New Blog: How should we Vote if Ron Paul is *NOT* the GOP Nominee???

[Sentient Void]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?719-How-should-we-Vote-if-Ron-Paul-is-*NOT*-the-GOP-Nominee


We need to have a serious discussion about how we should vote if Ron Paul is not the nominee for the GOP. Between a likely outcome of either Obama or Romney, which is a more preferable outcome, and why?

Before I state who I'd rather have win - give me a second while I change my clothes...

/puts on flame retardant suit

Okay. That's better. Between Romney and Obama, I would rather have Obama win. Now, before I am labeled as a traitor and a hypocrite - hear me out.

There are at least five good reasons off the top of my head as to why we should all prefer this...

[mrsat_98]

Wake me up momma, please.

[talkingpointes]

I created the same thread after Rand endorsed Romney - wait for deletion.

[Sentient Void]

I created the same thread after Rand endorsed Romney - wait for deletion.

Wow. Sad. TPTB in RPF already deleted my thread in General Politics.

Fucking *weak*.

[affa]

if you don't want stupid stupid polls getting deleted, then how about you offer options in your poll such as:

1) write Paul in
or
2) I won't vote
or even
3) vote 3rd party.

your subject line says 'how should we vote' but your question is about 'who would we prefer'. get it straight.

[kathy88]

The worst two choices makes it a non-poll.

[cgainey]

Add an option for Johnson

[tbone717]

Wow. Sad. TPTB in RPF already deleted my thread in General Politics.

Fucking *weak*.

It might be your wording. I think I see what you are getting at, as in what is the preferable outcome for the Liberty Movement, Obama or Romney. The way a lot of people here will vote (i.e. write in, Johnson, Goode, etc) will have little if any bearing on that outcome.

[pcosmar]

I would prefer neither.. but we will likely (barring some miracle) be stuck with one.

I will deal with the consequences either way.
Obama has resisted going to war with Iran, but that may well change.
Romney insists on war,,

The choices SUCK.

[ghengis86]

Poll needs:
Write in RP
Not vote
Gary Johnson
Other third party


Might get a better response

[Brian in Maryland]

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, I will ask for a paper ballot and write him in. Last time I voted for Chuck Baldwin because that's who Ron Paul voted for and I did enough research to say "yeah he looks pretty darn good." This will be my last chance to vote for Ron Paul though and that's who I am voting for.

[tbone717]

There have been a few polls on here recently asking "who are you going to vote for". IIRC the majority here are either write in Paul, or vote Johnson.

But since neither of those two will be in the White House come January, I do think the discussion needs to take place as to which situation is preferable for the Liberty Movement moving forward. Is it better for our side to have Obama in the White House so we can run a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, or is it better to have Romney in so that legislation that we support has a better chance of being signed?

[pcosmar]

Is it better for our side to have Obama in the White House so we can run a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, or is it better to have Romney in so that legislation that we support has a better chance of being signed?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Either of them are about the same.
The end result is the same.. It is only a question of delaying the inevitable.

Who is more likely to delay the OPEN War with Iran? (Third World War leading to a One World Government)

legislation is irrelevant.

[KEEF]

Is it better for our side to have Obama in the White House so we can run a candidate for the GOP nomination in 2016, or is it better to have Romney in so that legislation that we support has a better chance of being signed?

Yeah because it worked with George Bush and his "more humble foreign policy" platform he ran on 2000.

A bought and sold politician auditing the FED, don't mind me, I am just biting the hand that feeds me.


To answer the wuestion though, although I will be writing Paul in if he is not nominated, like what I did in 08, I would rather suffer through 4 years of Obama then a war with Iran and 8 horrible years of Romney. Obama and Romney are the same except Obama has an anti war base to pander to. So four years of hell is better than 8.

[Liberty74]

Gary Johnson for the top ticket.

Blowback is a bitch!

Besides, the country cannot afford Obamney.

[Liberty74]

Yeah because it worked with George Bush and his "more humble foreign policy" platform he ran on 2000.

A bought and sold politician auditing the FED, don't mind me, I am just biting the hand that feeds me.


