PDA

View Full Version : General Libertarians In Swing States: Can we risk 4 more Obama years by voting for Johnson?




Pages : [1] 2 3

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 02:22 PM
First, please let me introduce myself, I am Lou from PA and I own a small business. Married with a wife and young child.

I live in Pennsylvania and while I am not officially part of the Libertarian Party, I do agree with Libertarians on more issues than any other party. PA isn't quite a swing state, but some reports say it may be closer than Obama may like to see. While being on this forum I have read posts from people in non-swing states (such as New York or Texas) talk about voting for Gary Johnson. And some some people listed reasons such as, increasing the popular vote for G.J. and yet not swinging any Elect. College votes for the D or R.

My question is specific to people in states that are swing states. This is partly because I am not fully decided, though in the past couple weeks I am leaning for Romney. The reason for my vote is because I think Obama is as far from a Libertarian as one could possibly elect. Romney is a bad choice, a very bad choice, and yet he still wants to offer some freedoms, he does believe in a free market for our economey, or at least more of a free market than Obama. I have my doubts about Romney overturning Obama care, but there is at least a chance that Romney would do such things - and there is Zero chance Obama would change his own goverment mandate on health care. When I view Obama, I see a person who doesn't know or doesn't care about the words in the Constitution. I see Romney as a person similar in many ways, but I see a difference and would fear 4 more years of Obama. I also think about Romney needing to be careful on what he does or doesn't do because he hopes to get reelected in 2016. Obama, will have 4 more years without worry of reelection and if he was this reckless in 4 "checked" years, I don't want to be a part of 4 more "unchecked" years.

I hope to hear from the Libertarians on this forum who live in those handful of Swing States. Have you made up your choice or are you on the fence - and if so which way are you leaning? I hope in this next week, we can all chat more under this new thread and talk about what is happening in our states and why we are going one way or the other. So I ask: Why vote for Johnson in a swing state when you know that makes it almost a "lock" for Obama to get 4 more years? or I will ask: Why vote for Romney when he may not be for as big of government as Obama but still supports many big government ideas?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 02:27 PM
Doesn't matter which one wins, we still get screwed.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 02:28 PM
Been away lately, but I assume there's been a bunch of these rationalizations being used to try to sway our vote here...

But sorry, after the way Romney and the establishemnt cheated and disenfranchised our people at every turn rather than embracing new members to their party, they have surely lost any possible chance of the vast majority of us even considering voting for Romney.

And regardless, most here wouldn't vote for a corrupt establishment lackey on either side of the aisle in the first place, so there's that....

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 02:32 PM
Hey!

Didn't we just have this discussion in another thread? The argument sounds real familiar:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393709-A-vote-for-Johnson-is-a-vote-for-Obama


Hm?

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 02:34 PM
Haha, I actually enjoy the desperation of them saying "but, but, Obama sucks!". Should have thought about that when you called the race for Romney and pissed all over us.

CaptUSA
10-29-2012, 02:42 PM
and yet he still wants to offer some freedomsCome back when you understand the irony of that statement...

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 02:55 PM
Haha, I actually enjoy the desperation of them saying "but, but, Obama sucks!". Should have thought about that when you called the race for Romney and pissed all over us.

100% true!

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 02:58 PM
LOL, vote for Romney. The man has gone well out of his way to let us know that he does not want our vote. I mean to oblige him.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:03 PM
Doesn't matter which one wins, we still get screwed.


Really?!?!?
You see exactly ZERO differences between the two?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:05 PM
Really?!?!?
You see exactly ZERO differences between the two?
Nope, do you see either one getting rid of NDAA or PATRIOT?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:06 PM
Been away lately, but I assume there's been a bunch of these rationalizations being used to try to sway our vote here...

But sorry, after the way Romney and the establishemnt cheated and disenfranchised our people at every turn rather than embracing new members to their party, they have surely lost any possible chance of the vast majority of us even considering voting for Romney.

And regardless, most here wouldn't vote for a corrupt establishment lackey on either side of the aisle in the first place, so there's that....

Honestly not trying to sway voters -- I joined to chat, but have been moving in this direction. I fully shared information about myself and was upfront about my position. Even asking two fully opposite questions to close my post - giving people two directions/paths to talk and talk about. So I don't like you commenting that I am trying to sway anyone, but asking to talk with people about this election and the use of their vote.....of course also asking Why?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:08 PM
Haha, I actually enjoy the desperation of them saying "but, but, Obama sucks!". Should have thought about that when you called the race for Romney and pissed all over us.

I am not part of the republican party, I never voted for him in a primary
and I am surely have not voted for Obama in any way either.

I agree these are two bad choices, but you really can't find a difference between the "Largest Goverment President" we have seen in a long time and Romney?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:09 PM
Nope, do you see either one getting rid of NDAA or PATRIOT?

I see one getting rid of Obama Care -- or did you find that constitutional?

tod evans
10-29-2012, 03:10 PM
You get to choose a head that's compatible with the monster.......Doesn't make any difference which head you choose so long as the monster survives..

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:11 PM
I see one getting rid of Obama Care -- or did you find that constitutional?
And replacing it with Romney Care..... Nope... nowhere in the constitution is there any authorization for national healthcare.

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 03:11 PM
I see one getting rid of Obama Care -- or did you find that constitutional?
How exactly does a president do such a thing?

ShaneEnochs
10-29-2012, 03:12 PM
I see one getting rid of Obama Care -- or did you find that constitutional?

He's already stated he's "keeping most of it", especially the mandate.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:12 PM
Come back when you understand the irony of that statement...

Reading it, I understand your point. But are you saying you either have freedom or you dont? Let me say it this way, Obama wants a larger goverment and more control over your life than Romney - and a vote for G.J. is a vote for Larger Government Obama.

I did not want to get into a debate with everyone, I wanted to talk about ideas, but all these posts are personal and all are direct attacks at me -- this isn't what I had in mind. Does anyone here want to share ideas??? or just yell and be angry?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:13 PM
You get to choose a head that's compatible with the monster.......Doesn't make any difference which head you choose so long as the monster survives..

and how do we kill the monster? vote for a person that makes the monster grow larger and faster and more out of control - making it harder to kill and correct in the future? That is waht a vote for G.J. will do because Obama will make this government as large as he can and unable to be corrected, maybe forever.

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 03:14 PM
Reading it, I understand your point. But are you saying you either have freedom or you dont? Let me say it this way, Obama wants a larger goverment and more control over your life than Romney - and a vote for G.J. is a vote for Larger Government Obama.

I did not want to get into a debate with everyone, I wanted to talk about ideas, but all these posts are personal and all are direct attacks at me -- this isn't what I had in mind. Does anyone here want to share ideas??? or just yell and be angry?

I think people have just worked through this many many many times and have come to the conclusion the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama would only have four more years. That if Romney is better, it is by such a slim hair still way in the wrong direction, that the half duration less makes up for it. Personally, I refuse to legitimize either with my vote.

http://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/obama_romney_vote_cartoon.jpg?w=1014

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:15 PM
And replacing it with Romney Care..... Nope... nowhere in the constitution is there any authorization for national healthcare.

One person (Obama) wants to keep Obama Care
and one person (Romney) doesn't want Obama Care (also he explained he doesnt want Romney Care for the Fed either)

and so there is one difference for you - one wants to follow the constituion when it comes to national health care and the other doesnt. That is an issue you care nothing about and want to elect the person who chooses not to follow his constitutional power?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:16 PM
I think people have just worked through this many many many times and have come to the conclusion the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama would only have four more years.


Yep, we are tired of picking the lesser of two evils.

http://i46.tinypic.com/30tm1wl.gif

CaptUSA
10-29-2012, 03:16 PM
difference I don't think that word means what you think it means.
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:17 PM
How exactly does a president do such a thing?

Correct, congress must over turn this. But with Obama in the white house - he can veto it and destroy the work congress does. Romney has the chance (if he decides to go through with it) to NOT veto such bills to get rid of Obama Care.

That's why it's important to have Obama out of the White House, but it's also clear that congress needs to get this done!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:18 PM
One person (Obama) wants to keep Obama Care
and one person (Romney) doesn't want Obama Care (also he explained he doesnt want Romney Care for the Fed either)

and so there is one difference for you - one wants to follow the constituion when it comes to national health care and the other doesnt. That is an issue you care nothing about and want to elect the person who chooses not to follow his constitutional power?
Doesn't matter what he wants to call it, it's still national health care that is unconstitutional.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Yep, we are tired of picking the lesser of two evils.

http://i46.tinypic.com/30tm1wl.gif

you picked one heck of a time to start taking a stand -- Has any president grown the goverment larger and faster than Obama in his first term?? And you want to see what he does in a second term?

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Correct, congress must over turn this. But with Obama in the white house - he can veto it and destroy the work congress does. Romney has the chance (if he decides to go through with it) to NOT veto such bills to get rid of Obama Care.

That's why it's important to have Obama out of the White House, but it's also clear that congress needs to get this done!

You are delusional if you think either the congress or the president is going to get rid of rombamacare.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:20 PM
you picked one heck of a time to start taking a stand -- Has any president grown the goverment larger and faster than Obama in his first term?? And you want to see what he does in a second term?
I sure as hell don't want to see what Romney does in his first term.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:20 PM
Doesn't matter what he wants to call it, it's still national health care that is unconstitutional.

Haha....how is Romney Care = National Health Care?

Only one of these two people have a national health care bill and that is the one you are expecting to elect with your vote.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:23 PM
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/that-word-inigo-montoya-word-think-means-princess-bride-mand-demotivational-poster-1260739585.jpg

Can you please talk more about your points - you sound like you have something to say of value and I would enjoy hearing about it. Please try not to make this about your vote and not about my personal word choices. But, I do welcome hearing you write a few things Capt USA - we are both in PA, please tell me why you think I should change my "Romney Lean" to a "Johnson Vote" .... I would be curious to hear about it if you have the time, thank you!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:24 PM
Haha....how is Romney Care = National Health Care?

Only one of these two people have a national health care bill and that is the one you are expecting to elect with your vote.
The son of a bitch said he was going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own. He would have had me more interested if he had just stopped with repealing Obamacare, when he continued with replacing it.... that was it for me.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:28 PM
I think people have just worked through this many many many times and have come to the conclusion the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama would only have four more years. That if Romney is better, it is by such a slim hair still way in the wrong direction, that the half duration less makes up for it. Personally, I refuse to legitimize either with my vote.\


Okay, that is a point to be made. 4 years is less than 8 years. But wouldn't it be best to work on Romney getting 4 years and then vote for the 3rd party in 4 years - thus electing the 3rd party or make Romney One-Term and make a point to those on the Right that they must pick someone Libertarians like if they want the election in the future?

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 03:30 PM
The son of a bitch said he was going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own. He would have had me more interested if he had just stopped with repealing Obamacare, when he continued with replacing it.... that was it for me.

He lost me with "you talk to your lawyers" lol.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:31 PM
The son of a bitch said he was going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with his own. He would have had me more interested if he had just stopped with repealing Obamacare, when he continued with replacing it.... that was it for me.

If he said this, I didn't realize it.
As i said, I am not a republican, so I did not follow all of his words, but in the debates I watched I remember him saying his job on day 1 was to repeal Obama Care -- and I never once remember him saying he wanted to replace it with anything. Did he say this in one of the debates? I would like to see/read this if you have a copy or can find it -- i will search for it too....but I am not sure this is his plan.

I would ask though -- how can he replace it with anything? he doesnt have that power. he only has the power to "Not Veto" a bill that is passed to repeal Obama Care.

raystone
10-29-2012, 03:31 PM
First, please let me introduce myself, I am Lou from PA and I own a small business. Married with a wife and young child.

I live in Pennsylvania and while I am not officially part of the Libertarian Party, I do agree with Libertarians on more issues than any other party. PA isn't quite a swing state, but some reports say it may be closer than Obama may like to see. While being on this forum I have read posts from people in non-swing states (such as New York or Texas) talk about voting for Gary Johnson. And some some people listed reasons such as, increasing the popular vote for G.J. and yet not swinging any Elect. College votes for the D or R.

My question is specific to people in states that are swing states. This is partly because I am not fully decided, though in the past couple weeks I am leaning for Romney. The reason for my vote is because I think Obama is as far from a Libertarian as one could possibly elect. Romney is a bad choice, a very bad choice, and yet he still wants to offer some freedoms, he does believe in a free market for our economey, or at least more of a free market than Obama. I have my doubts about Romney overturning Obama care, but there is at least a chance that Romney would do such things - and there is Zero chance Obama would change his own goverment mandate on health care. When I view Obama, I see a person who doesn't know or doesn't care about the words in the Constitution. I see Romney as a person similar in many ways, but I see a difference and would fear 4 more years of Obama. I also think about Romney needing to be careful on what he does or doesn't do because he hopes to get reelected in 2016. Obama, will have 4 more years without worry of reelection and if he was this reckless in 4 "checked" years, I don't want to be a part of 4 more "unchecked" years.

I hope to hear from the Libertarians on this forum who live in those handful of Swing States. Have you made up your choice or are you on the fence - and if so which way are you leaning? I hope in this next week, we can all chat more under this new thread and talk about what is happening in our states and why we are going one way or the other. So I ask: Why vote for Johnson in a swing state when you know that makes it almost a "lock" for Obama to get 4 more years? or I will ask: Why vote for Romney when he may not be for as big of government as Obama but still supports many big government ideas?


A very well crafted message from a Romney operative sent here to sway votes.

A few mistakes gave him or her away, however.

CaptUSA
10-29-2012, 03:31 PM
Okay, that is a point to be made. 4 years is less than 8 years. But wouldn't it be best to work on Romney getting 4 years and then vote for the 3rd party in 4 years - thus electing the 3rd party or make Romney One-Term and make a point to those on the Right that they must pick someone Libertarians like if they want the election in the future?What lesson does it teach them now if they give us the finger and we turn around and support them?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:31 PM
He lost me with "you talk to your lawyers" lol.

:confused:

tod evans
10-29-2012, 03:33 PM
and how do we kill the monster? vote for a person that makes the monster grow larger and faster and more out of control - making it harder to kill and correct in the future? That is waht a vote for G.J. will do because Obama will make this government as large as he can and unable to be corrected, maybe forever.

You do what you want, I'll write in Ron.

I want no part in where this country is headed, Where I 20-30 years younger I'd move......Now My only option is not to contribute to it's demise.

Picking one Goldman representative over the other is not a choice I'll be making.

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 03:33 PM
:confused:

I refer to romney outright telling us that he isn't a decision maker and will do whatever his lawyers tell him to do.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:36 PM
A very well crafted message from a Romney operative sent here to sway votes.

A few mistakes gave him or her away, however.


My Word - please tell me you are joking.
I specifically said I was leaning to vote for Romney in the first message. Doesn't take a code breaker to read that part. Lol
You think this is "crafted" haha, and yet I admit everything upfront. I hope you aren't one of those people that don't think we landed on the moon too. Is everything is a conspiracy to you?!?!

