\
I really like Paul... my question is how would he work with a split congress? they will be made up of both democrats and republic rats.
I really like Paul... my question is how would he work with a split congress? they will be made up of both democrats and republic rats.
Paul wins 2012!!! how does he work with a split congress?
If you want more of the same with a different name, vote Ron Paul!!!!
Sorry guys but no matter how much you may wish it, one person is not going to make a bit of change unless they also control both houses of congress. He can not wave his magic Thai Stick and make it all better unless congress goes along with him.
There is no "3rd party" in Oklahoma. You either run on the democrat or the republican ballot....3rd party is not an option.
Sad, but most people in Oklahoma do not know this.
Both houses vote down party lines even when the bill is stupid and backwards. Hell, the GOP opposed a revived version of one of their 90s bills, and called it socialist.
If President RP is pushing libertarian agendas with an (R) stamped on it, the GOP assclowns are going to say "shut up and take my vote please!" and the DNC will oppose it... except for Kucinich.
This is true. But having a Paul type in the head office would also make it difficult to breeze through bills such as the recent NDAA travesty, and the upcoming SOPA bill. Whimsical foreign conflicts would be curtailed, and Supreme Court nominees would certainly (hopefully?) have more of a Constitutional bent, rather than a party bias. A President that at least tries to govern along strict Constitutional guidelines is far better than ones who circumvent that document. The rest of the GOP field and Obama are too similar for my comfort. And yes, I believe Romney would still appoint SC justices that wouldn’t necessarily be 2nd Amendment friendly, for those who have that concern. Remember: Republicans historically haven’t been any more 2nd Amendment friendly than their partners across the isle.
I'm registered Independent on principle.
"The state chairman of the party shall, between November 1 and 30 of every odd-numbered year, notify the Secretary of the State Election Board as to whether or not the party intends to permit registered voters designated as Independents to vote in a Primary Election or Runoff Primary Election of the party."
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=78362
And to my knowledge, Democrats and Republicans have never authorized non-registered-party-members to vote in their primaries.
That's because the GOP power base, like those in many local gun clubs and political organizations, or aging FUDDs who think that we're just all "young whippersnappers" and stubbornly refuse to recognize anything we say.
I don't discredit that they may have done a lot of work to get where they are, and maybe even accomplished some good; but pass the torch gracefully now, while you still can.
It all depends on whether they want to continue having an 8% approval rating, or loose the support of their handlers. They can't have it both ways.
This. With $Romney you'd still have the NDAA, Fast & Furious, socialized health care, possibly poor Supreme Court Justice appointments and continued aggravation of the rest of the world with poor foreign policy. Oh, and don't forget a terribly bad economy with no real hope for the future.
With Paul, you're going to get real use of veto powers, a more balanced approach to foreign policy, a sound fiscal policy and a very unhappy Congress. I don't know about the rest of you, but an unhappy Congress sounds positively delightful to me.