To answer the wuestion though, although I will be writing Paul in if he is not nominated, like what I did in 08, I would rather suffer through 4 years of Obama then a war with Iran and 8 horrible years of Romney. Obama and Romney are the same except Obama has an anti war base to pander to. So four years of hell is better than 8.

Wrong. Obama has already done more damage in 4 years than Romney could do in 8. The Overton window has moved way Left. That is the game. Once the window is moved in the direction of govt, it stays that way. Look at Europe. It doesn't matter which Party gets in. It's only about which Party is going to control the big monster.

So in order to have a chance of winning, the window must be slowed down.

[Origanalist]

This is a depressing thread, ugh, I need some coffee to clear my head.

[ShaneEnochs]

I won't vote.

[jt8025]

This will be my last chance to vote for Ron Paul though and that's who I am voting for.

This is not the last time you can write in Ron Paul.

You can vote for him in 2016, 2020, 2024...

[jt8025]

This will be my last chance to vote for Ron Paul though and that's who I am voting for.

This is not the last time you can write in Ron Paul.

You can vote for him in 2016, 2020, 2024...

[MJU1983]

If those are my choices I wouldn't vote.

[BSU kid]

A socialist or a neocon....no to both. How could this even be a legit poll on this site?

[CaptUSA]

A socialist or a neocon....no to both. How could this even be a legit poll on this site?Yeah, no kidding. I refuse to participate in this poll the same way I would refuse to participate in an election if those were my only two options.

[VanBummel]

I can't decide which is worse...

With Obama we will be more likely to lose gun freedoms, and have increased taxes and debt, and more government healthcare; granted, Romney won't be much better.

With Romney we will be more likely to go to war with Iran, and Republicans will 'ruber stamp' debt increases and Romneycare; granted, Obama won't be much better.

Either way we'll see large increases to the police/surveillance state, and large restrictions on personal freedom. For this reason, I won't be voting for either, for what that's worth.

It's just like South Park...either way you're getting stuck with a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwhich. :(

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/characters/non-human/giant-douche-and-turd-sandwich.jpg

[No1butPaul]

I've always said I would write-in Ron Paul, but it seems that may not be an option with our ballots. Anyway, upon greater reflection, I've decided to hold off on my decision and see if Ron Paul supporters can come to any consensus about moving our numbers in the same direction to have any influence. Right now, everyone is talking about doing something different ... this only offers the threat of maybe taking some numbers away from Romney, but if he jumps ahead of Obama by a similar percentage, all of our protests may seem meaningless.

I don't know, it's early in the morning (yawn), but still, just want to wait awhile before I commit to do anything.

[Brett85]

To be completely honest, I'm secretly hoping that Romney wins, but I just can't bring myself to actually vote for him. I just don't want to feel responsible for all of the policies that Romney will put in place that I'll disagree with. I would rather have a clear conscience. I also live in a non swing state where my vote won't make any difference anyway. I could vote for Donald Duck and it wouldn't make any difference.

[tbone717]

I've always said I would write-in Ron Paul, but it seems that may not be an option with our ballots. Anyway, upon greater reflection, I've decided to hold off on my decision and see if Ron Paul supporters can come to any consensus about moving our numbers in the same direction to have any influence. Right now, everyone is talking about doing something different ... this only offers the threat of maybe taking some numbers away from Romney, but if he jumps ahead of Obama by a similar percentage, all of our protests may seem meaningless.

I hear you, but reading through this site over the last month or so, I think it will be nearly impossible for the majority to vote in one direction or another. I think the hardcore Paul support will be split in four or five different directions as far as the vote goes, and likely still several different directions as to what we do moving forward from this election year.

[jmdrake]

if you don't want stupid stupid polls getting deleted, then how about you offer options in your poll such as:

1) write Paul in
or
2) I won't vote
or even
3) vote 3rd party.

your subject line says 'how should we vote' but your question is about 'who would we prefer'. get it straight.