Why can you not just share your points -- you can only made personal attacks and accusations.....just talk about why a vote for Gary Johnson is a good idea for people in swing states when it may alter the outcome of the election.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 03:38 PM
Honestly not trying to sway voters -- I joined to chat, but have been moving in this direction. I fully shared information about myself and was upfront about my position. Even asking two fully opposite questions to close my post - giving people two directions/paths to talk and talk about. So I don't like you commenting that I am trying to sway anyone, but asking to talk with people about this election and the use of their vote.....of course also asking Why?
My apologies for confusing you with the other 1,000 folks who join after our campaign here is over to try to sway us to vote for someone else.

Seriously, I could care less what your intentions are here. My point is that Romney had a golden opportunity to at least draw consideration of some of our votes, and he and the establishment cheated, ignored, disenfrachised, and made it abundantly clear that we're not welcome in their tent.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. People aren't here for "lesser of two evils", vote for the guy who stinks a little less. We're here for real change. The blood isn't going to be on our hands.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:41 PM
If he said this, I didn't realize it.
As i said, I am not a republican, so I did not follow all of his words, but in the debates I watched I remember him saying his job on day 1 was to repeal Obama Care -- and I never once remember him saying he wanted to replace it with anything. Did he say this in one of the debates? I would like to see/read this if you have a copy or can find it -- i will search for it too....but I am not sure this is his plan.

I would ask though -- how can he replace it with anything? he doesnt have that power. he only has the power to "Not Veto" a bill that is passed to repeal Obama Care.

Mitt Romney Vows To Repeal And Replace Health Law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tePDipdNRk8


Mitt Romney: "I will keep parts of Obamacare"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMxjQ0hhL4o

specsaregood
10-29-2012, 03:41 PM
A very well crafted message from a Romney operative sent here to sway votes.
A few mistakes gave him or her away, however.

sending somebody around that only reinforces many of us in our position of NOT voting for romney is just the the type of thing the romney camps seems to be intent on doing.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:43 PM
What lesson does it teach them now if they give us the finger and we turn around and support them?

Again, you are correct. It teaches them no lesson. But voting for G.J. and then giving Obama 4 more years may also not teach them a lesson. In fact, if Obama gets 4 more years and does an even worse job (if that is possible), it may even give the republicans more power and care less about the Libertarian vote because most all people will vote for anyone but another Dem.
We cannot guess what will happen 4 years from now, but at the moment, if I had to have one person in the white houes for the next 4 years, I would rather Romney in that position over Obama -- are you saying you wouldn't?

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 03:44 PM
Romney took 9 positions on abortion alone, all 'principled positions'. We have a different standard for sticking to principles, and find that laughable. If you can't trust him, how can you feel any confidence he'd be better than anyone else?

Also, I am not a GJ voter, I'm a Ron Paul voter.

And note that Romney's convention is the one that cheated Ron out of being nominated from the floor, disenfranchised our delegates, hence us, and for Pete's sake, had a bus with the leader of the opposition for a controversial rules change driven in circles until he missed the vote on the rules change, which Romney's convention pretended went for Romney's attorney's change. Which included retroactively changing the number of states needed to nominate a candidate from the floor -- after 6 had already filed to nominate Ron under prior rules requiring only 5.

What about a lesson from that?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 03:48 PM
My apologies for confusing you with the other 1,000 folks who join after our campaign here is over to try to sway us to vote for someone else.

Seriously, I could care less what your intentions are here. My point is that Romney had a golden opportunity to at least draw consideration of some of our votes, and he and the establishment cheated, ignored, disenfrachised, and made it abundantly clear that we're not welcome in their tent.

You're barking up the wrong tree here. People aren't here for "lesser of two evils", vote for the guy who stinks a little less. We're here for real change. The blood isn't going to be on our hands.

Apology accepted. thank you for that, honestly I didn't think I would see anyone say this after all those earlier posts from many other people. I honestly appreciate you saying this.
I do agree Romney dropped the ball -- he is not a good choice. I am just making a point that there is a difference between the "Bad" Romney and "Worse" Obama.

And again, not trying to bark up any tree -- i didnt expect to be attacked when I made this post, i was hoping people in swing states would talk and give reasons for their Johnson or Romney votes. I didn't want this to be about "You vs me" ....clearly it failed.

You say you want real change, why not start with the first battle and one that can be corrected in the next few months by voting people in office to remove Obama Care? Once 2014 hits, it may be just as hard to remove Obama Care as it is to remove the EPA, The Fed, etc. So why not get this out of the picture now, while we can, and then pick a new battle in 4 years?

Thank you again for your post though, glad you stuck around and wanted to chat more.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 03:51 PM
Apology accepted. thank you for that, honestly I didn't think I would see anyone say this after all those earlier posts from many other people. I honestly appreciate you saying this.
I do agree Romney dropped the ball -- he is not a good choice. I am just making a point that there is a difference between the "Bad" Romney and "Worse" Obama.

And again, not trying to bark up any tree -- i didnt expect to be attacked when I made this post, i was hoping people in swing states would talk and give reasons for their Johnson or Romney votes. I didn't want this to be about "You vs me" ....clearly it failed.

You say you want real change, why not start with the first battle and one that can be corrected in the next few months by voting people in office to remove Obama Care? Once 2014 hits, it may be just as hard to remove Obama Care as it is to remove the EPA, The Fed, etc. So why not get this out of the picture now, while we can, and then pick a new battle in 4 years?

Thank you again for your post though, glad you stuck around and wanted to chat more.

And replace it with something else?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393862-Libertarians-In-Swing-States-Can-we-risk-4-more-Obama-years-by-voting-for-Johnson&p=4705444&viewfull=1#post4705444

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:00 PM
You say you want real change, why not start with the first battle and one that can be corrected in the next few months by voting people in office to remove Obama Care? Once 2014 hits, it may be just as hard to remove Obama Care as it is to remove the EPA, The Fed, etc. So why not get this out of the picture now, while we can, and then pick a new battle in 4 years?

Obamacare is jsut the latest in things that have to be drastically changed to change this country (and no, I do not have confidence that it's inventor Romney will overturn it after the Supreme Court just upheld it), but it won't happen with either of the Goldman-Sachs candidates.

Perhaps you do not have a good understanding of what this movement is about, but I can assure you it isn't to vote "lesser of two evils" two-party system that forces us into voting for awful corrupt bankster candidates. Then you add in the way that Romney and the establishment treated us without even paying lip-service to issues most Americans care about, along with the thought of 8 more years of sending our country into the toilet with Romney/Ryan who promise to balance the budget in 28 years when it's too late, and sorry, but no thanks.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:03 PM
Romney took 9 positions on abortion alone, all 'principled positions'. We have a different standard for sticking to principles, and find that laughable. If you can't trust him, how can you feel any confidence he'd be better than anyone else?

Also, I am not a GJ voter, I'm a Ron Paul voter.

And note that Romney's convention is the one that cheated Ron out of being nominated from the floor, disenfranchised our delegates, hence us, and for Pete's sake, had a bus with the leader of the opposition for a controversial rules change driven in circles until he missed the vote on the rules change, which Romney's convention pretended went for Romney's attorney's change. Which included retroactively changing the number of states needed to nominate a candidate from the floor -- after 6 had already filed to nominate Ron under prior rules requiring only 5.

What about a lesson from that?

You can't tell me you "trust" Obama. So I cannot agree with your first point of not being able to trust romney, that is equal because you cannot trust obama either.

And I can understand you are upset about Romney altering elections (Obama did that also, that is how he got elected to the State Senate) - but is that enough to give Obama the election?

What "Lesson" are you teaching the Repubs by giving the election to Obama ... that next time, the Repubs need to pick a person MORE left wing to take votes from people voting for Obama?!?

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:06 PM
You can't tell me you "trust" Obama. So I cannot agree with your first point of not being able to trust romney, that is equal because you cannot trust obama either.

And I can understand you are upset about Romney altering elections (Obama did that also, that is how he got elected to the State Senate) - but is that enough to give Obama the election?

What "Lesson" are you teaching the Repubs by giving the election to Obama ... that next time, the Repubs need to pick a person MORE left wing to take votes from people voting for Obama?!?

Just stop. We're not giving anyone anything. They lost our votes. Understand, or do you not have any principles?

I was about to hold my nose and vote McCain last go round before he went and supported the bailouts. Never again. We're all fed up here with the direction this country is being taken by the establishment on both sides, so jsut save your breath (and please don't act offended, you know exactly what you're here to do, so don't act all innocent)

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 04:07 PM
I do agree Romney dropped the ball -- he is not a good choice. I am just making a point that there is a difference between the "Bad" Romney and "Worse" Obama.


With all due respect.... there is no difference. None. If you really, truly believe that, I urge you to take a closer look. Romney and Obama are the same man.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:07 PM
What is far more important this go round is to show that there are enough of us demanding another choice besides the crap that we're spoonfed every election. I don't care who you vote for, but I don't have to tell anyone here it won't be Obama or Romney.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:15 PM
And replace it with something else?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393862-Libertarians-In-Swing-States-Can-we-risk-4-more-Obama-years-by-voting-for-Johnson&p=4705444&viewfull=1#post4705444

The first video he said repeal and replace and I think that was just another way of saying "get rid of it"

HOWEVER -- that second video is very upsetting.
He was "forced" into that answer from the far left wing Meet The Press host as he makes Romney sound like a bad person for taking away the "hand outs" given under Obama Care. Again though, I didn't see this and didn't know this. This is not good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want any federal health care.
Again, the only good thing is that Romney cannot do this! If Congress is filled with less Dems, and Obama care gets repealed, I cannot imagine Romney would veto their repeal. Obama would veto the repeal for sure.

But thank you again for sharing this -- it was a big isssue for me and this is very upsetting and making me question my future vote even more than i thought.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:17 PM
With all due respect.... there is no difference. None. If you really, truly believe that, I urge you to take a closer look. Romney and Obama are the same man.

but that is why i started this thread -- to talk about these things.
I didnt expect people to yell at me about thigns and even your post -- can you please type more info or include links or something....not just say "look closer" because I have looked a bit, and I fear 4 more years of Obama without him having to look over his shoulder about getting re-elected, but I am here, spending my time to make posts and would take that time to read too, so share info with me, thanks!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 04:20 PM
The first video he said repeal and replace and I think that was just another way of saying "get rid of it"

HOWEVER -- that second video is very upsetting.
He was "forced" into that answer from the far left wing Meet The Press host as he makes Romney sound like a bad person for taking away the "hand outs" given under Obama Care. Again though, I didn't see this and didn't know this. This is not good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't want any federal health care.
Again, the only good thing is that Romney cannot do this! If Congress is filled with less Dems, and Obama care gets repealed, I cannot imagine Romney would veto their repeal. Obama would veto the repeal for sure.

But thank you again for sharing this -- it was a big isssue for me and this is very upsetting and making me question my future vote even more than i thought.
Well.... this has been brought up over and over again. So I just point over here as to the way things really are.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393709-A-vote-for-Johnson-is-a-vote-for-Obama&p=4703015#post4703015

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:23 PM
Obamacare is jsut the latest in things that have to be drastically changed to change this country (and no, I do not have confidence that it's inventor Romney will overturn it after the Supreme Court just upheld it), but it won't happen with either of the Goldman-Sachs candidates.

Perhaps you do not have a good understanding of what this movement is about, but I can assure you it isn't to vote "lesser of two evils" two-party system that forces us into voting for awful corrupt bankster candidates. Then you add in the way that Romney and the establishment treated us without even paying lip-service to issues most Americans care about, along with the thought of 8 more years of sending our country into the toilet with Romney/Ryan who promise to balance the budget in 28 years when it's too late, and sorry, but no thanks.

that is true, I am not part of the "movement", nor do i understand it.
I am Pro Constitution. I am Anti Big Goverment. I am Anti this 2-party system we have grown into. I do not support many issues Romney stands for. I support zero issues Obama stands for.
So to your comment, I dont understand what your movement is all about and i dont mean to post on here if this is only for those who are part of the movement. At the moment I am not part of, nor do i pretend to be, part of any movements - though I do hold many Libertarian views and like much of what R.Paul says.

rpfocus
10-29-2012, 04:23 PM
With all due respect.... there is no difference. None. If you really, truly believe that, I urge you to take a closer look. Romney and Obama are the same man.

Agreed. I'm NEVER going to vote for Mitt. Sorry, I will not let GOP sheep convince me that voting my conscience is voting for Obama. ESPECIALLY after the way they treated Ron Paul supporters. I DON'T CARE IF MITT LOSES. I DON'T CARE IF OBAMA WINS. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:24 PM
Okay let's talk about Romney and Ryan, what we do know anyway:

1) Paul Ryan's so-called conservative budget plan won't balance the budget for 28 years (and that's quite optimistic, when you have no clue what future congresses and adminstrations will do). All the while we will jsut continue to rack up debt and interest.

2) There is no call to end wars and reduce military spending, only calls to raise it, as it becomes abundantly clear that our spending and interventionalism is unsustaianble at best, only making the situation worse at worst.

3) Won't even pay lip-service to ending the fed, which is stripping the wealth of 98% of Americans through the inflationary tax (more appropriate term than inflation)

4) Is not calling for repealing tremendous dangers to liberty and freedom, the Patriot Act, NDAA, drones, etc.

So really the only difference we're looking at is a slightly greater possibility he might feel pressured to repeal Obamacare that he invented in the first place, while both men are tremendous dangers to our economy, liberty and lives if you're standing in the way of their special interests enough. Does that sum it up, or should we continue with the reasons we can't trust Romney any more than Obama?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 04:26 PM
that is true, I am not part of the "movement", nor do i understand it.
I am Pro Constitution. I am Anti Big Goverment. I am Anti this 2-party system we have grown into. I do not support many issues Romney stands for. I support zero issues Obama stands for.
So to your comment, I dont understand what your movement is all about and i dont mean to post on here if this is only for those who are part of the movement. At the moment I am not part of, nor do i pretend to be, part of any movements - though I do hold many Libertarian views and like much of what R.Paul says.
This isn't really a two party system. That sir is an illusion. It's a one party system and it doesn't matter who you vote for, you will lose your liberties just the same.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:26 PM
that is true, I am not part of the "movement", nor do i understand it.
I am Pro Constitution. I am Anti Big Goverment. I am Anti this 2-party system we have grown into. I do not support many issues Romney stands for. I support zero issues Obama stands for.
So to your comment, I dont understand what your movement is all about and i dont mean to post on here if this is only for those who are part of the movement. At the moment I am not part of, nor do i pretend to be, part of any movements - though I do hold many Libertarian views and like much of what R.Paul says.
The bolded is the movement. It is a movement agaisnt the corrupt who don't care about our interests. Romney falls into that category along with Obama and the rest of the corrupt lackeys, all the wya down to the local level, as we leanred good and well throughout the primaries. We were cheated in so many ways, it's tough to count..

