Amendments we've made to it to adapt to a changing society- its truly a remarkable document that when actually adhered to ensures a government that protects its people, ensures State's rights, and protects civil liberties.
Its the people who get ahold of it and misinterpret it (ahem Supreme Court) that are the problem. Stupid Supreme Court always legislating from the bench.

Anyway, Ron Paul is right... I believe Im in the majority when I saw that Im fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Im a believer in a small Federal goverment and believe the majority of decisions should be left to the State to decide upon. I dont mind paying State taxes at all... tax me up the wazoo, at least I get to actually see my money going back to my community.
I also believe in abortion and gay marriage. If I could get an Obama/McCain - McCain/Obama ticket I would be all set lol!

this system needs to change!!

An Obama/McCain ticket.... That would be interesting.

"If you ever get to the point where you believe the two parties are essentially the same, if the majority is outside of the establishment, it's not very democratic. The process is not working."

Mr. Paul, on this sentence, you have 100% of my agreement.

Apathy is no friend of democracy.

legalbeagle I agree with you 100%.

Being in this position, it's difficult to pick between a conservative and a liberal because each candidate represents about half of your values.

At the beginning of all of this, I thought McCain would be my choice because I never believed he was really excited about catering to the conservative right on social issues. I assumed he was pandering to them to get the vote. But with his pick of Palin and the disappointing way he's running his campaign, I'm leaning towards Obama.

Of course, as a DC resident, it hardly matters. Maybe I will just vote for Ron Paul.

I read an article the other day called "The Lifeblood of the Empire" in which the writer called them McBama. Hilarious!
I've never voted Republican or Democrat in a presidential election.
A thrid party vote is not a throw away vote!

pop, that's really interesting. thanks for sharing your thoughts. it's rare that we get to hear from the exotic species called the "Swing Voter".

Love some Ron P.

If you have 4 third party candidates for president, isn't that the same as having 7 parties?

well just the fact that all four of them are referred to as "third party" proves that our system is broken.

These two bring to mind a couple of points. One, the dangers of a strict and fiercely defended two party system. Our ideology has had political barriers placed on it by a two party system. We grew up in it it's all we know and there for it's all we need. It would be a sad case if there was a third party candidate out there who had a strong intelligent convincing platform but no means by which to get their message across. This is why I am all for a network televised debate between at least the top three third party candidates so the Americans who are simply unaware or too damn lazy to look up their web sites can see what else is out there.

My frustration with the modern voter has also been our obsession with charisma in the face of good sense. In most cases the less pretty and or charismatic a candidate is regardless of some really kick @$$ ideas the less likely we are to focus on them. I don't know about you but I'm not trying to get a date with them I just want the best person for the job.

However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

I like these two -- I really so but can someone explain (without attitude) -- why would you vote for someone knowing they won't win?

Becuase the more people voted for a third party candidate,
the two parties in power would realize that people actually do want change. This would result in either having a new party arise that people agree with or having teh two parties smarten up and start listening to people in this country.

How is it democracy if we only have two options? It becomes the an "US v. THEM" mentality that youre seeing in this election.

If Obama and McCain were really about 'change' in Washington, they wouldnt associate themselves with either party and just run on principles.

"why would you vote for someone knowing they won't win?"

That is a very telling question right there dreamsugar. I have heard that question since I was old enough to vote which tells me that third party candidates have a tremendous amount of support beyond their actual constituency that would otherwise give them the time of day if not vote for them. The problem is we're locked in this mentality of I'm not going to go first, you go first because we don't want to look foolish in the eyes of the main stream. I have been guilty of it my self in the past but more recently in this election and the last I have made it a point to keep my eyes and ears open to a third party candidate with realistic plan for America. I love Ron Paul and he actually gives me a moment of pause when it comes to my final decision.

Thanks for the answer --legal -- I can see where you're coming from -- Hypno -- I have no idea what you just said - how is it telling -- what is it telling you? All I'm say is if the 3rd party would have jumped on board we would have had Gore and not Bush.

Too bad there are so many really good alternative candidates that the alternative vote is going to be spread among them.

My vote is with Barr.

LOL, o.k. let me see if I can untwist this little pretzel. What I was saying is that I have encountered many many people over the past twenty years who have made the same statement or (question) suggesting that if more people voted for a viable third party candidate than they would at least investigate the possibility if not vote for them themselves. This means that we're simply swiming with the masses because that's all we know and not being true critical thinkers when it comes to voting in general. I hope that makes more sense.

Yes -- it does -- Thanks!

The problem that I have with the "third" party is that they don't have an organized base in place. They need to really focus on getting people in government in state and local governments before they can really mount a solid attempt at the presidency. I like some of these guy's ideas, but there isn't enough "press" time given to them, because of their appearant lack of system, and I don't trust most of what I see on the internet.

OMG I hear harps and church bells UnDave and I agree again! Sarcasm aside I agree that third party plat forms best plan of attack is to simply infiltrate the ranks rather than knock at the castle door and expect it to open.

A good example is the city of Richmond Ca. a lower middle class city infested with gang violence elected a Green Party candidate their Mayor a couple of years ago and as far as I know she's very popular there. They simply got fed up and put their money where their mouth is and gambled on change.

As for the corporate media they need to get over themselves and allow a third party candidate debate.

Can we meld them all together and make the best president ever? Personalities and quirks aside these guys are talking about the issue, and not pig/pitbulls, lipstick, sex, race, or any of the other nonsense that is being talked about in the "real race".

Hypnotic- I work about 5 minutes from Richmond, and I live about 15 minutes from there, and it's still just as violent, and has a rise in the homeless population. I don't think it has anything to do with it's Mayor being a "third" party canidate, but with the community not being willing to do what it takes to rid the city of the riff raff.

Ron Paul just said (on CNN) he want to help Nader so that he can get vote FROM Obama :shock:

So in effect -- I guess he supports McCain - rather indirectly.

Oh I agree bastylefilegirl Richmond is still a violent town. I used to live in Berkeley and decided to move more left to San Francisco, lol.

It is about the community to do most of the foot work but it is IMO the Mayors to lead and inspire such a movement of change. Their Mayor community relationship is still young so I'm waiting to see what things will look like at the end of her first term.

Well, hopefully it will even out because a lot people who may have voted for McCain, could be voting for Bob Barr.

Man, I must be getting ill if I agree with hypno...