Yep. Stupid poll is stupid. There's no way in hell I will "strategically" vote for either Romney or Obama. And I will feel fine the morning after the election no matter which of those two losers wins. If Romney wins than it will at least shut up the Obamabots I know for a while. (I'll never hear the end of them if Obama gets a 2nd term unless the economy totally implodes and he is impeached). If Obama wins then it will shut up the teocons who said "We've got to vote for Romney because he can beat Obama." So it's a win win for me.

[TrishW]

I'm still voting Ron Paul!!

[No1butPaul]

I hear you, but reading through this site over the last month or so, I think it will be nearly impossible for the majority to vote in one direction or another. I think the hardcore Paul support will be split in four or five different directions as far as the vote goes, and likely still several different directions as to what we do moving forward from this election year.

I agree, that is what seems likely to happen. But, you never know ... maybe Ron Paul will try to lead us in one direction and if he gives us a good reason, maybe we can keep our numbers together and actually have some influence in this election. Hard to imagine, I know, but time will tell.

[tbone717]

I agree, that is what seems likely to happen. But, you never know ... maybe Ron Paul will try to lead us in one direction and if he gives us a good reason, maybe we can keep our numbers together and actually have some influence in this election. Hard to imagine, I know, but time will tell.

I'll make the full poll with all available candidates, see what kind of results come of it.

[jmdrake]

Okay. I just read the blog post. And the OP said this.

So no, don't vote for Obama, but also don't vote for Romney. Vote third party (preferably Libertarian, since Gary Johnson, the LP candidate, will be on the ballot of all 50 states, and the LP is the largest third party in the US). Accept the very strong probability that Obama would win as a result of us voting this way - but realize the benefits of this happening.

Ummm....that's what most everybody else is saying! Hardly anyone is planning on voting for Romney.

[Dr.3D]

I'm still trying to figure out how we came to have a party system. Why can't a whole flock of names be on the ballot and let people pick the one they would like?

[XTreat]

He isn't asking who you will vote for. He is asking is it preferable if Romney or Obama wins the election.

I personally think a Obama win is preferable.

[libertyjam]

I can't decide which is worse...

With Obama we will be more likely to lose gun freedoms, and have increased taxes and debt, and more government healthcare; granted, Romney won't be much better.

With Romney we will be more likely to go to war with Iran, and Republicans will 'ruber stamp' debt increases and Romneycare; granted, Obama won't be much better.

Either way we'll see large increases to the police/surveillance state, and large restrictions on personal freedom. For this reason, I won't be voting for either, for what that's worth.

It's just like South Park...either way you're getting stuck with a Giant Douche or a Turd Sandwhich. :(

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/characters/non-human/giant-douche-and-turd-sandwich.jpg

I agree, it is a conundrum. I will not be able to stomach voting for either of these choices, that is what I know.

This seems as good a place as any to post something I ran across, a tea-party website, though. Anyone think it deserves a thread?

LEAKED OBAMAS DEVASTATING 2ND TERM PLANS

A soon-to-be-released, game-changing election book will reveal the blueprint for a second Barack Obama presidential term.

Slated for release Aug. 7 by WND Books, “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Expo... uncovers the template for Obama’s next four years – the actual, extensive plans created by Obama’s own top advisers and progressive strategis

The explosive book unveils all the main areas of Obama’s second-term domestic policy onslaught – jobs, wages, health care, immigration “overhaul,” electoral “reform,” national energy policy, Pentagon plans and much more.

“Just as ‘Unfit for Command’ provided the margin of defeat for John Kerry in 2004, ‘Fool Me Twice’ will ensure Obama serves only one term,” said WND Books publisher Joseph Farah.

“Fool Me Twice” is written by New York Times bestselling author, journalist and radio host Aaron Klein, together with New York Times bestselling author and researcher Brenda J. Elliott.

Just as in 2008, when Obama concealed his true presidential plans behind the rhetoric of ending partisan differences and cutting the federal deficit, his 2012 re-election theme of creating jobs conceals far more than it reveals about his true agenda for a second term.

Order “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Year...

Most conservative books about Obama focus on his radical background and what he has done until now. A small number of ambitious projects attempt to show what America may look like after four more years of Obama based on generalities and what the president has already done.