Dr. Paul, who's shown he cannot be bought, is one of the few you can trust to speak the truth. I wouldn't believe a word the bankster-backed establishment or media says.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:28 PM
Just stop. We're not giving anyone anything. They lost our votes. Understand, or do you not have any principles?

I was about to hold my nose and vote McCain last go round before he went and supported the bailouts. Never again. We're all fed up here with the direction this country is being taken by the establishment on both sides, so jsut save your breath (and please don't act offended, you know exactly what you're here to do, so don't act all innocent)

when you say "Our" who exactly are you talking about?

Haha and I can't believe you are back on this train again - thinking I am part of some under cover group sent to sway the 3,000 people on this forum to change their minds. I am asking for people to change my mind! I haven't heard a single person take the time to explain thigns to me, only attacking me with one line posts.
Not everything in your life has to be a conspiracy. lol

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:31 PM
when you say "Our" who exactly are you talking about?

Haha and I can't believe you are back on this train again - thinking I am part of some under cover group sent to sway the 3,000 people on this forum to change their minds. I am asking for people to change my mind! I haven't heard a single person take the time to explain thigns to me, only attacking me with one line posts.
Not everything in your life has to be a conspiracy. lol
I didn't say that you are an undercover troll, just that you clearly have an agenda, which is to make us consider Romney. That ship has long since sailed. Sorry.

However, if you'd like to learn more of the reasons we (and to answer your question, we refers to a movement who will not stand for the banksters to run this country into the ground any longer) absolutely will not vote for Romney, I will be glad to continue to share and enlighten, as I'm sure others will as well.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:31 PM
Agreed. I'm NEVER going to vote for Mitt. Sorry, I will not let GOP sheep convince me that voting my conscience is voting for Obama. ESPECIALLY after the way they treated Ron Paul supporters. I DON'T CARE IF MITT LOSES. I DON'T CARE IF OBAMA WINS. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE VOTING FOR.

You too?

How many people on here think there is a huge conspiracy about people coming on to this forum, ADMIT they are leaning to a romney vote, and then somehow making that an undercover movement to sway your votes?

Oh, and keep in mind, I am asking for people to offer thoughts and ideas as to why a vote should be FOR Gary Johnson. I have heard some good points here, but mostly attacked.

Many of you act as if you believe in how the founding fathers did things - and i can assure you they would have had a civil debate and not had such direct attacks. Think about that for a moment and I hope you stay with this post and offer your thoughts and ideas and avoid the attacks.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:32 PM
You too?

How many people on here think there is a huge conspiracy about people coming on to this forum, ADMIT they are leaning to a romney vote, and then somehow making that an undercover movement to sway your votes?

Oh, and keep in mind, I am asking for people to offer thoughts and ideas as to why a vote should be FOR Gary Johnson. I have heard some good points here, but mostly attacked.

Many of you act as if you believe in how the founding fathers did things - and i can assure you they would have had a civil debate and not had such direct attacks. Think about that for a moment and I hope you stay with this post and offer your thoughts and ideas and avoid the attacks.
Again, we don't thikn it's a conspiracy, but you clearly have an agenda, as you're not letting it go, and only pushing harder in a futile effort.

So sorry, but my as you came here to discuss. You clearly came here to convince, for whatever reason, so expect attacks when you don't head our advice to not waste your breath.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 04:33 PM
You too?

How many people on here think there is a huge conspiracy about people coming on to this forum, ADMIT they are leaning to a romney vote, and then somehow making that an undercover movement to sway your votes?

Oh, and keep in mind, I am asking for people to offer thoughts and ideas as to why a vote should be FOR Gary Johnson. I have heard some good points here, but mostly attacked.

Many of you act as if you believe in how the founding fathers did things - and i can assure you they would have had a civil debate and not had such direct attacks. Think about that for a moment and I hope you stay with this post and offer your thoughts and ideas and avoid the attacks.
I doubt you will find that many people here who are going to vote for Gary Johnson.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 04:33 PM
Okay let's talk about Romney and Ryan, what we do know anyway:

1) Paul Ryan's so-called conservative budget plan won't balance the budget for 28 years (and that's quite optimistic, when you have no clue what future congresses and adminstrations will do). All the while we will jsut continue to rack up debt and interest.

2) There is no call to end wars and reduce military spending, only calls to raise it, as it becomes abundantly clear that our spending and interventionalism is unsustaianble at best, only making the situation worse at worst.

3) Won't even pay lip-service to ending the fed, which is stripping the wealth of 98% of Americans through the inflationary tax (more appropriate term than inflation)

4) Is not calling for repealing tremendous dangers to liberty and freedom, the Patriot Act, NDAA, drones, etc.

So really the only difference we're looking at is a slightly greater possibility he might feel pressured to repeal Obamacare that he invented in the first place, while both men are tremendous dangers to our economy, liberty and lives if you're standing in the way of their special interests enough. Does that sum it up, or should we continue with the reasons we can't trust Romney any more than Obama?

you are spot on with #4 and other points, but in #1, i agree 28 years is a joke!! but can you please list these 4 points about what may happen if Obama has 4 more years? Because rather than ballance in 3 decades, we could double our debt in 4.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:35 PM
you are spot on with #4 and other points, but in #1, i agree 28 years is a joke!! but can you please list these 4 points about what may happen if Obama has 4 more years? Because rather than ballance in 3 decades, we could double our debt in 4.

3 deceades as you acrue interest on 15 trillion, plus increases in military spending and other debts? That's like saying I'd rather chop off my arm than my nuts.

And I don't have to list the reasons I don't like Obama. I'm not voting for him either, nor are you asking me to.

CaptUSA
10-29-2012, 04:36 PM
Ok, let's assume you are interested in the truth.

Romney believes in Keynesian economics when it comes to his pet projects. Military spending creates jobs. That is 100% false. You have to take the money out of the economy before you can put it back into the economy. Then, when you expend the artillery, the wealth is further destroyed.

He pretends to understand this for entitlement issues, but he's really the same as Obama. He has no sense of freedom. You said he would offer us some freedoms - that doesn't compute. If there's someone deciding which "freedoms" you are allowed to have, you aren't free. What he's really talking about are privileges. We don't want more government privileges - we want freedom.

Obama? Romney? Bush? Doesn't matter. They are all part of the problem. They don't have an understanding of what liberty is.

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2012, 04:38 PM
As a Republican in a swing state, I cannot conscience a vote for either a lethal dose of arsenic or a lethal dose of cyanide. Both leave you just as dead in the end. If your loyalty is either to conservative ideals or to the Republican Party, you will do well to give some thought to the fact that QE3 will implode the economy by December of 2014 no matter who is elected, because neither candidate will do anything about the Federal Reserve, and whomever is in the Oval Office when that happens will get the blame for 'their philosophy' destroying America. If red elephants preside over the destruction of America, you can be assured that blue jackasses will be in charge of the rebuilding effort, and just imagine how that is going to go.

CaptUSA
10-29-2012, 04:38 PM
you are spot on with #4 and other points, but in #1, i agree 28 years is a joke!! but can you please list these 4 points about what may happen if Obama has 4 more years? Because rather than ballance in 3 decades, we could double our debt in 4.You're still thinking there's a choice between two ideologies. There isn't. Did you watch the last debate?! The only thing they disagreed about was who was going to administer the exact same foreign policy.

There is no choice here. Don't let the parties fool you.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 04:56 PM
:crickets:

:D

But I was really hoping he was gonna try rationalizing with Gunny. That exchange would have made my day...

deadfish
10-29-2012, 05:05 PM
First, please let me introduce myself, I am Lou from PA and I own a small business. Married with a wife and young child.

I live in Pennsylvania and while I am not officially part of the Libertarian Party, I do agree with Libertarians on more issues than any other party. PA isn't quite a swing state, but some reports say it may be closer than Obama may like to see. While being on this forum I have read posts from people in non-swing states (such as New York or Texas) talk about voting for Gary Johnson. And some some people listed reasons such as, increasing the popular vote for G.J. and yet not swinging any Elect. College votes for the D or R.

My question is specific to people in states that are swing states. This is partly because I am not fully decided, though in the past couple weeks I am leaning for Romney. The reason for my vote is because I think Obama is as far from a Libertarian as one could possibly elect. Romney is a bad choice, a very bad choice, and yet he still wants to offer some freedoms, he does believe in a free market for our economey, or at least more of a free market than Obama. I have my doubts about Romney overturning Obama care, but there is at least a chance that Romney would do such things - and there is Zero chance Obama would change his own goverment mandate on health care. When I view Obama, I see a person who doesn't know or doesn't care about the words in the Constitution. I see Romney as a person similar in many ways, but I see a difference and would fear 4 more years of Obama. I also think about Romney needing to be careful on what he does or doesn't do because he hopes to get reelected in 2016. Obama, will have 4 more years without worry of reelection and if he was this reckless in 4 "checked" years, I don't want to be a part of 4 more "unchecked" years.

I hope to hear from the Libertarians on this forum who live in those handful of Swing States. Have you made up your choice or are you on the fence - and if so which way are you leaning? I hope in this next week, we can all chat more under this new thread and talk about what is happening in our states and why we are going one way or the other. So I ask: Why vote for Johnson in a swing state when you know that makes it almost a "lock" for Obama to get 4 more years? or I will ask: Why vote for Romney when he may not be for as big of government as Obama but still supports many big government ideas?

Hello Lau, thanks for taking the time to come chat. I wish more folks were as open to discussion as you.

As a registered Republican in OH, I will try to shed some light on why I will likely vote for Gary Johnson. In short, because he earned it. How does Mitt Romney earn a vote? Well, he's not Obama primarily.

In other words, let's say you dedicated every day of your life for years to the business of being elected to a political office. Raising money, campaigning almost every day, writing articles, working on a book, tv/radio interviews, etc. Every where you go, people love your message and thank you for your dedication to public service. It's a den of vipers and you're risking your livelihood to protect your fellow citizens. At the end of 1 - 2 year campaign, wouldn't you just feel crushed if people that loved your message decided not to vote for you because you were not likely to win? To add insult to injury, you hear this same thing from thousands and thousands of people. Yet, if all the people that said that actually ended up voting for you, you would win!

I like Gary Johnson, and I would like to encourage him and others like him to try again in the future. My statistically meaningless vote (even in OH) is my way of saying Thank You.

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 05:23 PM
I'll be honest: I'm not a huge fan of Gary Johnson.

But I do think this chart does a pretty good job of summing up the differences between Romney and Obama:





https://www.lp.org/files/Screen%20Shot%202012-10-18%20at%2011.05.11%20AM.png

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 05:23 PM
oops - anyone know how to shrink that down a bit?

acptulsa
10-29-2012, 05:25 PM
My Word - please tell me you are joking.
I specifically said I was leaning to vote for Romney in the first message. Doesn't take a code breaker to read that part. Lol
You think this is "crafted" haha, and yet I admit everything upfront. I hope you aren't one of those people that don't think we landed on the moon too. Is everything is a conspiracy to you?!?!

Why can you not just share your points -- you can only made personal attacks and accusations.....just talk about why a vote for Gary Johnson is a good idea for people in swing states when it may alter the outcome of the election.

You will do as you will. Republicans have, for years and years and years, voted Republican to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet even when the Republicans have had the chance (and there have been times when they won control of both Congress and the White House--they haven't done it.

They've got you, too, all caught up in this divide and conquer strategy. And what will it get you? Hope that Obamacare will be nipped in the bud? By the guy who invented it? Sounds good, but how much are you willing to bet on that? I know he made state choice noises about it, but I haven't seen a law repealed in my lifetime, and if he never gets the repeal from the Congress, he has cover. Doesn't he? Besides, he was all about his own version of Obamacare before we made enough headway to convince him to flip flop on that subject. Like many other subjects...

Why vote Johnson? I've been saying for years and years that getting rid of the current two party duopoly is just a matter of getting enough people on board that people will see the growing numbers and realize the simple fact that all it takes for us to vote someone else in is to vote for someone else. And a bit more momentum could get us to the tipping point. What favors have the Demopublicans and Republicrats done for you lately that they deserve your continued patronage?

The Republican Party hasn't been with us forever. They began their ascent about 1850. And now that they're indistinguishable from the Democrats (and they really, really are) it's time for them to go out the same way they came in.

Oh, and by the way: A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. It's really simple how that works.

angelatc
10-29-2012, 05:25 PM
Really?!?!?
You see exactly ZERO differences between the two?

Pretty much, yes. One of them is black, but other than that they are interchangeable.

I'm not interested in making a protest vote. I'm voting for the candidate that has views that most closely match my own, especially since the GOP didn't see fit to even add a single one of our issues to their platform. ( I don't want the blood on Iran on my hands, either. )

And, a vote for Johnson means ballot access for the LP in the next election.

erowe1
10-29-2012, 05:28 PM
Under Obama federal spending increased more slowly than it had under any other president for a long time.

If Romney gets elected, do you expect the rate of growth of federal spending to continue to go up that slowly? Or do you expect it to take off like a rocket? I predict the latter.

Keith and stuff
10-29-2012, 05:30 PM
We were debating, if there were only 2 candidates, which 1 wouldn't be as bad between Romney and Obama. I came up with 1 of the better points. Romney has managed to live longer. Someone else said he has better hair. That seemed like an opinion to me so I mentioned that but the person than said I might say that as my hair is closer to the Obama style than the Romney style. These are the most important issues of the day!

acptulsa
10-29-2012, 05:33 PM
They eat the meat and throw the rest of us a bone. And the only thing that keeps us from killing them is they offer us the choice every couple of years between a chicken bone or a steak bone. And no matter which way we vote, it's as likely to be either--or a pork bone, or some fish bones.

If you think they're so different, riddle me this--was it Dubya or Obama who gave more of our money to the richest banks and insurance companies in the world?

I'm tired of being incrementalized to death while everyone fights over whether they want the wars to grow more slowly or the socialized medicine to grow more slowly. Time to stop being fools and go for the meat.


Many of you act as if you believe in how the founding fathers did things - and i can assure you they would have had a civil debate and not had such direct attacks.

Bone up on your history. The way the founding fathers did things was with principle and passion.

erowe1
10-29-2012, 05:35 PM
We were debating, if there were only 2 candidates, which 1 wouldn't be as bad between Romney and Obama. I came up with 1 of the better points. Romney has managed to live longer. Someone else said he has better hair. That seemed like an opinion to me so I mentioned that but the person than said I might say that as my hair is closer to the Obama style than the Romney style. These are the most important issues of the day!

You could probably say that Romney has more of a track record of proven success in a lot of things.

But when both of their objectives are to subjugate you and me, would we rather the person trying to do that be someone with a record of success or someone with a record of failure?

dean.engelhardt
10-29-2012, 05:37 PM
and yet he still wants to offer some freedoms

Maybe we should want all our freedoms?????? Romney amd Obama are not very different except for one thing. Obama can only be in office for 4 years. Put Romney in we get 8 years of gov. healthcare, wars, and loss of liberty.

