Here is information of increases of percentages of votes from Ron Paul's presidential bid 2008 compared to 2012 (this comes from http://www.dailypaul.com/210821/looking-at-the-numbers-2008-vs-2012&sss=1)
Iowa: 10% to 21.4%, an increase of x2.1
NH: 7.7% to 22.9%, an increase of almost x3
SC: 3.7% to 13%, an increase of x3.5
FL: 3.2% to 7%, an increase of x2.18
Those are all the actual stats they posted.
With such increases in those states, it seems like more people are getting fed up with more of the same (candidates, rhetoric, policies, debt, war, over-regulation). More people are getting educated. More people are caring about ideas.
The reason why I am a Ron Paul supporter, is because he's true to his oath concerning the Constitution. Here's the current oath (from http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/oaths_of_office_4.htm):
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
The original one went like this:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Ron Paul keeps both oaths. Also, as part of his philosophy of government, he plans to end our unnecessary and costly wars, lessen our deficit, balance the budget, and give more liberty to the people.
To achieve more liberty, more people need to educated on the amazing (not perfect, but nonetheless amazing) system our Founding Fathers gave us.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Politicians vs. Statesmen
The distinction below between politicians and statesmen is not my original idea, but the words here are my take on the distinction (my words are based on stuff I've heard and read):
There are many politicians today.
There are very few statesmen/women.
Politicians see their oath of office as a formal ceremony but fail to keep their oath.
Statesmen keep their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Politicians try to get government spoils for their constituents
Statesmen are not into the spoils-giving game.
Politicians focus on short great-sounding sound bites.
Statesmen are about ideas.
Politicians vote for what seems good or necessary (no matter the cost).
Statesmen vote to let everyone keep their rights and money.
Politicians don't mind wars, even preemptive ones.
Statesmen avoid war (it should be a later resort) and declare them lawfully.
Politicians think we, the little people, aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves.
Statesmen want to maximize liberty for the people.
Parties are now basically irrelevant.
It's the person and their ideas that matter.
So be careful who you vote for.
There are many politicians today.
There are very few statesmen/women.
Politicians see their oath of office as a formal ceremony but fail to keep their oath.
Statesmen keep their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
Politicians try to get government spoils for their constituents
Statesmen are not into the spoils-giving game.
Politicians focus on short great-sounding sound bites.
Statesmen are about ideas.
Politicians vote for what seems good or necessary (no matter the cost).
Statesmen vote to let everyone keep their rights and money.
Politicians don't mind wars, even preemptive ones.
Statesmen avoid war (it should be a later resort) and declare them lawfully.
Politicians think we, the little people, aren't smart enough to take care of ourselves.
Statesmen want to maximize liberty for the people.
Parties are now basically irrelevant.
It's the person and their ideas that matter.
So be careful who you vote for.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Playing by the rules
I was talking to an acquaintance the other day about politics. He was talking about the strict constitutionalists and how he didn't agree with them. I let him know that I was a strict constitutionalist. Our conversation basically ended there.
I've been thinking about the constitution and how it is treated. Some say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and does not reflect the complexity of our modern world. Thus, they say, we need a living Constitution or a loose interpretation of the document. The problem, I believe, with this argument and suggestion, is that there is nothing anchoring a "living Constitution" or the "loose" interpretation applied to what Ezra Taft Benson called "A Heavenly Banner." Instead, I think there is a simple solution.
All we need to do is play by the rules. We need to amend the Constitution whenever we think it is outdated or does not handle our current situation correctly. If we don't want to live by any of the Constitution, we should amend it out of existence, as the Constitutional Convention did with the Articles of Confederation.
One of the advantages of amending the Constitution is that it puts down the possibility of some faction rising up and having a violent coup, when they don't like where our country is going. Instead, there would be discussion, deliberation, and input from the people. The people would feel that their voices were heard, and would more than likely accept the change (or tolerate it peacefully).
An analogy may help. Pick a sport, any sport. That sport has rules by which the competitors play. Imagine if two teams were in the midst of the game and a referee tells everyone that he doesn't like a rule and so going to ignore that rule. If each player decided to play by his/her rules, then there would be chaos. Many of the fans perhaps would become disenchanted with the sport.
The Constitution has laid out the process by which it can be changed. Constitutional amendment. Those are the rules. So, instead of ignoring the Constitution, we should amend it when needed. Play by the rules!
I've been thinking about the constitution and how it is treated. Some say that the Constitution is old-fashioned and does not reflect the complexity of our modern world. Thus, they say, we need a living Constitution or a loose interpretation of the document. The problem, I believe, with this argument and suggestion, is that there is nothing anchoring a "living Constitution" or the "loose" interpretation applied to what Ezra Taft Benson called "A Heavenly Banner." Instead, I think there is a simple solution.
All we need to do is play by the rules. We need to amend the Constitution whenever we think it is outdated or does not handle our current situation correctly. If we don't want to live by any of the Constitution, we should amend it out of existence, as the Constitutional Convention did with the Articles of Confederation.
One of the advantages of amending the Constitution is that it puts down the possibility of some faction rising up and having a violent coup, when they don't like where our country is going. Instead, there would be discussion, deliberation, and input from the people. The people would feel that their voices were heard, and would more than likely accept the change (or tolerate it peacefully).
An analogy may help. Pick a sport, any sport. That sport has rules by which the competitors play. Imagine if two teams were in the midst of the game and a referee tells everyone that he doesn't like a rule and so going to ignore that rule. If each player decided to play by his/her rules, then there would be chaos. Many of the fans perhaps would become disenchanted with the sport.
The Constitution has laid out the process by which it can be changed. Constitutional amendment. Those are the rules. So, instead of ignoring the Constitution, we should amend it when needed. Play by the rules!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)