While many are expressing general concerns over Obama’s future ambitions, “Fool Me Twice” lays bare the devastating details and consequences of a second Obama term as president.

The book is based on exhaustive research into Obama’s upcoming detailed presidential plans and policies, as well as the specific second-term recommendations of major “progressive” groups behind Obama and the Democratic leadership – the organizations that help craft legislation and set the political and rhetorical agenda for the president and his allies.

Here are a few highlights of dozens and dozens of second term plans uncovered in “Fool Me Twice”:

- An expansive, de facto amnesty program for illegal aliens via executive order and interagency directives linked with a reduction in the capabilities of the U.S. Border Patrol and plans to bring in untold numbers of new immigrants with the removal of caps on H-1B visas and green cards.

- Government-funded, neighborhood-based programs to better integrate the newly amnestied immigrants into society, including education centers and healthcare centers. A “federal solution” to ensure that the amnestied immigrants are treated “equitably” across the United States.

- The recreation of a 21st century version of FDR’s Works Progress Administration program within the Department of Labor that would oversee a massive new bureaucracy and millions of new federal jobs;

- Specific plans for a National Infrastructure Bank. This entity would “evaluate and finance infrastructure projects ‘of substantial regional and national importance” and would finance “transportation infrastructure, housing, energy, telecommunications, drinking water, wastewater, and other infrastructures.”

- Wresting control of the military budget from Congress by attempting to place an ”independent panel” in charge of military spending while slashing the defense budget in shocking ways.

- The vastly reduced resources of the U.S. Armed Forces will be spread even thinner by using them to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and step up use of “peacekeeping” deployments;

- A new “green” stimulus program and the founding of a federal “green” bank or “Energy Independence Trust,” which would borrow from the federal treasury to provide low-cost financing to private-sector investments in “clean energy.”

- Detailed plans to enact single-payer health care legislation controlled by the federal government.

Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief for WND and hosts “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio” on New York’s WABC Radio, the nation’s largest talk station. Klein’s program is one of only two weekend shows in the U.S. to make the Talkers Heavy Hundred official list of top American radio shows.

[KEEF]

Wrong. Obama has already done more damage in 4 years than Romney could do in 8. The Overton window has moved way Left. That is the game. Once the window is moved in the direction of govt, it stays that way. Look at Europe. It doesn't matter which Party gets in. It's only about which Party is going to control the big monster.

So in order to have a chance of winning, the window must be slowed down.

Except if Romney wins, then I don't see us having a chance to put a legitimate Liberty-minded candidate on the ballot until 2020. That is unless we find one to run as a democrat and run a Red Republican movement for 2016 (...and no I do not foresee this coming to fruition)

[CaseyJones]

don't put this in RPGC

[tbone717]

I'm still trying to figure out how we came to have a party system. Why can't a whole flock of names be on the ballot and let people pick the one they would like?

Primarily because we are one of the few nations that has a primary process.

[tbone717]

Except if Romney wins, then I don't see us having a chance to put a legitimate Liberty-minded candidate on the ballot until 2020. That is unless we find one to run as a democrat and run a Red Republican movement for 2016 (...and no I do not foresee this coming to fruition)

The other side of the argument being that we have 8 years then to build support for a candidate for the nomination, all the while continuing to increase the number of liberty candidates we have in the House and Senate. If Cruz and Bills make the senate this year, a few more each in 2014, 2016 and 2018 - right out of the gate in 2020 Rand (if he is the one to run) could have a dozen or so Senate endorsements.

[pcosmar]

The other side of the argument being that we have 8 years

Assumes facts not in evidence.

[sailingaway]

however each individual wants.

At this point, I intend to write in Ron Paul

[tbone717]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

I know where you stand on that, but honestly I have heard the "we won't have 4 more years" stuff so many times in my life, I cannot begin to count it. Nonetheless, with all the doom and gloom predictions, I have still managed to build two successful businesses and establish a very nice life for my family in spite of everything that has gone on in the world.

So, whether Romney or Obama wins in November it won't change what I do as an activist. I will still continue to fight for what I believe in and work locally to elect liberty minded candidates to office.