Warmon
10-29-2012, 05:53 PM
But thank you again for sharing this -- it was a big isssue for me and this is very upsetting and making me question my future vote even more than i thought.

The more you look, the worse it gets...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EQwrB1vu74c

You can't believe anything he says - he has no credibility, no spine, no core, no guts or principles - which leads to the question: who's lackey is he?

Dick Chaney
10-29-2012, 06:04 PM
Really?!?!?
You see exactly ZERO differences between the two?

Why did you register on these forums again?

rpfocus
10-29-2012, 06:33 PM
Why did you register on these forums again?

To attempt to get us to vote for his guy, apparently. Especially if you're in a swing state. Honestly, I've seen enough dirty tricks from the GOP to make me question whether Romney is the lesser of two evils. Based on the number of Republican drones trying to get me to change my vote, I doubt it.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 08:44 PM
3 deceades as you acrue interest on 15 trillion, plus increases in military spending and other debts? That's like saying I'd rather chop off my arm than my nuts.

And I don't have to list the reasons I don't like Obama. I'm not voting for him either, nor are you asking me to.

I'm not asking you to vote for either.
I'm asking why you aren't doing all you can to keep Obama and his agenda out of the white house for 4 more years?!?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 08:48 PM
I'm not asking you to vote for either.
I'm asking why you aren't doing all you can to keep Obama and his agenda out of the white house for 4 more years?!?
So what do you suggest we do to keep Obama out of the White House?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 08:51 PM
Ok, let's assume you are interested in the truth.

Romney believes in Keynesian economics when it comes to his pet projects. Military spending creates jobs. That is 100% false. You have to take the money out of the economy before you can put it back into the economy. Then, when you expend the artillery, the wealth is further destroyed.

He pretends to understand this for entitlement issues, but he's really the same as Obama. He has no sense of freedom. You said he would offer us some freedoms - that doesn't compute. If there's someone deciding which "freedoms" you are allowed to have, you aren't free. What he's really talking about are privileges. We don't want more government privileges - we want freedom.

Obama? Romney? Bush? Doesn't matter. They are all part of the problem. They don't have an understanding of what liberty is.

First I want to thank you for breaking this down a bit.
I am still ABO (anyone but obama)....but you've captured my attention and my ears are open.

Your point about military spending a good one....every bullet we spend money on and use is money "lost" -- okay good point!
Also the "government granted privileges" --- another good point, but is that true with all of his issues on the economy? I am not sure about the Keynesian economics = Romney Economics, but I am willing to listen to you explain more. Isn't Keynesian similar to what was seen with The New Deal?? I am not sure how FDR and Romney relate on the economy. Obama and FRD relate though.
So again, you've got my attention, and if you'd care to spend more time making posts here....I'd enjoy hearing more from you Capt USA -- thanks!!!

just one more thing, you listed Obama, Romney and Bush....who's the most recent POTUS that lead the country in the way you agree with?
thanks!

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 08:57 PM
As a Republican in a swing state, I cannot conscience a vote for either a lethal dose of arsenic or a lethal dose of cyanide. Both leave you just as dead in the end. If your loyalty is either to conservative ideals or to the Republican Party, you will do well to give some thought to the fact that QE3 will implode the economy by December of 2014 no matter who is elected, because neither candidate will do anything about the Federal Reserve, and whomever is in the Oval Office when that happens will get the blame for 'their philosophy' destroying America. If red elephants preside over the destruction of America, you can be assured that blue jackasses will be in charge of the rebuilding effort, and just imagine how that is going to go.

I am not loyal to either party -- which may in part explain why i am taking time to write on this forum and ask questions.
you are correct about neither person doing anything about the Fed.

though, is there no thought that Romney will push to cut Govt Spending....even if he spends more on some parts (ex military), that he will cut in other areas? and look to make some items such a S.S. private rather than the way our system now works? I do agree, Romney is not a conservative (though not all republicans are conservatives), he wants to spend money and grow the goverment, it just doesnt sound like he wants to grow it as large and as fast as Obama. So without looking and hoping about what may or may not happen in 2016 -- if those are the two likely options of the two, I'd rather the slow death with Romney over the quick death with Obama.
And I would like to hear from you, if you'd care to share -- why vote 3rd party...to make a point? to take a stand? because you like Gary Johnson's views on the issues? Just curious. Thanks. and if you are a marine, thank you for your service!!

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:00 PM
You're still thinking there's a choice between two ideologies. There isn't. Did you watch the last debate?! The only thing they disagreed about was who was going to administer the exact same foreign policy.

There is no choice here. Don't let the parties fool you.

Reminded me of Gore vs. Bush in one of their debates. Every answer from Gore was "I agree, and...." i was shaking my head then and was shaking it in the 3rd debate here. I am not suggesting there is much difference. I know that either party wants to grow, make the goverment larger, and get more power. It just depends if they spend on Military (R) or Social Programs (D), but the money is being spent and goverment is growing -- i get that. And the way you put it last time, "privileges", you are right, I would rather freedom! But that isn't an option we have in 2012...we have an option of more privileges or less....my thoughts on voting Romney was to side with the "more".

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:01 PM
:crickets:

:D

But I was really hoping he was gonna try rationalizing with Gunny. That exchange would have made my day...

I'm back, I had to go help my neighbor (elderly) because PA is having some very bad weather -- and would enjoy chatting with Gunny!

69360
10-29-2012, 09:11 PM
I don't really care which idiot wins and my mind is made up I am voting for GJ.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Hello Lau, thanks for taking the time to come chat. I wish more folks were as open to discussion as you.

As a registered Republican in OH, I will try to shed some light on why I will likely vote for Gary Johnson. In short, because he earned it. How does Mitt Romney earn a vote? Well, he's not Obama primarily.

In other words, let's say you dedicated every day of your life for years to the business of being elected to a political office. Raising money, campaigning almost every day, writing articles, working on a book, tv/radio interviews, etc. Every where you go, people love your message and thank you for your dedication to public service. It's a den of vipers and you're risking your livelihood to protect your fellow citizens. At the end of 1 - 2 year campaign, wouldn't you just feel crushed if people that loved your message decided not to vote for you because you were not likely to win? To add insult to injury, you hear this same thing from thousands and thousands of people. Yet, if all the people that said that actually ended up voting for you, you would win!

I like Gary Johnson, and I would like to encourage him and others like him to try again in the future. My statistically meaningless vote (even in OH) is my way of saying Thank You.


Thank you so much for the kind and welcoming words!! GREAT to hear from you!!!!!!

And as for your point about Gary Johnson winning if everyone voted for him who liked him, I'm not sure I agree with that -- sadly I fear this country, as a whole, would rather the government get big and take care of them. I hope it isnt true, but that is just a feeling I get. I wish you were right and it is a great thought, something I would hope to be true too, but sadly I'm not sure thats true today.
But -- that wasn't your point. Back to your point, I agree the vote is a nice way to not only thank him but support him too. And he is trying to make changes, this is your way of supporting the change he wants to see in the country. But he doesn't have the power to make many of the changes he wants anyway, wouldnt he be better off running for congress and passing bills? Unless he acts like Obama, Bush, etc, and just makes up his own powers (which I'm guessing he wotn -- he will follow the constitution and limit his own powers), he won't be able to very much to make the changes......so why he is not running for congress to help others like Paul?

I went off on a few tangents, but back to your earlier point, you are 100% correct to say that if I vote for Romney it is for ONE reason, he is not Obama. And while your words were nice, I'm not sure you swayed me to vote for G.J. just because he "tried". Care to talk a bit more about why you like him?
And again - thanks for being so polite!

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:17 PM
Troll thread

- rep


BTW- There is a an outside chance Ron Paul would want to run again in 2016, and electing Romney would certainly hurt his chances if he had to run against an incumbent republican. In that sense, helping Romney would be a vote against Ron or Rand in 2016.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:19 PM
I'll be honest: I'm not a huge fan of Gary Johnson.

But I do think this chart does a pretty good job of summing up the differences between Romney and Obama:


A nice chart....a question about it: Romney is Anti-guns????
And about the Iran point, do people here really think being peaceful and asking nicely will stop them from getting and using a Nuke?!

Also on Same Sex Marriage, why is this part of a federal issue????
being married and taxes should not be related and each state should let people marry as they choose.

thank you for the chart - it was nice to read, and putting things side by side did make your case for GJ a strong case!

qh4dotcom
10-29-2012, 09:20 PM
Reading it, I understand your point. But are you saying you either have freedom or you dont? Let me say it this way, Obama wants a larger goverment and more control over your life than Romney - and a vote for G.J. is a vote for Larger Government Obama.

I live in the swing state of Florida and I am voting for GJ. I understand that no matter how close the election is here, my tiny insignificant vote has zero chance of denying Obama a 2nd term. It will not be a tiebreaker swing vote that by itself causes Obama to lose the election.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 09:20 PM
A nice chart....a question about it: Romney is Anti-guns????
And about the Iran point, do people here really think being peaceful and asking nicely will stop them from getting and using a Nuke?!

Also on Same Sex Marriage, why is this part of a federal issue????
being married and taxes should not be related and each state should let people marry as they choose.

thank you for the chart - it was nice to read, and putting things side by side did make your case for GJ a strong case!
Who has proof they are trying to get a nuke?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:21 PM
A nice chart....a question about it: Romney is Anti-guns????
And about the Iran point, do people here really think being peaceful and asking nicely will stop them from getting and using a Nuke?!

Also on Same Sex Marriage, why is this part of a federal issue????
being married and taxes should not be related and each state should let people marry as they choose.

thank you for the chart - it was nice to read, and putting things side by side did make your case for GJ a strong case!

I don't think we should have a standing army. I also think we should have transparent government meaning it shouldn't have classified information.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:22 PM
A nice chart....a question about it: Romney is Anti-guns????
And about the Iran point, do people here really think being peaceful and asking nicely will stop them from getting and using a Nuke?!

Also on Same Sex Marriage, why is this part of a federal issue????
being married and taxes should not be related and each state should let people marry as they choose.

thank you for the chart - it was nice to read, and putting things side by side did make your case for GJ a strong case!

Israel has 300 nukes.

Iran is not even trying to get them and is a member of the nonproliferation treaty.

Israel refuses to sign, and won't allow inspectors in.

qh4dotcom
10-29-2012, 09:23 PM
BTW- There is a an outside chance Ron Paul would want to run again in 2016, and electing Romney would certainly hurt his chances if he had to run against an incumbent republican. In that sense, helping Romney would be a vote against Ron or Rand in 2016.

You forgot that the economic collapse Dr. Paul has been predicting should have arrived by then....and it will be blamed on Romney opening the door for Rand or Ron to run in 2016.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:25 PM
You forgot that the economic collapse Dr. Paul has been predicting should have arrived by then....and it will be blamed on Romney opening the door for Rand or Ron to run in 2016.

IDK, there is still lots of stuff the federal reserve can buy up including the private market. We can buy up parts of Europe if needed too.

It's a one way train.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:25 PM
You will do as you will. Republicans have, for years and years and years, voted Republican to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yet even when the Republicans have had the chance (and there have been times when they won control of both Congress and the White House--they haven't done it.

They've got you, too, all caught up in this divide and conquer strategy. And what will it get you? Hope that Obamacare will be nipped in the bud? By the guy who invented it? Sounds good, but how much are you willing to bet on that? I know he made state choice noises about it, but I haven't seen a law repealed in my lifetime, and if he never gets the repeal from the Congress, he has cover. Doesn't he? Besides, he was all about his own version of Obamacare before we made enough headway to convince him to flip flop on that subject. Like many other subjects...

Why vote Johnson? I've been saying for years and years that getting rid of the current two party duopoly is just a matter of getting enough people on board that people will see the growing numbers and realize the simple fact that all it takes for us to vote someone else in is to vote for someone else. And a bit more momentum could get us to the tipping point. What favors have the Demopublicans and Republicrats done for you lately that they deserve your continued patronage?

The Republican Party hasn't been with us forever. They began their ascent about 1850. And now that they're indistinguishable from the Democrats (and they really, really are) it's time for them to go out the same way they came in.

Oh, and by the way: A vote for Johnson is a vote for Johnson. It's really simple how that works.


Okay, yes, my vote for Romney is because he is not Obama.
If Obama wins, then I know Obamacare will stand and I know more socialist programs will be added and grow.
If Romney wins, you may be right, but you may be wrong....it could be very likely but it is not as much of a "lock" as Obama.

I do agree with your point about 2 parties not wanting a 3rd....they both lose if a 3rd party becomes a large foot hold in this country's elections....best of all, we ALL Win if that happens!! But you are doing the same thing here as you say not to do with romney. Romney is NOT Obama and that is a reason to vote for him (for me), and Johnson is NOT (R) or (D) and that is why you are voting for him....but that isn't enough to sway me this year. This isn't an election vs Clinton, this is against Obama -- and again as I pointed out earlier, why is Johnson not running for Congress to make more of these changes, rather than the white house where he wont be able to do as much to help this country change?

georgiaboy
10-29-2012, 09:27 PM
I'm not asking you to vote for either.
I'm asking why you aren't doing all you can to keep Obama and his agenda out of the white house for 4 more years?!?

Lou, non-swing state here, pretty much red no matter what lever I pull, but here's my take:

Obama and his agenda == Romney and his agenda. Neither have a record of small government.

Romney will say anything to get elected. What has he done, though? Romneycare, gun-banning, governed Taxachusetts, of "Big Dig" fame, and the most notable flip-flopper.

And if you do believe Romney's campaign speeches, he's gonna keep government right on growing, keep the overseas intervention going, keep printing money, keep cranking up the debt, and keep gov't run healthcare.

Does any self-respecting conservative really need to go on? It's embarrassing really to even have to talk about it.

During the primaries, everyone knew that Romney was the closest candidate to Obama of everyone on that GOP stage. Guess what? He still is.

Why do conservatives even need to discuss whether it matters which of these two gets the oval office? We don't have a dog in the hunt. It's like asking why we don't want to choose vanilla over strawberry, when what we really need is steak.

TheGrinch
10-29-2012, 09:30 PM
Man, this guy is more dense than a jehovahs witness. This is just getting sad.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:30 PM
That's funny.

I actually prefer Obama to Romney. Obama won't start another dumb war.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-DdbAGlRo


That being said, I don't bother to advocate for Obama since I have no intention of voting for him.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:33 PM
Bone up on your history. The way the founding fathers did things was with principle and passion.

This was related to how people were personally attacking me for asking a question and asking for a civil debate.
I introduced myself, I shared my views, I asked questions and asked people to share their opinions if they wanted to join -- and the first few pages are filled with people making comments and personally coming after me. Taht was the reason for this post. Though the founders had passion, I'm sure they wouldnt instantly attack and accuse a new person with being part of a conspiracy theory without first talking with them, or at last taking a moment to intoduce their points.

georgiaboy
10-29-2012, 09:33 PM
By the way, I wish the swing state conservative voters could see things the way most of us see them here on the forums.

