Vote for Massie in this Straw Poll

[PAF]

I don't recall ever implying (or outright saying) that any particular person would (or wouldn't) vote for this person or that one.

It's not the kind of statement or argument I am generally inclined to make, as I don't really care about such things.

Vote (or not) for whomever you please. I don't think it really matters, either way.

I do. I remember everything:

Post in thread 'Conservatives for Central Planning'

Jun 17, 2025

Nope, sorry.

If you think you are the exception, then you are just fooling yourself (or you are being contrary just for the sake of being contrarian).

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

Nope. I see and raise your sorry; with President [even Ron Paul!] comes a Senate and a Congress. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already analysis paralysis'd myself a long time ago and came to the conclusion that I'd be better off without. Like that cat

• PAF

 

[Anti Globalist]

How rich that this poll added Trump when he's not even eligible to run again.

 

[69360]

How rich that this poll added Trump when he's not even eligible to run again.

For now, I wouldn't put it past him to try.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I do. I remember everything:

Post in thread 'Conservatives for Central Planning'

Jun 17, 2025

Nope, sorry.

If you think you are the exception, then you are just fooling yourself (or you are being contrary just for the sake of being contrarian).

Ron Paul for President! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...

Nope. I see and raise your sorry; with President [even Ron Paul!] comes a Senate and a Congress. Thanks, but no thanks. I've already analysis paralysis'd myself a long time ago and came to the conclusion that I'd be better off without. Like that cat

• PAF

Nothing I said in that exchange had anything whatsoever to do with whether or for whom you ever voted.

It was about (1) the fact that sociopolitical hierarchies will always exist, (2) the fact that there will always be individuals at the tops of those hierarchies (regardless of whether they are called "princes", or "presidents", or "CEOs of private security firms", or whatever), and (3) that those who deny they want the people at the tops of those hierarchies to agree with them about political ideology, policies, etc. are liars or fools (or both). For example, I myself want the people at the tops of those hierarchies to be like and agree with Ron Paul.

Voting had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[PAF]

Nothing I said in that exchange had anything whatsoever to do with whether or for whom you ever voted.

It was about (1) the fact that sociopolitical hierarchies will always exist, (2) the fact that there will always be individuals at the tops of those hierarchies (regardless of whether they are called "princes", or "presidents", or "CEOs of private security firms", or whatever), and (3) that those who deny they want the people at the tops of those hierarchies to agree with them about political ideology, policies, etc. are liars or fools (or both). For example, I myself want the people at the tops of those hierarchies to be like and agree with Ron Paul.

Voting had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

First off, I agree, it is true, hierarchies will always exist.

But, "at the tops of hierarchies" does imply voting, as does your quote "Ron Paul for president! ... or King! ... or Whatever! ...".

While it would be nice to have somebody be like and agree with Ron Paul, have my/your views at the tops of those hierarchies, it probably wouldn't last too long if the people within those hierarchies didn't agree with him, you or me. It would be very short lived.

I'll change your sentence up a little to suit what I personally would like to see: I myself want the people at the bottoms and middles of those hierarchies to be like and agree with Ron Paul, which would be much more productive and last a little longer. Heck, we can't even get that to happen here on RPF, can you imagine if we did?