[HardyMacia]

Gary Johnson

[libertyjam]

Primarily because we are one of the few nations that has a primary process.

You have it exactly backwards, we have primary elections and caucuses because of the Party system of nominating process of U.S. presidential elections.


The modern nominating process of U.S. presidential elections currently consists of two major parts: a series of presidential primary elections and caucuses held in each state, and the presidential nominating conventions held by each political party. This process was never included in the United States Constitution, and thus evolved over time by the political parties to clear the field of candidates.

[CaseyJones]

Gary Johnson

hey got any leftover Bob Barr stuff?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?148880-Bob-Barr-bumperstickers-and-glossy-trifolds

[tbone717]

You have it exactly backwards, we have primary elections and caucuses because of the Party system of nominating process of U.S. presidential elections.

Either way, it does not matter. This is the system that we have so we work within that system as best we can. As an activist, I do what I can within the system to further the goals in mind - if the system changes and we have a myriad of different parties, then I will adjust my work accordingly.

[ZENemy]

Some people (not attacking the OP or anyone in this thread) just DON'T GET IT...

We (Ron Paul people and I) HAVE no interest in Obama Or Romney, I would vote for the alligator that bit off captain hooks hand before I voted for Mitt the flip flopping disingenuous piece of shit, this man has not even shown us how bad he really is, he aint even in office yet and look at how awful he is? I would vote for the mista mista lady from happy gilmore before I would vote for Frank Marshall Davis JR with his bullshit rhetoric and idiot supporters that want a free house.

[Dr.3D]

Primarily because we are one of the few nations that has a primary process.
I believe that needs to be abolished.

[tbone717]

I believe that needs to be abolished.

Well maybe many years down the road it will be. But for now, it is what it is and as activists we can work within that system to see more liberty candidates elected at the local, state and federal level.

[Lindsey]

None of the above. I will not be complicit in either of those scenarios.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm writing in RP, but I understand SV's point here.

Romney would be a disaster for this effort, and push us back a decade if not longer.

[Tod]

Personally, I think it would be preferable if Obama won over Romney because it would speed up the decline, thus hastening the correction needed. If Romney wins (unlikely), the decline will still occur, but probably take longer and lull Americans back to sleep. (Some) Americans are waking up and that needs to continue.

Obviously, the only really desirable solution would be for RP to win, and that is who I will be voting for.

[tbone717]

Personally, I think it would be preferable if Obama won over Romney because it would speed up the decline, thus hastening the correction needed. If Romney wins (unlikely), the decline will still occur, but probably take longer and lull Americans back to sleep. (Some) Americans are waking up and that needs to continue.

Obviously, the only really desirable solution would be for RP to win, and that is who I will be voting for.

I see where you are coming from with regards to the decline. I am of the opinion though, that we do not currently have enough elected officials in place to take the lead in proposing solutions for a collapse and therefore if such a collapse does occur that we will be thrust into a European style socialism as opposed to a free market/libertarian solution. That is why I am leaning more towards having Romney in to slow down the pace of decline, so we can grow the movement at the grassroots level, and increase our representation at the local, state and federal levels.

[NoOneButPaul]

I see where you are coming from with regards to the decline. I am of the opinion though, that we do not currently have enough elected officials in place to take the lead in proposing solutions for a collapse and therefore if such a collapse does occur that we will be thrust into a European style socialism as opposed to a free market/libertarian solution. That is why I am leaning more towards having Romney in to slow down the pace of decline, so we can grow the movement at the grassroots level, and increase our representation at the local, state and federal levels.

I tend to agree.

When the collapse happens i'd rather a Romney in than an Obama. I get the logic behind speeding it up but you'd be speeding it with a man who will give us full blown socialism instead.

No Thanks.

[tbone717]

I tend to agree.

When the collapse happens i'd rather a Romney in than an Obama. I get the logic behind speeding it up but you'd be speeding it with a man who will give us full blown socialism instead.

No Thanks.

Take a look at Greece for example. They have collapsed and who is there to propose the solutions? The Commies and the Nazis. What happens if we collapse here, and the only people in government that are proposing free market solutions are in a small minority.

