This is precisely why I hate most of the people I meet in life.

the ignorance of Florida voters seems extreme but the same shit is happening all over the world. people who actualy decide for their candidate based on their performance and policy are vastly outnumbered by people who don't follow the issues and vote based on subjective criteria (like good looks, pleasant voice, personal life, gender, race, whatever) or some hearsay they picked up along the way. it's all down to slogans these days... humanity is so pathetic. fuck, no wonder we haven't made contact with the aliens yet - in their lingo "planet Earth" probably translates as "Comedy Central"

I couldn't tell you the exact policies of the major parties running for election in my country either, just their general philosophies and the main issues they want to push for. Of course that may change when the election draws near, though.

Need to add that elections here are not based around one person, we're voting for the entire party, so there's much less variation in party politics from election to election.

Edit: While several of us can be shocked and awed by the perceived ignorance of politics by the interviewed people shown in this video, keep in mind that it's really not something most people have any interest in. I mean, we're all like that when it comes to one issue or another. For instance, there's probably plenty of us who are much less informed than we should want to be concerning the environment, diplomacy, economics and education, and there's probably lots of people who are knowledgable in those areas who're shocked at our ignorance and lack of understanding of them. They're all as important (if not more so) as knowing the policies of a candidate in order to make an informed decision about who would make the better president. That's not to say these people shouldn't seriously consider getting informed, but there is a limit to how much energy and free time one can spend on doing just that. Part of the reason most of the persons interviewed could only give us slogans and talking points is because that's all they've been told in debates, adds and campaign speeches. It's not that they're ignorant idiots, they could just have other things, more important to them, to do than researching the candidates' political plans. How about the news networks give us a real political debate on the telly instead of the soap opera preformances we've sen thus far?

I think probably if the guy had been asking "do you know who Ron Paul is?", that probably would be a better explanation for why RP didn't win.

It is worrying to think of the number of people that are voting without knowing the policies of any candidate.

I did notice that most of the people were pretty clear about which party's candidate they were planning to vote for. I don't know why there were so many Democrats interviewed, either, since Florida is pretty evenly split, and they probably weren't going to vote in the Republican primary anyway.

Ron Paul supporters probably did more damage than his opposers. "Oh, you're not voting for Ron Paul? Let me tell you WHY you're a FOOL."

Never quite understood why so many liberalsifters support(ed) Ron Paul when he's the opposite of left-wing Big Gummint socialism. Ron Paul means small government and no national health care, Social Security, DEA, FDA, FCC, SEC, etc. No more gun control, affirmative action and political correctness. No more group hugs and badly legislated greenvangelical fanatacism. No more price controls and subsidies.

I love 98% of what RP represents but his naivety about geopolitics was simply unacceptable. And he was a cult of personality, not a leader.

you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.

but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.

love your injected innacurate generalizations to this video qm and Mink

>> ^quantumushroom:
Never quite understood why so many liberalsifters support(ed) Ron Paul when he's the opposite of left-wing Big Gummint socialism.

I think it's because he'd represent real change. Unlike Republicans and so-called conservatives, he really does want to shrink the government. Unlike most Republicans, he seems to come to his convictions honestly, rather than just spouting it as an lure to the poor and middle class to vote for another bought-and-paid-for tool of industry.

Personally I was rooting for Ron Paul to win the nomination, because it would be a sign that the neocons were finally being rejected by their own base.

Us liberals like lost causes, too. Things like peace, a healthy environment, civil rights. Ron Paul's speeches during debates often had the lefty tone of "fight the power for peace!"

He was for a return to the Constitution, something liberals have had to fight for lately too, what with Guantanamo and all.

It isn't until you start thinking about abolishing the EPA, FDA, FTC, SEC, FRB, that you start to go "hey, wait a minute, don't those do good things?"

Still, if it was Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, I'd probably vote for him, because he represents a bigger break from the last 8 years than she would. He wouldn't be able to shut down all those organizations unilaterally, and both parties would likely act to prevent him from doing so.

And I'd know for sure that nuking Iran is the furthest thing from his mind.

QM may be right on one account, though - RP supporters doing more harm than good. What with chasing people in angry mobs and all.

Hey i was born in Florida and this in no way is a good representation of the fine people of Florida...oh wait yes it is, now im sad.

The ignorance is what most politicians want and gain from... Ron Paul was a refreshing and hope-inspiring exeption. Too bad it didn't work out.

I can only imagine that some of the responses would be different if he weren't on a beach. You're not quite setting yourself up for intelligent politcal discussion there. Of course though, they're only aiming for the dim it seems.

These people have a LOT in common with the current president.

Our country is split between left and right that stalemate constantly. Under those conditions the only "policy" that matters is which side wins and how they can engage the other side. Who cares who has a better policy if nothing happens with it? It seems like the people in the video are addressing that question less than stupidly once you consider that situation.
I used to get worked up about policy just to be disappointed that nothing happened. Now I don't care a whole lot about whether obama or clinton wins, just which one can beat the Republican and that will depend on who's more popular. It sucks but that's America.

Gonna go with the "No Vote" on this one.

^Same here, no vote.

But before I go, I'll tell you which policies of Ron Paul I DON'T like. Here's how I went about it. Google "ron paul". Go to his website. Click on Issues. Click a random issue category. Read. Pick out ridiculous things.

I clicked on Health Freedom, because I heard Ron Paul earned an M.D. I figured if there's one area he must have correct, it must be in the health area. It seems I was wrong.

"I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments."

Alternative medicine. Like acupuncture? Magnetic healing stones? Man, that's smart.

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements."

So NO barrier against things like new untested drugs is better than a barrier which catches at least SOME things? Man that's almost too smart for me to comprehend.

"I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Right... Let's HELP the chances of having a smallpox epidemic. I know I'm not the only one who likes having their colon hanging OUTSIDE their ass.

>> ^MINK:
you're not all wrong there, qm. also don't forget ron paul is against "net neutrality" regulation, but the same people upvoting his videos also upvote "SAVE THE INTERNET!!!!" crap too. it's called kneejerking. or circlejerking.
but QM, your attitude to the principles of international law and sovereignty is also unacceptable, your assessment of the dangers of Iraq taking over the world in 45 minutes was wildly inaccurate, the amount of money spent on the war is completely unjustifiable, the corruption involved outweighs any good intentions on the part of the protagonists, and it is laughable that you would criticise a libertarian for "not leading enough" lolololol. just lololol. kthxbye.


Ron paul is against net neutrality regulation. Another word for net neutrality regulation is the Fairness Doctrine. The Fairness Doctrine requires that holders of broadcast licenses present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. Key word: REQUIRES
Ron Paul, it would seem, is overwhelmingly consistent in his views on minimal government regulation.
Excellent use of quotations to skew the true meaning.

*EIA

Adding video to channels (Eia) - requested by EndAll.