Don't always vote, but some do.

A lot of people are going to be willing to vote for the leader of their country, but NOT be willing to go through a 15-30 minute poll for no real benefit.

People like Ron Paul supporters may see it as a way to "Rep their canddiate" which is why for example whenever a cable network show posts a "Who won the debate" question, Ron Paul gets like 80% of the voets despite the fact that he almost never gets voted for.

It's also why ron paul often wins straw polls and the like.

Has the number of inner city and rural kids attending college increased since 1979?  If so, I would say the Department of Education has had an impact on improving lives for the better.  Way back before 1979, children were mainly brought up to believe that the only truths in the world were those contained in The Bible and all it really teaches is how to be obediant slaves of the Masters.

Sure, but then the accuracy of the pollisters come into play if the poll is vastly skewed. In the case of pollisters in Iowa, they nearly hit the nail on the head with the 3-way race between Paul, Santorum and Romney.

Way back before 1979,  Children grew actually competitive with the rest of the world in intelligence.   I would say the exact opposite the Department of Education has done nothing but force schools to try to get their kids to pass ridiculous pointless tests so the school can maintain funding.  The Department of Education is not helping this country it's running the school systems in this country like it runs pretty much everything (GM, Post Office, etc, etc)  miserably.

lol no clue about this guy but some people are so insane here haha^^ like there would really be "this" guy changing all to the better...every guy has some shit ideas as well. every politician will see that the world works not like they think when they are president.

like i said no clue about this guy and maybe hew ould be the best presidient of all time but that would be still not enough to be perfect in any way.

don't kill me for that statement, i'm just like this guy, i always say like it is. wouldn't i be the best for all of you? ;)

Again,  what this country needs more than anything is someone who is Socially liberal in regards to the social rights of people.   Also someone who is Fiscally (truly) conservative (Note our trillions and trillions of dollars of debt and massive inflation).   

Obviously,  Ron Paul isn't perfect.  He has some bad ideas too.  However, more so than any other candidate out there he has the most 'right' ideas on top of his flat out making the most sense and are usually founded in fact, or strong evidence to support his case.

Obviously depending on your age, you might not care much or depending on your political awareness.  I just don't believe that the United States is headed for anywhere good if we keep going this direction.  Watching the primaries for Republican candidates and seeing the things Obama has done,  nothing in this country is changing for the better.   Even the new candidates are talking about going to war with Iran and stopping them.  Why? 

We historically were not a country that got involved in everyone elses affairs (Unless we were forced to)  prior to I would say the 1950s.  SInce then, we have been involved in the business of everyone else around the globe, and arguably we have entered the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, War against Terrorism.  Only one of those being a war what we could call a traditional 'success'.

  We have continued to forge negative relationships with a vast majority of Europe, and just about everywhere else in the world outside of a few nations.    There is a disdain for Americans, American lifestyle and attitude across the globe that really has been a recent development (Past 30 -40 years).  This is all based on our foreign policy and this notion that we are the policemen.   Nobody really 'likes' the police or feels comfortable with the police even when they're a good person, trying their best.  

you did not have to reply to me like i said i don't know this guy and i didn't say anything about his ideas i just think it's crazy (not only because of this guy it's the same in every country about some guys) that some act like some politician is the weapon to do everything better and if he would be president you would see that not everything works like he said it before. doing something on the paper or doing it in real is a different story.

and i read somewhere in this thread that everything is so overregulated in the states compared to other countries. i live in europe and believe me if you think there's much regulation in usa you have no clue about some european countries and i really don't see here that countries with less regulatioins work better than the ones with a lot of regulation for everything. which just means that it's not so easy where regulation is bad or good. sometimess it works much better with sometimes it destroyes a lot.

but i really say nothing against this guy i don't know him just heard about him few times the last week and maybe he would be the best president or whatever of all time.

ahh and you are totally right what you said about what many people on this planet feel about america. i agree that it would be much better for the usa to stop bullying around everywhere that destroys your reputation very fast. not so much in my country but in some other countries.

Just to add to Kasz's point ...

If you actually understand the science of global warming you will realize that it really can be simplified into one number, the climate's sensitivity to co2. Essentially, the greenhouse effect is logarithmic in nature which means that you get a linear increase in temperature for an exponential increase in greenhouse gas emissions; this is typically represented as a number of degree increase in temperature for every doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. In lab conditions a doubling of CO2 translates into a 1 degree Celsius increase in temperature, if you associate all warming over the past 50 years to CO2 the doubling of CO2 in the climate works out to a 0.6 degree Celsius increase in temperature, and yet most of the alarmist projections are based on a doubling in CO2 resulting in a 3.6 (or higher) degree Celsius increase in temperature.

Now, the reason why the alarmist position projects temperatures based on a climate sensitivity to CO2 far greater than what has been observed should be fairly clear. Based on realistic projections of how much CO2 humans could ever produce through fossil fuels, projections based on moderate assumptions do not lead to dangerous warming.

When you factor in CERN's CLOUD research, which would reduce observed climate sensitivity to CO2 to far below 0.6 degrees per doubling of CO2, it becomes impossible to justify the extreme values that are being used for these projections.

Well the fact of the matter is that many people that want to do away with The Department of Education only want to do so because they feel that the education system exposes their kids to things that they don't want them to know anything about particularly subjects that might conclusively demonstrate to them that their religion of choice is no more than a bunch of horse droppings.  Now, I don't think the Department of Education is perfect and it's true that many kids in the school system don't really learn as much as they should because even if ( or especially if ) they go to public schools, they're still exposed to all of the negative influences once they get away from school which would impact them and prevent them from really paying that much attention to what they're supposed to learn in school.

 At any rate, religious home schooling would hardly be any better a replacement.

If the Federal Department of Education was done away with, I would expect the highest number of professionals, etc, to emerge from the states that invested the most money in their own State Departments of Education. 

I don't think you understand the DoE... At all. The DoE isn't so much about what the kids are being taught as much as they give monies to districts that do what they want them to, especially in regards to standardized tests. Since that has happened, we've seen a huge shift from learning as a creative construct, to learning as a rote concept for tests. It has caused significant stagnation in our education system despite the significantly higher and higher amounts of monies poured into the system. Destroying the DoE would return funding and power back to the state and local levels, allowing them a higher degree of freedom. Such freedom would allow schools to focus on education instead of tests - resulting in a much better system. Look at our education standards before and after the establishment of the DoE - its had a generally negative effect on education, not positive.