I think we need more time, and more like minded folks elected into office to have a louder voice in the event of a full scale collapse.

[fisharmor]

I'm writing in Paul.
If I lived in a state where that wasn't possible, I'd go to the polls and cast an empty ballot.

[BuddyRey]

Obama is the greatest thing to happen to the cause of liberty and free markets in ages.

The longer he's in office, the more radical and pissed off the people will get, which is exactly what we need.

[Elwar]

I will be writing in Ron Paul.

But as for whom I would rather have win...

For a purely short term selfish reason, I would prosper more with Romney as president. I work for the evil military industrial complex and a Romney win would be a windfall in wars wars and more wars which gives me a higher salary. Of course, we would all be screwed and we would have to go back to living in constant fear and it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for our country as we know it.

But for a purely long term selfish reason, I would rather Obama win so that there is a chance in 2016 to put someone in who will actually want to fix things and move us toward liberty. Though that means 4 more years of struggling and a very likely scenario where our country will fall off the financial cliff.

But my sig says it all.

[truelies]

I will write in Ron Paul.

BHO/Romney- doesn't matter who wins. The USA is on its way to an attempt at some sort of Green (commie liberation theology flavoured) 1000 Year Reich which will likely fail but manage to kill four billion people in the process of failing........... or 6.5 billion in the process of succeeding.

[ZenBowman]

Gary Johnson.

It should be crystal clear that it is a protest vote.

[trey4sports]

whichever campaign pays me more to stuff their lit. in a communal dumpster. :)

[Anti Federalist]

I know where you stand on that, but honestly I have heard the "we won't have 4 more years" stuff so many times in my life, I cannot begin to count it. Nonetheless, with all the doom and gloom predictions, I have still managed to build two successful businesses and establish a very nice life for my family in spite of everything that has gone on in the world.

So, whether Romney or Obama wins in November it won't change what I do as an activist. I will still continue to fight for what I believe in and work locally to elect liberty minded candidates to office.

Precisely why I intend to write in RP.

In fact, if I were to look at it strictly from my own personal POV, I would be inclined to vote Obama, since right now, I've never made as much money in my life as I am right now.

Then again, Romney could make changes that may impact my business in positive way as well.

But I realize that neither of these clowns has very much impact on that aspect of my life.

Where they do have real influence: whether my son will have to fight in a bloody war for empire, whether I will be placed under more surveillance in the coming year, what my savings in dollars will be worth in the future, they are both exactly the same.

Thus, No One But Paul.

[Humanae Libertas]

Vote for peace by not voting at all.

[Aratus]

-----> me really likes gary johnson

-----> my mitt vote split things 77.77 v. 22.22

-----> i may stay home in november

[pcosmar]

Vote for peace by not voting at all.

That only insures that another choice will be imposed upon you.
A large part of the problem IMHO,, the minority votes for this shit as it is.

Even a write in vote for "none of the above" registers disapproval.
And certainly shit may still be imposed,,

But I will not vote FOR it,, nor will I remain silent in the face of it.

[kahless]

It is like a choice between Hitler and Stalin. However I realize under Obama there is no chance of any improvement in health insurance rates. Due to Obama, for the first time in my life I cannot afford health insurance and if I cancel it I am looking at tax penalties.

I already had a 30% health insurance rate increase this year that my carrier attributes to Obamacare. Now they are asking for another 25% increase. It is already unaffordable but if I drop my insurance I will be receive the Obamacare tax penalties next year.

[DamianTV]

I slightly disagree. Since we are all well aware that our past presidents did not hold the real power, we should be aware that regardless of the outcome of an Obama / Romney election, the real power is in the hands of a small group of dominant men that operate above the position of President; The BANKS. The REAL Owners of this country.

I dont think it would make any difference if people went to the polls or not. Maybe we should even boycott the staged election. One of the other problems of the election is we the people will not be given the chance to vote on anything of any real importance. We are given a chance to vote on things that we are told are important, when all we are doing is choosing between Coke and Pepsi. We vote to get rid of Red Light Cameras, some judge will come along and overrule the vote of the people. The votes that do have influence are made by those that Represent the Power Interests, and those that make the important votes are mostly bought and paid for.

