Who would we rather win? What's better for the liberty movment?

[Havax]

Just go with the hypothetical that only one of these two are going to win. Which would be better for the liberty movement? Answering one or the other does NOT mean that you prefer one candidate over the other or even plan on voting for them.

Obama - because it would further polarize the GOP to our liberty corner and give Rand or another liberty candidate a chance in 2016?

or

Romney - because it would stagnate *some* of the economic statism and at least tone down the government-fixes-everything rhetoric.

The downside of Obama being obviously the further destruction of the country, and the downside of Romney being the same, but shifting people away from republicans again and the house + senate becoming democratically controlled again.

[Anti Federalist]

Obama/Biden

A Romney "win" would set "our" efforts back decades.

[roho76]

Neither but the GOP establishment and the Liberal voters needs to learn a lesson. So I voted O/B. The GOP needs to know they will never win another election with these yahoo's. The Liberal voters need to know that it's not all sunshine and lolly pops with the Bomba. If the GOP win it will ruin Rand's chance in '16' and it will perpetuate the left/right paradigm and nothing will get fixed. The best thing for the establishment is to have a different party in power every 4 years. Obama will only be able to viably be able to blame Bush for a little longer. Eventually people will have to face the facts that everything is the result of his actions and not the person that came before him. I could be wrong though.

[Drex]

Obama. Because it gives a new GOP field in 2016 and also hopefully wakes up the GOP that ROMNEY AND MCCAIN DID NOT WORK!

[pcosmar]

Both are losers.
not a poll option.

[Havax]

Both are losers.
not a poll option.

Please read the thread next time before clogging it up with nonsensical statements.

I also think it's important Romney doesn't win because that would just give credibility to establishment candidates. We need to show them they can't win.

[Kodaddy]

I have thought about this long and hard. I haven't come up with an answer. I detest both choices. Actually, to me, they are so very similar that it hardly seems like a choice at all. What do we do? What do I do? I want my voice heard, but I want it to be heard saying, "I've had enough of this bullshit!"
I pray someone can make an argument, either way, that I can reconcile with my conscience.
What do I do?

[sailingaway]

your poll is way too limiting.

[pcosmar]

Please read the thread next time before clogging it up with nonsensical statements.

I also think it's important Romney doesn't win because that would just give credibility to establishment candidates. We need to show them they can't win.

I read the thread,, and voiced my opinion.


your poll is way too limiting.

that was my thought as well.
If I were to expand on it,,,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqWyJfi0b0Y

[Jingles]

In all honestly, Obama is probably better for the liberty movement so long as the House (at least) is in the hands of Republicans. If the state of government federal government stays as it is currently (with us adding some liberty people into the house and senate) it will be perfect for us. A Romney presidency is just going to be GW Bush all over again and I don't want to live with the suck up, apologetic GOP anymore. Romney as president would just destroy any hopes of anything. I've already have seen so called "principled" conservatives bending back over heels to make Romney look good and ignore all principles.

For example my friend's Dad. Very smart intelligent man and not wanting Romney at all. Suddenly, Romney is the nominee. OMG ROMNEY IS THE BEST EVER LET ME MAKE EXCUSES FOR EVERYTHING EVER BLAH BLAH BLAH...

I don't want that back ever again.

[Liberty74]

I hate both Obama and Romney although Ryan is the better of the four in the pack of gangsters. I don't buy this idea that Obama needs to win for Liberty to win. If Obama wins, WE LOSE. Why? The undocumented worker has already done great damage through laws and executive orders moving the "overton window" to the left. This becomes the "political norm" and if anyone wants to move it right (back), the system labels those people (us) as radicals. That window can't keep moving left. As Ron Paul says, "I don't agree with Romney on much but I like his management style. You can talk to him and he will listen without making knee jerk decisions." (paraphrasing). With Romney, we can stop that window from moving too far left and maybe just maybe get Romney to move to our side on a some issues. Heck, he might surprise us as we know the guy loves to flip flop all over the place.

I am right on this people. All one has to do it look at Europe. There is no longer a discussion about freedom and liberty from their political parties. It's all about who is going to control the big bad monster (government). What is so great about that???

Obama is a socialist at best and a commie at worst. Romney is a capitalist crony at best and a socialist at worst.

Regardless, supporting Gary Johnson 2012.

[RickyJ]

Neither. What would be better is that Ron Paul wins in a landslide and the bankers leave this nation with their tails between their legs hoping we will never find them.

[Brett85]

In all honestly, Obama is probably better for the liberty movement so long as the House (at least) is in the hands of Republicans.

Having a Republican Congress is irrelevant when we currently have a President who simply ignores Congress and passes laws through endless executive orders. President Obama is acting more like a dictator than a President. There is no check and balance on a man who ignores Congress and thinks that he's above the law.

[Xhin]

Obama because it will hasten the inevitable economic collapse.