If those conservatives realized that they had the power to show the GOP that we won't stand for dem-lite candidates any more, they could leave their ballot blank, pick a third party they were comfortable with, or write-in their favorite conservative.

That might actually get some attention and help us all change things for the better.

This 'lesser of two evils', 'Anyone but Obama' crap is just that. Same game every time, and the GOP knows it. Gotta break out from that endless spiral downward.

C'mon, Lou, if you are a conservative, find your heart and conscience, and vote like one. Don't settle for Democrat-lite. There's too much at stake, and your future generations will thank you for it.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:33 PM
Best part about this election is we won't have to hear from the Romney trolls anymore if Obama does manage to win. I think he'll do better than McCain but not much better.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:35 PM
You could probably say that Romney has more of a track record of proven success in a lot of things.

But when both of their objectives are to subjugate you and me, would we rather the person trying to do that be someone with a record of success or someone with a record of failure?


Obama's record is pure failure and an easy way to prove that is because he hasn't said a word about his record (at least not a true word) all year

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:36 PM
Why did you register on these forums again?

Is this closed to people with questions?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:37 PM
Obama's record is pure failure and an easy way to prove that is because he hasn't said a word about his record (at least not a true word) all year

Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were a failure.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:40 PM
To attempt to get us to vote for his guy, apparently. Especially if you're in a swing state. Honestly, I've seen enough dirty tricks from the GOP to make me question whether Romney is the lesser of two evils. Based on the number of Republican drones trying to get me to change my vote, I doubt it.

This is starting to get a bit scary....when people question your points or ask questions in general -- you instantly assume its some consiracy theory. I'm sorry you live such a paranoid life, but I am simply a person coming here to ask question and hope to get answers. Not a hidden spy trying to secretly corrupt you after I fully admit my way of leaning my vote to romney this year. Haha...Are you this good at cracking all of the 3rd grade puzzles you attempt? LOL

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:42 PM
So what do you suggest we do to keep Obama out of the White House?

That is why I am here.
And so far, all I can think of is a vote for Romney -- that is the best and most sure fire way to keep Obama out of the white house.

Though I wouldn't be here if things were that simple. Clearly this is something I struggle with, giving a vote to a person I don't agree much with - but again I want to be clear that keeping Obama out of office is a big deal, and I do wonder why it isn't as big of a deal to you.
Thanks Dr3D

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:42 PM
http://www.intrade.com/v4/home/

Intrade is saying Romney is losing. The Romney trolls are beginning to panic

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:43 PM
I don't really care which idiot wins and my mind is made up I am voting for GJ.

any reasons for that vote?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 09:45 PM
any reasons for that vote?
I would guess, because the other two are the same and GJ is different.
That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:46 PM
BTW- There is a an outside chance Ron Paul would want to run again in 2016, and electing Romney would certainly hurt his chances if he had to run against an incumbent republican. In that sense, helping Romney would be a vote against Ron or Rand in 2016.

Oh my -- there is no way of knowing if this will happen or not and yet you are making a vote on this election to hope Obama wins just so you may have someone else run. Aside from that being unlikely, it is equally as unlikely that Romney will run for 1 term and then choose not to run again --- so why dont you vote that way. lol

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:48 PM
I live in the swing state of Florida and I am voting for GJ. I understand that no matter how close the election is here, my tiny insignificant vote has zero chance of denying Obama a 2nd term. It will not be a tiebreaker swing vote that by itself causes Obama to lose the election.

Every Vote counts -- if you dont think so, then sit home and dont vote.
but if you are placing a vote, then it's clear you think (and know) your vote means something.
I think you should take back this last statement.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:49 PM
Who has proof they are trying to get a nuke?

A good point I guess, all that is being reported is that they have potions that could turn into a nuke......is it worth the risk of them having/getting/using them? Since you support the cutting down of our military, should we also cut out the research on defending against them shooting one at us in a decade or so?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:50 PM
Oh my -- there is no way of knowing if this will happen or not and yet you are making a vote on this election to hope Obama wins just so you may have someone else run. Aside from that being unlikely, it is equally as unlikely that Romney will run for 1 term and then choose not to run again --- so why dont you vote that way. lol

If Ron Paul has a 1% chance of running in 2016, those odds still sound pretty good to me.

BTW- I have no problem with Ron Paul write in's. If those votes don't get counted o well. It's the point of it. This election is essentially a futile and meaningless event since the election ended in the primary and not the general. The only point now is to just vote for the same candidate again in the general.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 09:51 PM
A good point I guess, all that is being reported is that they have potions that could turn into a nuke......is it worth the risk of them having/getting/using them? Since you support the cutting down of our military, should we also cut out the research on defending against them shooting one at us in a decade or so?
If they ever did that, they know it would be suicide. What kept Russia or China from doing that?

deadfish
10-29-2012, 09:53 PM
Thank you so much for the kind and welcoming words!! GREAT to hear from you!!!!!!

And as for your point about Gary Johnson winning if everyone voted for him who liked him, I'm not sure I agree with that -- sadly I fear this country, as a whole, would rather the government get big and take care of them. I hope it isnt true, but that is just a feeling I get. I wish you were right and it is a great thought, something I would hope to be true too, but sadly I'm not sure thats true today.
But -- that wasn't your point. Back to your point, I agree the vote is a nice way to not only thank him but support him too. And he is trying to make changes, this is your way of supporting the change he wants to see in the country. But he doesn't have the power to make many of the changes he wants anyway, wouldnt he be better off running for congress and passing bills? Unless he acts like Obama, Bush, etc, and just makes up his own powers (which I'm guessing he wotn -- he will follow the constitution and limit his own powers), he won't be able to very much to make the changes......so why he is not running for congress to help others like Paul?

I went off on a few tangents, but back to your earlier point, you are 100% correct to say that if I vote for Romney it is for ONE reason, he is not Obama. And while your words were nice, I'm not sure you swayed me to vote for G.J. just because he "tried". Care to talk a bit more about why you like him?
And again - thanks for being so polite!

We will have to disagree about the impact a GJ win would have on American domestic and foreign policy. Obviously he has Constitutional authority to scale back current military interventions. Could effective end the War on Drugs, pardon MJ possession cases, ask for resignations from the DoJ regarding F&F. Instead of giving empty speeches, he would actually talk about making real cuts to government. I could go on, but I'll skip ahead.

To say GJ would make an ineffective president would require an assumption that GJ could actually win. Once you make that assumption, you have defeated the premise that GJ would be ineffective. The simple miracle that Americans rejected the two party system would be monumental leap forward; something you said you would hope to be true.

The only argument to make is that GJ has no chance of winning, GJ peels votes from Romney, and Obama is worse than Romney. This is all true, however Romney is likely to continue a few too many evils for me to cast a vote for him in good conscience. Again, even in OH, my vote is statistically meaningless. I will cast my meaningless vote in the way that I believe will most benefit the nation. I will compromise on principle to oust a bad politician, but not on this year's potus. This year the lesser evil is just a little too evil for my moral principles.

Tell you what, if Romney starts talking about closing foreign bases, ending wars, bringing troops home, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy, then I might vote for him. (edit: Romney is of course completely untrustworthy even if he did say it, but assuming he actually meant it)

Going back to GJ peeling votes from Romney - What if I told you that I knew an Obama supporter that would promise to vote for GJ as long as you did too. Would you accept that agreement, assuming both sides kept their word?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't think we should have a standing army. I also think we should have transparent government meaning it shouldn't have classified information.

So you just support other countries having spys....not us?
Or should we have them but just have their addresses and identity posted for all to see?

Without a standing army, are you suggesting we post a Tweet to everyone if we get attacked?
what about other countries who come into our air or water space? should we look the other way? Or are you suggesting we use the technology that you wouldn't have supported spending money on many years ago, to detect those people in that area?
Maybe we could all hand out flowers -- wouldn't that be nice?!?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:54 PM
I don't think the US should have nukes either since they are used to target civilians.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 09:55 PM
So you just support other countries having spys....not us?
Or should we have them but just have their addresses and identity posted for all to see?

Without a standing army, are you suggesting we post a Tweet to everyone if we get attacked?
what about other countries who come into our air or water space? should we look the other way? Or are you suggesting we use the technology that you wouldn't have supported spending money on many years ago, to detect those people in that area?
Maybe we could all hand out flowers -- wouldn't that be nice?!?

If anyone should have armies it should be the states (and I don't necessarily think they need them either)

You need two way interpretation of Constitution law. If the president has 100% of the guns, then it's a one way dictation.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:56 PM
Lou, non-swing state here, pretty much red no matter what lever I pull, but here's my take:

Obama and his agenda == Romney and his agenda. Neither have a record of small government.

Romney will say anything to get elected. What has he done, though? Romneycare, gun-banning, governed Taxachusetts, of "Big Dig" fame, and the most notable flip-flopper.

And if you do believe Romney's campaign speeches, he's gonna keep government right on growing, keep the overseas intervention going, keep printing money, keep cranking up the debt, and keep gov't run healthcare.

Does any self-respecting conservative really need to go on? It's embarrassing really to even have to talk about it.

During the primaries, everyone knew that Romney was the closest candidate to Obama of everyone on that GOP stage. Guess what? He still is.

Why do conservatives even need to discuss whether it matters which of these two gets the oval office? We don't have a dog in the hunt. It's like asking why we don't want to choose vanilla over strawberry, when what we really need is steak.

as a non swing state vote -- I love seeing you vote for G.J. and that is eactly what I would do too!
And I do love steak! Though you cant get steak at D.Q. and at the moment, thats where we are located, inside the doors of D.Q. (at least that is why I'm torn)

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 09:58 PM
Man, this guy is more dense than a jehovahs witness. This is just getting sad.

That is insulting to both me and jehovahs witnesses ... do you always insult people who ask questions?
I sure hope you dont represent any other people on this forum....are you always this rude?!? Sad if this is who you really are.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:00 PM
That's funny.

I actually prefer Obama to Romney. Obama won't start another dumb war.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI-DdbAGlRo


That being said, I don't bother to advocate for Obama since I have no intention of voting for him.


Obama wont start another war...you mean one after Libya?!?!
which war did Romney start .... hmm....none! So Obama is winning 1-0....and if you count his promise to remove troops in 6 months (which hasn't happened) then it could be 2-0 or 3-0....and yet the left wing is doing all it can to scare people into thinking Romney is the "war guy".

Good to know that Agorism supports what Obama did in Libya, thanks for getting that on the record.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:03 PM
By the way, I wish the swing state conservative voters could see things the way most of us see them here on the forums.

If those conservatives realized that they had the power to show the GOP that we won't stand for dem-lite candidates any more, they could leave their ballot blank, pick a third party they were comfortable with, or write-in their favorite conservative.

That might actually get some attention and help us all change things for the better.

This 'lesser of two evils', 'Anyone but Obama' crap is just that. Same game every time, and the GOP knows it. Gotta break out from that endless spiral downward.

C'mon, Lou, if you are a conservative, find your heart and conscience, and vote like one. Don't settle for Democrat-lite. There's too much at stake, and your future generations will thank you for it.

PA only lets people registered with the party vote in the primary, so I could not vote -- but if I remember correctly, I think the Republicans (not conservatives) in PA voted for Romney.....so why do you think they would change now? And i only ask that because you say the conservatives have the power to change the GOP and while I would be happy to do that - change both Dem and Repub......but can you explain how voting 3rd party will be sure to get the change you, or I, or we want?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:04 PM
Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama were a failure.

and Carter wasnt? haha

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:06 PM
I would guess, because the other two are the same and GJ is different.
That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul.

How is that different than people being against Obama and therefor voting for Romney?
you are against both and then vote for a 3rd. your Icon is making me dizzy -- but im still here and you've still got my attention, so keep sharing.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:08 PM
If Ron Paul has a 1% chance of running in 2016, those odds still sound pretty good to me.

BTW- I have no problem with Ron Paul write in's. If those votes don't get counted o well. It's the point of it. This election is essentially a futile and meaningless event since the election ended in the primary and not the general. The only point now is to just vote for the same candidate again in the general.

you are making up the 1% chance though. you are just as likely to see him have a 0% chance of running and yet you make up the 1% to hold your point.
as to your comment of "It's the point of it." I take that to mean you are doing this to "make a point" not to "make things better" but just because you are going to let your ego get in the way of what you may or may not think is best for the 2012 election. Pride can blind people.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:10 PM
If they ever did that, they know it would be suicide. What kept Russia or China from doing that?

THE USA!! the large military that you want to cut and remove troops from area. you want people in the oval office that wont ever push that red button....and yet that is the reason Russia and China have not done it. I think G.J. may blow up the red button and let it be seen on live tv....then remove all our troops and then throw away all our guns.....so then the question goes back to you -- if we dont have them fearing us, what will keep them from doing it? Other than sending flowers and a nice card asking them not to, of course.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:14 PM
and Carter wasnt? haha

Carter too, but he was the least evil US president according to Lew Rockwell.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:14 PM
We will have to disagree about the impact a GJ win would have on American domestic and foreign policy. Obviously he has Constitutional authority to scale back current military interventions. Could effective end the War on Drugs, pardon MJ possession cases, ask for resignations from the DoJ regarding F&F. Instead of giving empty speeches, he would actually talk about making real cuts to government. I could go on, but I'll skip ahead.

To say GJ would make an ineffective president would require an assumption that GJ could actually win. Once you make that assumption, you have defeated the premise that GJ would be ineffective. The simple miracle that Americans rejected the two party system would be monumental leap forward; something you said you would hope to be true.

The only argument to make is that GJ has no chance of winning, GJ peels votes from Romney, and Obama is worse than Romney. This is all true, however Romney is likely to continue a few too many evils for me to cast a vote for him in good conscience. Again, even in OH, my vote is statistically meaningless. I will cast my meaningless vote in the way that I believe will most benefit the nation. I will compromise on principle to oust a bad politician, but not on this year's potus. This year the lesser evil is just a little too evil for my moral principles.

Tell you what, if Romney starts talking about closing foreign bases, ending wars, bringing troops home, and adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy, then I might vote for him. (edit: Romney is of course completely untrustworthy even if he did say it, but assuming he actually meant it)

Going back to GJ peeling votes from Romney - What if I told you that I knew an Obama supporter that would promise to vote for GJ as long as you did too. Would you accept that agreement, assuming both sides kept their word?

