sirdroseph wrote:Ron Paul is interesting but has been (it's not his fault he is elderly and unenergetic, but it is a fact) to be marginalized, along with this bag of whack ideas mixed in with the good ideas he has. He will have delegates certainly, and a mid afternoon (read as unnoticed) slot on TV early on during the convention—assuming he even attends.

Gary Johnson....You have to Google him here in MN to find where his supporters are even based.  He is unknown to a vast segment of the public. The nation, it seems to me, hasn't even noticed him. much less discussed his him or his ideas.  More of a cult figure (meant positively here) than candidate.

There are many people with ideas worth a voice.  But the campaign structure we have, based on money, and being telegenic and a superior orator, as well as free of the smallest skeleton, and the micro probing of the candidate and their family(ies) that goes with it, turns off, or down right disqualifies, many would-be candidates.

 Romulus wrote: 

An accountant ?

As of 2010 there were 106,000 employees.  Its an agency growing very fast, with the ACA and all.

 miamizsun wrote:

  If govt had little to no power, then the corps could not use them to control the market, protected by law.

In a true free market, corporate monopoly would be very rare, or would not exist because they couldn't use govt to secure their stranglehold.

 miamizsun wrote:
  

I would disagree.

There are those who aspire to positions of power in the private sector.  The collusion to which you refer may occur later, but the aspiration precedes it.  That was my focus.

Not everyone who has power has acquired it through, or been given it by, politicians/government. That is way too broad of a statement, and it also tends to absolve most of us from responsibility for systemic problems (The "I'm ok, and you're ok, it's just these guys over here that are the problem") .

     

 steeler wrote: 

Yes, most of the upper executives that I have dealt with (being their IT guy) are more than a few short of a six pack.

 steeler wrote: 
This is true too.

 steeler wrote:
the private sector colludes with the people that can give them power, the politicians/government

everyone is fighting over the ring of centralized power

regards

 Romulus wrote: 

My previous comment would also apply to those who seek positions of power in the private sector, such as CEOs.

 cc_rider wrote:
random thoughts 

that's been going on forever (even as we speak)

regardless of who is in office

one example and i can cite many

notice how we're militarizing every police department under the sun

yet they're asked to take pay freezes or cuts including benefits while their pensions are underfunded

make any sense?

debt, deficit and unfunded liabilities are a future tax increase or claim on future labor

generations of the unborn are on the hook for the corruption we see today (sentencing these kids to economic slavery to finance the benefit bribery today = not smart)

i think that over half of americans are receiving a government handout/benefit

so we won't see any of them step up and vote to stop that and it's why this bus is ultimately going over a cliff

people aren't concerned about social programs, they're concerned about what they're getting as an individuals

and they'll allow or tolerate almost anything as long as they get theirs (immoral wars/murder, massive debts, loss of rights, etc)

when it comes to government/politics people (for some strange reason) are morally and mathematically challenged

as sure as the sun rises in the east we're headed for a "crash" then "austerity"

bad beliefs usually have bad consequences

peace

 ScottN wrote: 

Watch that Ron Paul interview I posted earlier in his thread, it is quite refreshing. He only speaks in ideas as does Gary Johnson.

 steeler wrote: 
And that is the inherent problem with govt. 90% of the time, it attracts corrupt power seekers, or people who cannot survive in the private market.

Who graduates college and says, "Great, I can't wait to apply for the IRS!"

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Well put and undeniable.  I am looking for an alternative who is actually heard, has traction with a significant segment of the public, and most of all, has IDEAS.

The duopoly wouldn't be so bad if they weren't really (bcs of money, imo) a Monopoly.

There is always the Italian model to emulate!

 RASPUTIN wrote: 

That is an astute observation.

One might not label it a flaw, but we certainly should be cognizant of the fact that someone who sees themselves as deserving to be or qualified to be President of the United States has an extreme level of confidence/arrogance/hubris.

Think of the folk in your past who consistently sought leadership positions, starting with school days . . . 

    

 ScottN wrote:

 

Actually that assumption gets to the root of how entrenched the duopoly that has ruined our electoral process is. There is no law that you have to vote D or R.

 cc_rider wrote:  W.W.W.W.W.W.W,.   Well, winning starts with a "W". Willard too.

 sirdroseph wrote:

 ScottN wrote: 

What on Earth made you think that I thought Mitt was a viable alternative to Obama?  I never said that and wouldn't vote for Mitt with your hand.

 oldslabsides wrote: 
The fact that anybody would want the job is evidence of a huge character flaw if you ask me.  

 ScottN wrote: 
The center piece of Mitt's campaign is Mitt.  All politicians are vain, egomanical, self-absorbed, lying sacks of shit; but this guy leads the pack by a wide margin.

 ScottN wrote: 
Cut taxes, eliminate social programs, start another war. Those techniques have worked so well in the past, why on Earth would we abandon a winning strategy?