[phill4paul]

If you vote for a federalist you lose either way. No matter what it is your scheming for.

[AuH20]

Depends if the republicans lose the house. If they lose the House, it may be "game over." Carbon credits, wholesale amnesty, state bailouts, another stimulus or two, a new assault weapons ban, etc. A complete freaking nightmare.................

[Working Poor]

I also think it's important Romney doesn't win because that would just give credibility to establishment candidates. We need to show them they can't win.

I think the republicans do not want to win that's why they made sure it was Romney that got the nod.

[DamianTV]

This poll is the equivilant of being polled "would you prefer Death by Lethal Injection or Death by Hanging?" Dead is still dead, and one step closer to the death of this country is what will happen if either of them get the position. Romney intends to cut out our legs from under us, Obama starts by cutting off our arms. So lets quit kidding ourselves about the Illusion of Democracy here. We've all been paying attention to how we have been completely scammed out of the election. There is no Democracy. The only thing left is the Illusion of Choice. And do we really think that it wont be rigged in the Final Game (of the election) in favor of Obama?

[Muwahid]

Easy, Obama. 2016 lets us play the whole game again!

[Feeding the Abscess]

To be honest, either way it's bad news. Obama will give the GOP 4 years to further co-opt the liberty movement.

[otherone]

Obama crammed his national healthcare down our throats in term one. Term two may include things like "national weapon registration" (for our own safety of course). Do you think Willard would tinker with the second amendment? The writings on the wall, folks. The last safeguard to our Liberty is at stake here.

[CaptUSA]

Like others have said, the personalities don't really matter much to the liberty movement - it's the legislation passed that gets people going.

I've gone back and forth several times about which would be better for us. It's not as simple as black and white since there are so many variables.

For example, in a Romney win, does the GOP base finally start to realize that it's going to take more than your father's republican to make changes happen?
In a Romney win, is it easier for devoted adherents to liberty to get involved and make a bigger presence in their local GOP?
In an Obama win, does the GOP think they can automatically win in 2016 and therefore pick the safest candidate? That won't be Rand Paul. Would we be playing the 2012 election over again with the exact same results?

But,
In a Romney win, does he completely ruin the brand of the GOP? Do Republicans get blamed for the collapse? Would we be electing Dems for the next 20 years?
In an Obama win, do we get more and more social "conservatives" involved at the local levels? So much so that our liberty movement is drowned out?


Given the complexities, I don't think we can know. Therefore, I would suggest to you that you vote for the candidate you want to win and don't vote strategically. That way, even if your strategy is wrong, you haven't contributed to the mess. The only thing I can tell you is that you have to get involved locally. All of our wins this round happened when our people were heavily involved in their local parties. This is what we have to build on. The top of the ticket is meaningless except in the way it affects our abilities to grow inside the Republican party.

[moostraks]

Seeing the love for Romney here has me thinking...while there is a legitimate case to be made for Romney possibly not pushing a carbon credit type agenda upon us that we can all see in the works with Obama's second term, is it worth it to gamble what is likely a Republican push for the war with Iran? If tptb want war, would much rather see them have to use Obama, the peace president, as it is a harder media sell to the public. I think the vote is irrelevant, though, fwiw, as I think the system is controlled enough now that we see voting theater and the intended winner will be placed in power according to the agenda decided upon by those pulling the strings. Much as seeing Mitt drop out the way he did last primary time and then steam rolls to a win this time (with a few theatrical moments to make the win seem genuine). This moment in time was decided upon before even Obama was elected.

[cajuncocoa]

Both are losers.
not a poll option.


your poll is way too limiting.

I agree.

[Todd]

Both are losers.
not a poll option.

This^

[Feeding the Abscess]

Obama crammed his national healthcare down our throats in term one. Term two may include things like "national weapon registration" (for our own safety of course). Do you think Willard would tinker with the second amendment? The writings on the wall, folks. The last safeguard to our Liberty is at stake here.

Considering Willard passed gun restrictions while governor of Massachusetts, yes.

[matt0611]

Obama winning is better for the movement. Will definitely be worse on the country in the short term though.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Obama winning is better for the movement. Will definitely be worse on the country in the short term though.

It will only be good for the movement if the liberty movement isn't further compromised/co-opted by the GOP.

[Carlybee]

It simply doesn't matter. The lie of the left right paradigm marches on. If people can't grasp the concept that either way we are screwed then perhaps we will learn from collapse.

[The Gold Standard]

Obama crammed his national healthcare down our throats in term one. Term two may include things like "national weapon registration" (for our own safety of course). Do you think Willard would tinker with the second amendment? The writings on the wall, folks. The last safeguard to our Liberty is at stake here.

Why wouldn't he? His record is worse on gun control than Obama's is.

[SDMF]

Obama/Biden

A Romney "win" would set "our" efforts back decades.