First, your vote is not meaningless -- as i said to someone else on here, if you believe that, stay home. and you wont, you will go vote -- because the vote means something! and that's a good thing!

as to your last question, if he/she was in the same state, I would instantly do that deal and keep my word. Yes....id write in R.P. as long as they promised not to vote for Obama -- done deal...instantly! My reasons for not voting 3rd party are because of my fear for Obama...a fear I have not had about any recent POTUS....so again, yes, i agree to the deal!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:15 PM
THE USA!! the large military that you want to cut and remove troops from area. you want people in the oval office that wont ever push that red button....and yet that is the reason Russia and China have not done it. I think G.J. may blow up the red button and let it be seen on live tv....then remove all our troops and then throw away all our guns.....so then the question goes back to you -- if we dont have them fearing us, what will keep them from doing it? Other than sending flowers and a nice card asking them not to, of course.
Wow, never thought of it that way. I guess we should hurry up and start a war with Iran so we can use up what money we don't have and thus hurry up our government going broke. After that, I guess it wouldn't matter who the hell was president.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:15 PM
I don't think the US should have nukes either since they are used to target civilians.

we should just let all other countries have nukes....as long as we dont have them?
haha, another winning idea!

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:16 PM
you are making up the 1% chance though. you are just as likely to see him have a 0% chance of running and yet you make up the 1% to hold your point.
as to your comment of "It's the point of it." I take that to mean you are doing this to "make a point" not to "make things better" but just because you are going to let your ego get in the way of what you may or may not think is best for the 2012 election. Pride can blind people.

No it's because I don't care. The thought of a Romney vote counter seeing a vote for Ron Paul in a swing state that they won't count makes me laugh.

This election ended in the GOP primary.

it's already OVER. Now we're just voting for kicks.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:17 PM
we should just let all other countries have nukes....as long as we dont have them?
haha, another winning idea!

Who's we? I'm not in charge of the military.

You mean the corrupt politicians.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:17 PM
Carter too, but he was the least evil US president according to Lew Rockwell.

what does "least evil" mean?
he caused the worst problem for this country since the Depression!

(note that Obama forgot about the problems Carter caused when he talks about the problems Bush caused)

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:19 PM
Wow, never thought of it that way. I guess we should hurry up and start a war with Iran so we can use up what money we don't have and thus hurry up our government going broke. After that, I guess it wouldn't matter who the hell was president.

You asked why Russia and china never used them --- did you have another reason than fear that we would return fire and destroy them?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:19 PM
what does "least evil" mean?
he caused the worst problem for this country since the Depression!

(note that Obama forgot about the problems Carter caused when he talks about the problems Bush caused)

Volcker cost him the election basically. He was pretty good actually, but he lost his mojo during the reagan Regime.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:20 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89943.html


Good for Jimmy
Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 19, 2011 12:44 PM
Jimmy Carter, the least-bad ex-president of my lifetime—recently in trouble for telling some truths about the Middle-East—now criticizes the monstrous war on drugs.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25999.html

re: Jimmy Carter Causes Neocon To Blow His Top
Posted by Lew Rockwell on March 24, 2009 11:57 PM
Tom, I've long thought that Jimmy Carter was the least bad president of my lifetime, and the only decent ex-president--an actual peacemaker--but now that I know he has apparently been reading you and Ron Paul, well: Go, Jimmy!

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:20 PM
Who's we? I'm not in charge of the military.

You mean the corrupt politicians.

We meaning what you suggest --- you said the USA should not have nukes.
and no one would let other countries have them -- but they will keep them.....so that is the world you want to live in -- one where many other countries have nukes and this country does not?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:21 PM
You asked why Russia and china never used them --- did you have another reason than fear that we would return fire and destroy them?
So it doesn't matter who the president is if somebody decided to send over a nuke. Whoever sent it would get at least ten more back. We don't need troops in hundreds of other countries to send back some nukes. Who the heck is saying we wouldn't have nuclear deterrents?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:21 PM
Volcker cost him the election basically. He was pretty good actually, but he lost his mojo during the reagan Regime.

you didnt comment on the problems Carter caused for the country -- why are you ignoring this?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:23 PM
We meaning what you suggest --- you said the USA should not have nukes.
and no one would let other countries have them -- but they will keep them.....so that is the world you want to live in -- one where many other countries have nukes and this country does not?

What's the point of nukes?

Just because another "government" would nuke one of our citizens, would that justify a relation by killing some other city of civilians?

Nope, but those civilians have corrupt leaders just as we do.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:24 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/89943.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/25999.html

Under Carter: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment

doesn't sound too bad, does it? :toady:

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:24 PM
you didnt comment on the problems Carter caused for the country -- why are you ignoring this?\

Voclker tightened monetary policy.

Why is this hard to understand?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:25 PM
Under Carter: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment

doesn't sound too bad, does it? :toady:

Yep, solved by Volcker not Reagan.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:26 PM
So it doesn't matter who the president is if somebody decided to send over a nuke. Whoever sent it would get at least ten more back. We don't need troops in hundreds of other countries to send back some nukes. Who the heck is saying we wouldn't have nuclear deterrents?


Well, people who are saying we cut spending on military spending and research is saying that in part. If we would have had less funding in this area decades ago, we wouldnt have the technology you are asking us to use today (in terms of defending the nukes).

as for the president pressing the button, I want other's to fear the USA in such a way that they dont send 1 in the first place. That fear keeps them away, or at least has up to this point.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:27 PM
What's the point of nukes?

Just because another "government" would nuke one of our citizens, would that justify a relation by killing some other city of civilians?

Nope, but those civilians have corrupt leaders just as we do.

having nukes have kept us from being attacked by them -- we deter their use against us. because we would not just take out other civilians, we would target the other leaders and they know it.

or we can just welcome the attack and send them some flowers to say "please stop" -- is that what you suggest?

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Well, people who are saying we cut spending on military spending and research is saying that in part. If we would have had less funding in this area decades ago, we wouldnt have the technology you are asking us to use today (in terms of defending the nukes).

as for the president pressing the button, I want other's to fear the USA in such a way that they dont send 1 in the first place. That fear keeps them away, or at least has up to this point.
Yeah, same here. And that sir is what would keep Iran from ever using a nuke on the U.S.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:29 PM
having nukes have kept us from being attacked by them -- we deter their use against us. because we would not just take out other civilians, we would target the other leaders and they know it.

or we can just welcome the attack and send them some flowers to say "please stop" -- is that what you suggest?


US is the only country to target civilians with the nukes.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:29 PM
Reagan was worried about about losing the Libertarian vote to Ed Clark in 1980 so he campaigned on getting rid of selective service. Of course he was lying to get votes.
Same guy who said he wanted a blood bath right before Kent State.

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Yep, solved by Volcker not Reagan.

haha, you bruoght up Reagan -- I brought up the problem, caused by Carter and just like a Left Wing Nut, you ignore the problem from your fello Dems, and bring up an issue with another person.

Lets go back to the Carter numbers: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment
and you can tell me if that makes him the "lease evil" for such horrible numbers

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Yeah, same here. And that sir is what would keep Iran from ever using a nuke on the U.S.

good by me!!!!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:31 PM
good by me!!!!
So we both agree there.... but Mitt wants to start a war with Iran anyway.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:31 PM
haha, you bruoght up Reagan -- I brought up the problem, caused by Carter and just like a Left Wing Nut, you ignore the problem from your fello Dems, and bring up an issue with another person.

Lets go back to the Carter numbers: 21% Intrest rate, 18% inflation and 11% unemployment
and you can tell me if that makes him the "lease evil" for such horrible numbers

I've never voted for a single democrat in my whole life.

In fact, I voted for Bush in his first term (when I was young and thought he was a conservative somehow)

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:35 PM
Reagan was worried about about losing the Libertarian vote to Ed Clark in 1980 so he campaigned on getting rid of selective service. Of course he was lying to get votes.
Same guy who said he wanted a blood bath right before Kent State.

Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

Really, so he was so worried about the Libertarian vote in 1980 that he lied....and somehow, did even better in 1984?!?! doesnt sound like he ignored many people in 1984 ... other than a few folks in Minn
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4751853786366607&pid=15.1


But we are far off topic, I am okay chatting with you more about this Agorism, but can you start a new thread? just send me the link and i will join you there for a debate -- I would like to keep this to people in swing states and hearing them talk about their vote and reason for it.
Thanks!

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:37 PM
So we both agree there.... but Mitt wants to start a war with Iran anyway.

We do both agree as long as you are saying it's okay for us to keep the nukes and to impose fear on others.
I do not like war. Though I would support things such as WWII when Congress votes on it, even though I dont like seeing war.

and yes, we agree Mitt may start a war with Iran, but do we also both agree that obama DID start a war, in Libya?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:37 PM
Really, so he was so worried about the Libertarian vote in 1980 that he lied....and somehow, did even better in 1984?!?! doesnt sound like he ignored many people in 1984 ... other than a few folks in Minn
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=I.4751853786366607&pid=15.1


But we are far off topic, I am okay chatting with you more about this Agorism, but can you start a new thread? just send me the link and i will join you there for a debate -- I would like to keep this to people in swing states and hearing them talk about their vote and reason for it.
Thanks!

Congrats on the mob. Just because everyone thinks Reagan was a good idea doesn't mean he was.

Same goes for Obama. Obama is really popular. So what...who cares.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:38 PM
I've never voted for a single democrat in my whole life.

In fact, I voted for Bush in his first term (when I was young and thought he was a conservative somehow)

We sound as though we may be around the same age -- so you may be a great person for me to talk with...can you tell me more about how/where/when/why you made a change?
Thanks!

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:39 PM
We do both agree as long as you are saying it's okay for us to keep the nukes and to impose fear on others.
I do not like war. Though I would support things such as WWII when Congress votes on it, even though I dont like seeing war.

and yes, we agree Mitt may start a war with Iran, but do we also both agree that obama DID start a war, in Libya?
Yep, I agree, and Obama did it without the approval of Congress.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:40 PM
We sound as though we may be around the same age -- so you may be a great person for me to talk with...can you tell me more about how/where/when/why you made a change?
Thanks!

Invasion of Iraq of course. heh

BTW- none of our personal fates rests with these politicians ones way or the other...for the most part anyway.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:40 PM
Yep, I agree, and Obama did it without the approval of Congress.

Okay, thanks. So many people make it sound as if Mitt is pro war (just because Bush was)
and yet the only Pro War person we have seen in action in this election is Obama. That doesnt mean Mitt wont, but it means on the issue at hand, only Obama has shown proof of this to date.

KCIndy
10-29-2012, 10:42 PM
A nice chart....a question about it: Romney is Anti-guns????


In a word, YES.

The following quote is from an article posted on the Gun Owners of America website:
http://gunowners.org/mittromney-2012.htm


“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he [Romney] said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

(go to the article if you wish to view the quote sources)

Romney's view of the Second Amendment is, apparently, that it was placed in the Constitution to protect our rights to go on the occasional duck hunting trip. :mad:

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2012, 10:42 PM
I am not loyal to either party -- which may in part explain why i am taking time to write on this forum and ask questions.
you are correct about neither person doing anything about the Fed.

...and the monetary inflation of QE3 is far and away the most important issue of the century. I never used to think so, but Ron Paul set me straight on that one.

Unless something changes, we will be in a hyper-inflationary spiral by December of 2014. That makes everything else (except foreign policy) completely irrelevant. And Romney is worse on foreign policy than Obama.


though, is there no thought that Romney will push to cut Govt Spending....even if he spends more on some parts (ex military), that he will cut in other areas?

I don't believe that Romney will even cut PBS / Big Bird, and that's what... 0.0001% of the budget? He's too beholden to the politics of special interests.


and look to make some items such a S.S. private rather than the way our system now works?

Do you really believe that Romney will lift one finger in the direction of privatizing Social Security? I don't. He's too beholden to the politics of special interests.


I do agree, Romney is not a conservative (though not all republicans are conservatives), he wants to spend money and grow the goverment, it just doesnt sound like he wants to grow it as large and as fast as Obama.

So we go over the cliff at 55mph vs 60mph. I agree that 55 is technically slower than 60, but does that technicality really make any difference whatsoever?


So without looking and hoping about what may or may not happen in 2016

I didn't mention 2016, if I had then it would have made my whole argument irrelevant. My argument was that we will be in a full hyper-inflationary spiral by December 2014, which will be blamed on the party/philosophy in the oval office at that time. If that is Romney, then the kickback from the collapse will lead to rebuilding in a communistic/socialistic model.

If the principled voters of America only ever look in four year chunks, we are lost for certain. It is awfully short sighted to accept a slow death over a fast death now, in exchange for a dystopian communist tyranny a decade from now. Are we supposed to simply not care about our posterity?


-- if those are the two likely options of the two, I'd rather the slow death with Romney over the quick death with Obama.

Slow deaths are always more painful than quick ones. There will be more blood in the streets, more death and destruction, more pain, and more tyranny from a slow death than a fast death.

This should not come as a surprise. Arsenic poisoning is more painful than cyanide poisoning. Burning to death is more painful than a bullet to the brain. It is certain enough to be axiomatic.


And I would like to hear from you, if you'd care to share -- why vote 3rd party...to make a point? to take a stand? because you like Gary Johnson's views on the issues? Just curious.

I never said that I would be voting for Gary Johnson. That is an assumption you have made. For a point of fact, Johnson lost my vote when he started discovering 'Constitutional rights' never envisioned by the founders or the framers. Were Virgil Goode on the ballot in NC, I would likely vote for him, even though he has his own issues at least he isn't shredding the Constitution.

And why demur from either of the Goldman Sachs candidates? Because I am a strict construction constitutionalist. I will never vote to further abrogate the Constitution. Both RomBama and ObaMney will piss on the Constitution. If any party wants my vote, then they will nominate candidates that will honor the Constitution. As long as they continue to nominate candidates that spit on the Constitution, they will continue to forfeit my vote.

That pledge I will take to my grave.


Thanks. and if you are a marine, thank you for your service!!

Thank you, it was from a desire to pledge my life to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic that I joined. That same exact desire to lay down my life for the Constitution has led to my voting pattern whereby I will only vote for those who will honor it.

Death before dishonor.

I will die before I vote to piss on the Constitution.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:46 PM
He's personal friends with bibi. He's also on record of saying that he does not need congress to start a war with Iran.

If this guy wins, it will be a blood bath.

RickyJ
10-29-2012, 10:46 PM
The answer to that question is YES!

Yes we can risk 4 more years of Obama vs. a possible 8 by Romney!

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 10:49 PM
You can't tell me you "trust" Obama. So I cannot agree with your first point of not being able to trust romney, that is equal because you cannot trust obama either.

I actually trust Obama a bit more than Romney, but only because he admits (proclaims) part of what he is, hence is just slightly more honest. But BECAUSE I 'equally' dislike both, I don't want either.


And I can understand you are upset about Romney altering elections (Obama did that also, that is how he got elected to the State Senate) - but is that enough to give Obama the election?

What "Lesson" are you teaching the Repubs by giving the election to Obama ... that next time, the Repubs need to pick a person MORE left wing to take votes from people voting for Obama?!?

What lesson would we give if after that we still voted for him, that they can do anything at all to cheat us and we'll still vote 'red team'?

No thanks.

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 10:50 PM
Yep, I agree, and Obama did it without the approval of Congress.

but Romney said the president COULD invade Iran without congress.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:51 PM
but Romney said the president COULD invade Iran without congress.
Just shows he is no better than Obama when it comes to the Constitution.