I'd say Boycott the Illusory Election!

[Sentient Void]

There's been a massive, vast majority boycott of the electoral process for decades if not at least the past century. How has that worked out so far? But I addressed this, as well as writing-in Ron Paul, and even the non-voting position, in the article.

So many responses to this thread are so dense, though. Clearly only a few have actually read the article - and far more simply knee-jerk reacted to the thread title and/or the poll completely out of the context of the article, which is exactly what I'm calling for in regards to the poll. I mean, there are about 1000 views on this thread with less than a day on the boards, and only 300 views of the article (which include I'm sure a decent amount of views from the others places in my social network that I linked it).

How do some of you (not all) expect to seriously discuss the issues with people who initially *disagree* with you, when you can't even discuss things with people who *AGREE* right off the bat?

Sheesh. Read the article!

Thanks to those who took everything properly in context and read what I'm implying, here. Seriously.

[Sentient Void]

Yep. Stupid poll is stupid.

The fact is, one of these two outcomes are above and beyond the most probable outcomes. If you actually *read* the article, and take the poll in context, *which the poll calls for*, you'll see that I'm not saying which one people should vote for, but that which one is more preferable for fostering a growing liberty movement, and which outcome may end up hurting more than helping.

I'm not even saying that the discussion is settled, that this is how it is and that's that, et cetera - I'm saying we *need* to have this discussion, and position ourselves accordingly. I'm open to the alternative that Romney is a better outcome (and could potentially be convinced of this), but I just really don't think that is the case.

So no, poll isn't 'stupid' - it's perfectly relevant within the context of this discussion.

If you want to make yourselves simply feel better - you can make a poll with all of the other questions. But this will accomplish nothing. We will be much mroe a potent force if we engage in legitimate discourse based on the reality of our situation, and focus-fire out effort.

[Sentient Void]

don't put this in RPGC

Where the hell am I supposed to put it? It needs to be in front of traffic. I tried putting it in General Politics, but *noooooo* - the 'moderators' instead decided to delete it. We can't have any real, critical discussion on anything! It's ridiculous.

Tell whichever moderator that deleted my thread I said thanks, BTW.

[Anti Federalist]

§656:12 Write-in Blanks

At the end of the list of candidates for each office, there shall be left as many blank lines as there are offices to be filled which a voter may use to write in the name of any person for whom the voter desires to vote.

http://nhrsa.org/law/656-12-write-in-blanks/

NH write ins.


1) A divided, gridlocked government is certainly preferable to one that is mostly if not totally controlled by the Statist, militarist, hypocrite GOP (I think Republicans will probably end up taking control of the Senate as well as holding the House, or at least holding the House).

2) When the proverbial shit really starts to hit the fan under Obama - at least the dems and everyone can't say, 'See?! See what happens when you elect and institute free market policies?!'. Clearly, none of the policies would be free market ones, but we all know a Romney presidency will be painted that way, regardless.

3) The GOP establishment deserves the punishment of not having our votes and thus losing to Obama (while I wouldn't vote for Obama, I certainly won't vote for Romney) due to their heavy use of dirty tricks and treating Paul and Paul supporters... This will set in the reality that they need us, and that without us (independents, libertarians, constitutionalists, and old-school conservatives), they will rarely, if ever, win the presidency again.

Also, see the article 'Ron Paul Supporters are a Scourge on the Republican Party' for more context...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.p...publican-Party

4) If the GOP wins, they will be encouraged to continue to do what they've always done.

5) It would make for good entertainment just to see the GOP establishment go apoplectic over a second term for Obama

All valid points, as to why a vote for Obamney is pointless.

The idea that write ins won't convey a message is the only thing that I might take issue with.

As I and others have noted, the percentages are usually figured down to .01

If, all of a sudden, 5 to 10 percent of the GOP dried up and blew away in November, I think it would be pretty clear where they went.

That said, I would not discourage voting for Johnson at all.

[Sentient Void]

AF - do you plan on voting for Johnson, writing in Ron Paul, or staying home?