I agree totally

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

My personal opinion is that if Obama wins, this will be the last Presidential election in this republic's history.

Yes, I think Obama will declare himself "Chief Executive for Life".

[pcosmar]

Do you think Willard would tinker with the second amendment? The writings on the wall, folks. The last safeguard to our Liberty is at stake here.

Yes, Absolutely. He is no friend at all.
Did you expect Bush to give us the Patriot Act and TSA?
Who fucking gave us "Homeland Security"? (what a Fascist idea)

[Cleaner44]

Obama/Biden

A Romney "win" would set "our" efforts back decades.

This says it perfectly.

[Elwar]

Romney winning would be like Obama winning an 8 year term.

Personally though, my plan is to take advantage of the huge sums of military spending over the next few years so a Romney win would be better for my pocketbook. But that would just be about hoarding money in preparation for the collapse.

[AuH20]

Romney winning would be like Obama winning an 8 year term.

Personally though, my plan is to take advantage of the huge sums of military spending over the next few years so a Romney win would be better for my pocketbook. But that would just be about hoarding money in preparation for the collapse.

Obama with a democratic house and democratic senate would be horrific compared to a Romney presidency.
Obama with a Republican controlled Congress would be preferable to a Romney presidency however.

[Dissent]

Obama/Biden 100%. Several reasons. only 4 more years vs potential 8 for Romney,I think Obama can do more harm in the next 4 years than Romney could in 8 years and that is a good thing because things need to get so bad the people want real change..

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

To be honest, either way it's bad news. Obama will give the GOP 4 years to further co-opt the liberty movement.

I respectfully disagree. Each and every one of those 1,460 days is one more day of headlines, one more day of incremental loss of liberty...those who are not awake to our current political reality will wake, one by one and day by day under a second Obama administration.

I further posit that all four years of his second term will more accurately mirror the first two of his first administration; balls-out socialism and bold faced totalitarianism. This could be argued as a net positive in the long run, forcing the neocon over-50-and-up crowd to take a great big chomp out of a reality sandwich.

Sure, the good Doctor will be removing himself from the Legislature, but it's safe to bet that he will not remove himself from the national conversation. By 2014, at the latest, given Dr. Paul's trajectory (relative unknown until 2007, rising prominence in national discussion between then and the 2011 primaries) men and women who share his philosophy will be far more attractive to those whose main motivation in 2012 was no more complicated than "Get that Obama out of the White House! Anyone is better than Obama!"

By 2016, these people will be so war-weary from the headlines and the unchecked awfulness that will be Obama's second administration, a McCain, Romney, or Gingrich (or Santorum) will not cut the mustard. They will be clamoring for liberty. Our greatest challenge?

Not saying "I told you so."

[kahless]

I hate both Obama and Romney although Ryan is the better of the four in the pack of gangsters. I don't buy this idea that Obama needs to win for Liberty to win. If Obama wins, WE LOSE. Why? The undocumented worker has already done great damage through laws and executive orders moving the "overton window" to the left. This becomes the "political norm" and if anyone wants to move it right (back), the system labels those people (us) as radicals. That window can't keep moving left. As Ron Paul says, "I don't agree with Romney on much but I like his management style. You can talk to him and he will listen without making knee jerk decisions." (paraphrasing). With Romney, we can stop that window from moving too far left and maybe just maybe get Romney to move to our side on a some issues. Heck, he might surprise us as we know the guy loves to flip flop all over the place.

I am right on this people. All one has to do it look at Europe. There is no longer a discussion about freedom and liberty from their political parties. It's all about who is going to control the big bad monster (government). What is so great about that???

Obama is a socialist at best and a commie at worst. Romney is a capitalist crony at best and a socialist at worst.

Regardless, supporting Gary Johnson 2012.

^Your post in its entirety are my sentiments exactly.

To add, the slight difference does have an impact on my bottom line. Despite my seething hatred for Romneycare and the individual state mandate, Romney is running on Ron's plank of allowing healthcare competition across state lines which is a solution to reduce premiums. His repeal and replace is of course less than ideal but I cannot afford the continuing Obamacare rate increases which are bankrupting me.

Obama has no plan to remedy the increasing premium costs. 30% last two years year, 30% this year and who knows about the next 4 years. I just cannot afford it.

[roho76]

I'm actually surprised by those numbers.

[Athan]

This poll sucks. I voted, but only because THERE WAS NO THIRD CHOICE.

[Elwar]

I'm actually surprised by those numbers.

I agree.

12 people think 8 years of tyranny is better than 4.

[anaconda]

Obama/Biden

A Romney "win" would set "our" efforts back decades.

A case for just the opposite:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/22/153295435/mitt-romney-vs-rand-paul-in-2016

[Havax]

This poll sucks. I voted, but only because THERE WAS NO THIRD CHOICE.

No it doesn't. You're just too lazy or incompetent to read the original post and understand the purpose of the thread.