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 10:53 PM
Just shows he is no better than Obama when it comes to the Constitution.

Exactly.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 10:54 PM
it was from a desire to pledge my life to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic that I joined. That same exact desire to lay down my life for the Constitution has led to my voting pattern whereby I will only vote for those who will honor it.

Death before dishonor.

I will die before I vote to piss on the Constitution.


clearly an honorable thing!
and yes, i'm sorry that i assumed you were voting for GJ.
I know you wont vote for either R or D....so are you voting for no one, or write in? (and I dont need to know a name, just curious)

thanks for sharing your words....i have put away the rope I was going to hang myself with if Obama won....you talked me off the ledge. That doesnt make me any more happy about the direction of this country, but it does make me think more seriously about a 3rd party vote in PA

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2012, 10:54 PM
By the way, I wish the swing state conservative voters could see things the way most of us see them here on the forums.

If those conservatives realized that they had the power to show the GOP that we won't stand for dem-lite candidates any more, they could leave their ballot blank, pick a third party they were comfortable with, or write-in their favorite conservative.

That might actually get some attention and help us all change things for the better.

This 'lesser of two evils', 'Anyone but Obama' crap is just that. Same game every time, and the GOP knows it. Gotta break out from that endless spiral downward.

C'mon, Lou, if you are a conservative, find your heart and conscience, and vote like one. Don't settle for Democrat-lite. There's too much at stake, and your future generations will thank you for it.

This. If we continue to accept lesser evils, then we will do nothing but descend further into evil, until the fall of the Republic.

Dr.3D
10-29-2012, 10:54 PM
Exactly.
And that is why we are going to vote for Ron Paul. :D

WarAnonymous
10-29-2012, 10:54 PM
I have the solutions to this problem... Just look to "libertarian" Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan said himself in an Ohio speech that him and Ron Paul are good buddies and he agree's with him so much on Freedom and Liberty. Shouldn't that be enough to make you vote for Romney/Ryan... Wait.... Wait....

Paul Ryan -
NDAA (YES)
PATRIOT ACT (YEST)
FISA (YES)
TARP (YES)
CISPA(YES!!!!)

I think he misunderstood the bills because he's a libertarian and good friends with Ron Paul. Vote for FREEDOM Romney/Ryan 2012!!!!

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 10:56 PM
I have the solutions to this problem... Just look to "libertarian" Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan said himself in an Ohio speech that him and Ron Paul are good buddies and he agree's with him so much on Freedom and Liberty. Shouldn't that be enough to make you vote for Romney/Ryan... Wait.... Wait....

Paul Ryan -
NDAA (YES)
PATRIOT ACT (YEST)
FISA (YES)
TARP (YES)

I think he misunderstood the bills because he's a libertarian and good friends with Ron Paul. Vote for FREEDOM Romney/Ryan 2012!!!!

We seriously do need a sarcasm font.

Agorism
10-29-2012, 10:58 PM
Romney the revolutionary
Mitt Romney’s career says a lot about how American business has changed (http://www.economist.com/node/21542765)

Economist had a good article about Romney a while back.

WarAnonymous
10-29-2012, 10:59 PM
We seriously do need a sarcasm font.

Sailing....Who said I was being sarcastic?!?!?!

Ok I am being sarcastic...

Vote for FREEDOM NOBP

NOTE: Not telling you how to vote, I am just saying for myself NOBP

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2012, 11:09 PM
clearly an honorable thing!
and yes, i'm sorry that i assumed you were voting for GJ.
I know you wont vote for either R or D....so are you voting for no one, or write in? (and I dont need to know a name, just curious)

thanks for sharing your words....i have put away the rope I was going to hang myself with if Obama won....you talked me off the ledge. That doesnt make me any more happy about the direction of this country, but it does make me think more seriously about a 3rd party vote in PA

I will probably write in Ron Paul, because at the very least the raw write-in aggregation will be counted as a protest, and hopefully send a message to the powers that be.

It would have the same effect as writing in Mickey Mouse, but at least I will have a clear conscience.

I am glad that you feel better about what was formerly your worst-case nightmare scenario.

I admit that given the near-certainty of total economic collapse by the end of 2014, conservatives are actually better off if Obama gets the blame, because then the unthinking voters will run our way for the rebuilding.

My primary hope is not for either one of the two to win, but for whomever wins that a different party would hold Congress. The very best scenario for all of us would be a legislative logjam.

So if the Congress were going to be Republican we'd be better off with Obama, but if the Congress were going to be Democrat we'd be better off with Romney.

The only hiccup to this line of reasoning would be the potential appointment of justices to the Supreme Court, but my sensitivity to that was dulled by John Robert's lunacy over the PPACA (Obamacare).

So...

My biggest hope is that Congress and the White House is held by opposing parties. Congress is likely to stay Republican, and I hope that Republicans take the Senate also. My secondary consideration is that the left gets the blame for the 2014/2015 collapse so that the voters run our way to rebuild.

Therefore, I am working to put as many of our (Constitutionalist) people in office by the 2014 elections, so that we can be the primary voice for rebuilding following the collapse.

acptulsa
10-29-2012, 11:10 PM
This was related to how people were personally attacking me for asking a question and asking for a civil debate.
I introduced myself, I shared my views, I asked questions and asked people to share their opinions if they wanted to join -- and the first few pages are filled with people making comments and personally coming after me. Taht was the reason for this post. Though the founders had passion, I'm sure they wouldnt instantly attack and accuse a new person with being part of a conspiracy theory without first talking with them, or at last taking a moment to intoduce their points.

Please excuse us for being paranoid. One reason is that we've been inundated with people trying to talk us into this lesser of evils business, and not being nice about it. Some of them are indeed trying to get responses from us that they can take to die-hard Republicans and say, look these aren't team players (as if they were being team players when they denied the delegates a voice at the convention). Another is that we've been preaching this for some time now (some of us longer than others). Maybe we don't have lives, or don't seem to. I won't argue that. But with so much at stake, isn't this kind of a late date to bone up on this stuff?

They've kept us so tied up in knots with their divide and conquer game that we've let them incrementally stuff us with corporatism. Somewhere, sometime, we have to set abortion and gay marriage and this and that aside and get together to push the reset button. It must be done, or our children will grow up in something that has no resemblance to the United States at all.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee the states a lot of leeway. They could do most of the stuff the federal government does. We sold independent voters and even disaffected Democrats on this. If Paul had won the nomination, Paul would be thumping Obama right now. He was enormously electable, but all the Fox talking heads were saying just the opposite. Fox set the Republicans up to fail by talking the Republican rank and file out of nominating a principled conservative. It's what Republicans should have expected from the yellowcake uranium journalism of Fox, but you know...

The corporations go to a powerful Washington and do one stop shopping. If the federal government left everything to the states that it should, according to the Constitution, leave to the states, then these corporations that want to buy influence would have to buy fifty state legislatures. That would be far more difficult and expensive, and we could get a nation that isn't run by corporations. If you want to fix problems with your local fire department, you don't want it run out of Washington. Then you have to convince twenty million people that your fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage, and their local fire departments combined. You can laugh at that, but Homeland Security pays local fire departments to jump through their hoops these days, and I'll bet your local fire department has half a dozen federal grant proposal writers on staff. This should scare you.

Thomas Jefferson said that if one central government were ever to gain control over this nation, it would be the most corrupt government on the face of the earth. This is why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve much of what Washington does to the states, or counties, or cities, or to the people themselves. They are ignored, and that's a very bad thing.

At some point, Americans have to draw a line in the sand, and say that these side issues are not more important than cutting Washington down to size. We get worried about this silly thing one party is doing, and that silly thing that the 'other' party is doing (as if there were only two parties), and we don't get to the core of the problem. So, the problem just grows.

We have a line in the sand, and here we stand. Not all of us; not yet. But more of us every cycle. Maybe at some point you'll see what I'm saying, and help us get at the heart of the matter. Then we might do something other than just slow half the rampant corruption down a little, no?

Agorism
10-29-2012, 11:12 PM
The only hiccup to this line of reasoning would be the potential appointment of justices to the Supreme Court, but my sensitivity to that was dulled by John Robert's lunacy over the PPACA (Obamacare).

What about Jay bybee and John yoo?


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

Add in the fact that Bush never appointed anyone with an anti-Federalist tilt.

In fact, everyone he appoints was the opposite: the Federalist society.

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 11:14 PM
I admit that given the near-certainty of total economic collapse by the end of 2014, conservatives are actually better off if Obama gets the blame, because then the unthinking voters will run our way for the rebuilding.


I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.


And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?

LibertyPA
10-29-2012, 11:17 PM
Please excuse us for being paranoid. One reason is that we've been inundated with people trying to talk us into this lesser of evils business, and not being nice about it. Some of them are indeed trying to get responses from us that they can take to die-hard Republicans and say, look these aren't team players (as if they were being team players when they denied the delegates a voice at the convention). Another is that we've been preaching this for some time now (some of us longer than others).

That is a point I can understand -- thanks for clearing things up and thank you more for taking the time to right out your thoughts! It was helpful!

WarAnonymous
10-29-2012, 11:19 PM
Great post acptulsa REEEEEP!

I don't like the idea of the congress/president argument either. On certain aspects yes but....

Romney already said he doesn't need congress approval to go to war with Iran -1

Though the House was Republican, Senate Democrat and a Socialistic President, all civil liberty issues were passed like butter. All republicans in the house loved their NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, CISPA, and Senate had no problem passing them either. So I am not sure how much help this will give us. -4,000

sailingaway
10-29-2012, 11:22 PM
I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.


And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?

To my understanding, the odds are they will still control the Senate as things look now, but GOP will still control the House. At one point the SEnate was in play but I don't know if there is time for that to come back.

acptulsa
10-29-2012, 11:23 PM
There are a majority of Republican appointees on the Supreme Court now, and it isn't helping. One of the Republican appointees votes with the Democratic appointees when they decide that case will further the corporatist cause. Clearly a Republican that you can't tell from the Democrats (like Romney) is no help. So, stop worrying about it and vote for someone of character whenever and wherever you can find one.

Ron Paul voted against the other 434 members of the House time and time again. And Rand Paul has done that in the Senate. The really nasty stuff always seems to get that bipartisan effort. It isn't the Rs and the Ds that make the difference, it's the men and women of character and principle. We can't afford to just look at the jerseys any more before we throw the ball. Too many of the guys in Republican jerseys are as likely to run for the Democrat's goalposts.

As voters, we must do better.

Don't believe that the politicians can completely destroy the nation in four years. Rome didn't burn in a day. This nation has even survived failed currencies before.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, this nation is bigger than Washington, D.C. And if you don't believe it, I'll be happy to show you a map!

We can't afford to have faith in either major party any more. But by the grace of God, we can still have faith in this great nation.

RickyJ
10-29-2012, 11:39 PM
Though the founders had passion, I'm sure they wouldnt instantly attack and accuse a new person with being part of a conspiracy theory without first talking with them, or at last taking a moment to intoduce their points.

Your point is summed up in the thread title you wrote. It is obvious you think that a vote for Johnson could give the election to Obama. You are assuming too much. Most people that are voting for Johnson would be voting for Obama if Johnson wasn't a option. Yeah, Ron Paul is a Republican, and many of the people on this forum are Republicans, but a equal or greater amount of his supporters are either Democrat or Independent. Johnson's supporters lean more to the Democrat side than the Republican side.

Your question should have been, "Can we risk 8 years of Romney by voting for Johnson?"

BTW, you also picked the wrong forum to ask your question. Most here are voting for Ron Paul!

GunnyFreedom
10-29-2012, 11:39 PM
I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.

It's an awful stretch at this point to keep blaming Bush, and while the media keeps pushing it, it seems only the radical partisans are buying it anymore. Another 2 years and that will be even less likely.

This biggest thing we could have done in 2008 to avoid this, would have been to own up to the Bush disaster. Republicans by and large failed to own up to our own failure in 2009-- so we lost the moral high ground to argue for Obama's culpability.

Going forward, we still have the opportunity to reclaim the high ground. When they attempt to blame Bush, we say, "yes, Bush was a horrible mistake because of X, Y, Z, but Obama is horrible because of A, B, C, and has done nothing but make the problem worse. These are Obama's policies that have led to the current collapse...

The important part is that if you want to break away from the 'blame the other party no matter what' mentality, you have to claim the moral high ground. Bush was legitimately awful, so you maintain the moral high ground by acceding to it.

It has worked brilliantly for me.


And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

I don't argue like most people. Most people like to just overlook data points that do not help their case. If I manage to win an argument I want it to be logical not rhetorical.

My point was that I don't think a Republican President will help that much. Our best hope is a Republican US Senate, and that Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas can hold out another four years. Scalia and Kennedy will be 80 in 4 years.


how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?

The odds were good up until Richard Mourdock went foot-in-mouth and now with the liberal media making hay, I'm guessing it's just slightly better than 50/50 that Republicans take the Senate.

Right now, Republicans taking the Senate is our best and brightest hope. Not only can they logjam the White House, they can also block horrible SCOTUS appointments.

Freedom4AmericaGroup
10-30-2012, 02:04 AM
Say NO to ROBAMNEY & YES to HONEST RON FOREVER!!

Dave Garry posts:
Let's compare Obama's and Romney's stances on the issues:

Mitt Romney ----- Barack Obama

Pro NDAA ----- Pro NDAA
Pro Patriot Act ----- Pro Patriot Act
Pro Agenda 21 ----- Pro Agenda 21
Pro TSA ----- Pro TSA
Pro Carbon tax ----- Pro Carbon tax
Pro Individual Mandate ----- Pro Individual Mandate
Pro Abortion ----- Pro Abortion
Pro Endless Undeclared Wars----- Pro Endless Undeclared Wars
Pro Occupation----- Pro Occupation
Pro Torture ----- Pro Torture
Pro Assassination ----- Pro Assassination
Pro Drone Strikes ----- Pro Drone Strikes
Pro Aid to Israel and Dictatorships ----- Pro Aid to Israel and Dictatorships
Pro Drug War-----Pro Drug war
Pro Banker Bailouts ----- Pro Banker Bailouts
Pro Federal Reserve ----- Pro Federal Reserve
Pro IRS and IMF ----- Pro IRS and IMF
Pro Corporatism ----- Pro Corporatism
Pro NAFTA ----- Pro NAFTA
Pro Illegal Immigration ----- Pro Illegal Immigration
Pro North American Union ----- Pro North American Union
Pro Gun Grab ----- Pro Gun Grab
Funded by Goldman Sachs ----- Funded by Goldman Sachs
Lies to You ----- Lies To you

Hmmm...seems I'm having difficulty here coming up with differences...they appear to be the same candidate. Help me out, people.

Read more: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s supporters are not a “nonfactor” in this election | Washington Times Communities

anaconda
10-30-2012, 02:21 AM
Think I may vote for Soetoro, to maximize smack down to the GOP, and help Rand for 2016. Also, spoiling the parity within the false left-right paradigm upsets their apple cart. They need to keep it relatively close year in and year out, and we are making it difficult for them. There are a number of voting strategies, but this time I think I like the one that inflicts the most injury to the false two party system. A vote for Soetoro is is doubly damaging to the GOP (it's not only a vote withheld from Mittens - it's also one added to his rival) and undermines the false dog-and-pony show in a more dramatic way than a vote for a liberty candidate. For now..

Another consideration is that if Gary Johnson gets 5% nationally then the LP gets 50 state ballot access in 2016:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2021656/pg1

It's one week away and RP has not endorsed (as far as I know - I haven't checked in much lately). I would likely have voted for whomever he would have endorsed.

CaptUSA
10-30-2012, 07:01 AM
Think I may vote for Soetoro, to maximize smack down to the GOP, and help Rand for 2016.Yeah, but then you are partially responsible for the results. At least with my NOBP vote, I can let my children know that I was not responsible in any way for what has happened. I can sleep a little easier knowing I voted for the person I want to be President. Not giving my vote for some tyrant for "strategic" pruposes.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:02 AM
Say NO to ROBAMNEY & YES to HONEST RON FOREVER!!


Two that stood out to me -- you are saying Romney supports Cap And Trade?
and also supports Illegal Immigration?


I agree they are very similar and I agree they are both liars.
But these two points above stood out to me -- updated info to explain those both would be helpful, thanks!

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:19 AM
Two that stood out to me -- you are saying Romney supports Cap And Trade?
and also supports Illegal Immigration?


I agree they are very similar and I agree they are both liars.
But these two points above stood out to me -- updated info to explain those both would be helpful, thanks!

Cap and Trade:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Letter-from-Romney-to-Pataki-RGGI.pdf

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:22 AM
Obama's record is pure failure and an easy way to prove that is because he hasn't said a word about his record (at least not a true word) all year

When you're voting for someone to rob and enslave you, would you rather them fail or succeed? I'd rather them fail.

CaptUSA
10-30-2012, 07:24 AM
When you're voting for someone to rob and enslave you, would you rather them fail or succeed? I'd rather them fail.Good point. Romney may be slightly better at making government run more efficiently, but an efficient government should scare the hell out of you!

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:25 AM
what does "least evil" mean?
he caused the worst problem for this country since the Depression!

(note that Obama forgot about the problems Carter caused when he talks about the problems Bush caused)

Carter caused the worst problem since the Depression? What problem was that?

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:42 AM
I am not sure about the Keynesian economics = Romney Economics, but I am willing to listen to you explain more. Isn't Keynesian similar to what was seen with The New Deal?? I am not sure how FDR and Romney relate on the economy. Obama and FRD relate though.

Romney is definitely a Keynesian just like Obama and FDR.
This spring, when asked if he would cut spending, he said:

"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course,"

In 2008 he also criticized McCain for proposing spending cuts, saying that cutting spending is not stimulative for the economy.

georgiaboy
10-30-2012, 08:36 AM
as a non swing state vote -- I love seeing you vote for G.J. and that is eactly what I would do too!
And I do love steak! Though you cant get steak at D.Q. and at the moment, thats where we are located, inside the doors of D.Q. (at least that is why I'm torn)

So, I'm likely not voting GJ - prolly RP write-in for me.

D.Q. does have hamburgers, btw. :P

jmdrake
10-30-2012, 08:45 AM
Doesn't matter which one wins, we still get screwed.

Exactly. We can neither afford more socialism nor more war. Romney is slightly more likely to give us more war. Obama is slightly more likely to give us more socialism. Both spell disaster for the USA. The best we can hope for is that one wins the popular vote and the other wins the electoral vote so that whoever wins lacks a clear mandate to govern. Beyond that.....I don't care anymore....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUFf0HZk5YE

georgiaboy
10-30-2012, 09:16 AM
PA only lets people registered with the party vote in the primary, so I could not vote -- but if I remember correctly, I think the Republicans (not conservatives) in PA voted for Romney.....so why do you think they would change now? And i only ask that because you say the conservatives have the power to change the GOP and while I would be happy to do that - change both Dem and Repub......but can you explain how voting 3rd party will be sure to get the change you, or I, or we want?

By denying GOP enough conservative votes when they nominate liberal candidates, hopefully the GOP will suffer loss after loss, and realize that the real formula to winning is to nominate actual conservative candidates.

Based on the uproar against TARP, the other bailouts, and the pre-emptive wars, and seeing the tea party victories in 2010, etc., I believe real conservatism is not only philosophically and pragmatically right, but it is actually the majority view of US voters and is a winner.

The key is only voting for actual conservatives, else logging a protest, so that, through loss, the GOP will find its way back to its conservative principles and candidates.

For years I voted straight GOP ticket, thinking that just by voting R I was gonna get smaller gov't. Didn't happen; actually got worse. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

My insanity cure has been to vote the candidate, not the party. That one decision fills me with renewed purpose every day and make me realize just how much each of our one votes do count. That, and this little r3volution I stumbled upon back in 2007.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU&feature=related

rpfocus
10-30-2012, 11:02 AM
This is starting to get a bit scary....when people question your points or ask questions in general -- you instantly assume its some consiracy theory. I'm sorry you live such a paranoid life, but I am simply a person coming here to ask question and hope to get answers. Not a hidden spy trying to secretly corrupt you after I fully admit my way of leaning my vote to romney this year. Haha...Are you this good at cracking all of the 3rd grade puzzles you attempt? LOL

I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. This is a troll thread and your intention to persuade us to vote for your guy is quite obvious. Since yesterday, you have 91 posts all on the same troll thread, you obviously have no interest in any other discussion that doesn't involve a bump to said troll thread. Whether you call it "Just Asking Questions" or I call it "Annoying Message Board Trolling" is irrelevant as the intention and effect are the same.

You state that your intention is to find out why we're not doing 'all we can to get Obama out of office'. The answer is because your guy is certainly no better. Romney is a warmonger (which is interesting in that he ducked the draft and ran to France during Vietnam, and none of his 5 sons have served), and a vote for him is basically signing on to a war with Iran. Not to mention the blatent disrespect and dishonesty shown to Ron Paul supporters during the primaries.

I will no longer assist you in your attempt to troll this forum. Goodbye.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 12:25 PM
I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. This is a troll thread and your intention to persuade us to vote for your guy is quite obvious.

I don't think so. I've seen a whole lot of troll threads around here. And they all have certain things in common. They don't elicit our best arguments for our cause. And when those arguments do appear, the trolls either ignore them and spam away (either in that thread, or in one or two or three new ones instead) hoping to bury them, or they attack them as ruthlessly as they can.

I don't think this is an unhealthy thread.

If you want to see trollish behavior, look up 'tennman'. Speaking of which, isn't Collinz from Tennessee..? :p

Warmon
10-30-2012, 03:07 PM
[QUOTE=KCIndy;4706031]In a word, YES.

The following quote is from an article posted on the Gun Owners of America website:
http://gunowners.org/mittromney-2012.htm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bj8Nk3p1wyY

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 03:12 PM
I don't think so. I've seen a whole lot of troll threads around here. And they all have certain things in common. They don't elicit our best arguments for our cause. And when those arguments do appear, the trolls either ignore them and spam away (either in that thread, or in one or two or three new ones instead) hoping to bury them, or they attack them as ruthlessly as they can.

I don't think this is an unhealthy thread.

If you want to see trollish behavior, look up 'tennman'. Speaking of which, isn't Collinz from Tennessee..? :p
Well, I think it still could be a troll thread, given that he resorted to the "you guys are just paranoid conspiracy theorists for claiming I have alterior motives (even when I clearly do)" argument. He's just clearly not a pro at playing gotcha, and his attempt to guilt us into supporting Romney because we should hate Obama more, is clearly backfiring, hence why he's given up at this point.

Not that anyone here is going to be persuaded to vote for Romney if they haven't already, but I don't think bumping this thread is a bad thing. It can only make republican-onlookers see that it's not about us not being "team players", it's about how badly we've been screwed over, ignored, cheated, disenfranchised, all at a time when they claimed that we were no threat to the nomination, by the guy who now wants our vote.

People aren't that stupid, or at least not those who are here.

PauliticsPolitics
10-30-2012, 03:21 PM
Things to consider, since the original-poster seems a bit thrown off by many responses here. Let me fill you in on the past 5 years here:

This is not a Libertarian Party community board. In fact, many here (not all) have a disdain for the Libertarian Party, their enacted principles, and their decisions (see: Bob Barr 2008).
While many here (certainly not all) might consider themselves libertarians; there is a big distinction between the capital "L" (party) and lowercase "l" (philosophy) and most on this board consider it important to distinguish this.
This is certainly not a Gary Johnson forum, even though there happens to be some folks here who consider him the best remaining ballot option and will vote that way for the general election.
This is a Ron Paul forum, which should be obvious. An affinity for Ron Paul is really the only single thing that most (almost all) the people here have in common.
As soon as the Republican primary ended, and it was clear Ron Paul would not be the nominee, this forum has had a barrage of threads pushing Gary Johnson (and to some extent Obama or Romney). Some of these are honest appeals and useful discussions, but some are basically spambots. Regardless, there is a general atmosphere of annoyance that has developed because of this.
Ron Paul, his delegates, and his community were not treated well throughout the Republican Primary or at the conventions. Our people were cheated and sometimes even physically beaten. As you can imagine, especially for those who participated, a disdain towards Romney and the GOP establishment has been amplified.
Not all people here, but most of us do not see Romney as the lesser of two evils, not even marginally. The climate here is not the "do anything to get Obama out of office" mindset that you find in other Republican circles. No, Obama is not popular here either. On average, the sentiment is that Obama and Romney are the same and work for the same globalist & corporatism interests. Any apparent minor difference is rhetoric: a dog and pony show not based on principle. Even within this fabricated rhetoric, both Romney and Obama will hit some positives: Romney sometimes claims to want to deal with taxes and a more free market -- Obama sometimes claims to want to limit US foreign wars and protect civil liberties. All these issues, on both sides, are technically appealing to us; however evidence and history have shown that these claims are not true. Both candidates, in equal action, have gone against any such concern in virtual totality. Hence, many of us see two different brands of poison.
Principles! On a forum dedicated to Ron Paul, you should not be surprised to find people who value principle at a high stake. Romney has proven to not have a track record of principled behavior and consistency.
Please remember the issues that Ron Paul emphasizes, and do not be surprised if those issues are the most important to people on this forum. This is includes:

reforming monetary policy and disempowering the Federal Reserve system.
changing the bankrupt and immoral philosophy of empire building, undeclared wars, and international-meddling.
seriously and aggressively balancing the budget and solving the US debt, including cuts on all fronts.
limiting the federal government's involvement to CONSTITUTIONAL levels.
stressing individual natural rights and property rights: not collective rights, not "government given" fake rights.
minimizing the collusion between big business and government by removing the tools from the government: such as food and energy subsidies, industry regulations written by big companies, bailouts / corporate welfare, etc.

The above issues generally go equally ignored by Romney and Obama, and equally ignored by most politicians in general.
It is false to assume that people voting for 3rd party (or writing in Paul) would otherwise vote for Romney or Obama: especially within the microcosm of this forum. Many people here, like most of the country, simply wouldn't vote at all if presented a two option ballot. There are many people who really do not care who wins between the two, not because they don't care in general, but because they do care in general.
This post has gotten too long for my tastes, so I will end it here. I just felt like the thread-starter did not understand this forum and did not have a good grasp of key issues which dominate Ron Paul's philosophy (and hence are popular on RonPaulForums).

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 03:31 PM
+rep Paultitics!

So proud that there are so many here who can articulate our message so well, and don't fall into partisan traps and unfounded rhetoric.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:04 PM
Been away lately, but I assume there's been a bunch of these rationalizations being used to try to sway our vote here...

But sorry, after the way Romney and the establishemnt cheated and disenfranchised our people at every turn rather than embracing new members to their party, they have surely lost any possible chance of the vast majority of us even considering voting for Romney.

And regardless, most here wouldn't vote for a corrupt establishment lackey on either side of the aisle in the first place, so there's that....

LOL

I agree. Although I suspect many will still vote for Obama.

Why make up excuses then?

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:08 PM
Obama's record is pure failure and an easy way to prove that is because he hasn't said a word about his record (at least not a true word) all year

For many of these so called "Libertarians"/"conservatives", voting out an incumbent because of his record is only valid when it's a GOP incumbent. Heck, I heard it all the time four years ago and McCain wasn't even an incumbent - but there were lots of "libertarians" claiming "I'll vote for Obama because the GOP needs to be punished for what they did in the last 4 years". Same in 2004. But in years like this one or 2000, that argument stops being valid.

And then they expect the GOP to move towards their direction to conquer their votes. Insanity.

rpfocus
10-30-2012, 04:09 PM
(Post omitted)

*Standing Ovation*

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 04:18 PM
For many of these so called "Libertarians"/"conservatives", voting out an incumbent because of his record is only valid when it's a GOP incumbent. Heck, I heard it all the time four years ago and McCain wasn't even an incumbent - but there were lots of "libertarians" claiming "I'll vote for Obama because the GOP needs to be punished for what they did in the last 4 years". Same in 2004. But in years like this one or 2000, that argument stops being valid.

You can't seem to tell a Libertarian from a libertarian. Voting Obama out is valid. We told you how to do it--nominate Paul. We had independents and even disaffected Democrats all lined up to vote for him, but someone was too stupid to nominate him. And Romney's voting record in Taxachusetts, and the actions of him and his crew, are as valid reason not to vote him in as Obama's record is to vote him out.

Just because someone bought an Edsel against our advice is no reason why we need to be over at his house every weekend with our tools.

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:23 PM
You can't seem to tell a Libertarian from a libertarian. Voting Obama out is valid. We told you how to do it--nominate Paul. We had independents and even disaffected Democrats all lined up to vote for him, but someone was too stupid to nominate him. And Romney's voting record in Taxachusetts, and the actions of him and his crew, are as valid reason not to vote him in as Obama's record is to vote him out.

Just because someone bought an Edsel against our advice is no reason why we need to be over at his house every weekend with our tools.

Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

I doubt Ron Paul would get to 40% of the vote. There's a reason he couldn't even beat Santorum in a GOP primary. The idea that the majority of RINOs and centrists would vote for Paul is beyond bizarre. The idea that he'd get non-negligible support from liberals is flat out crazy.

We'll just see how Paulite candidates will do vis a vis the top of the ticket.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 04:24 PM
Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

They always were a bunch of copycats. But we have the polls to prove it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...eUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/r...a-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012...t-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...a-head-to-head

Oh, and for those who said this was a troll thread. I still think the OP is digesting his food for thought. But the trolls have arrived...

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 04:44 PM
Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

I doubt Ron Paul would get to 40% of the vote. There's a reason he couldn't even beat Santorum in a GOP primary. The idea that the majority of RINOs and centrists would vote for Paul is beyond bizarre. The idea that he'd get non-negligible support from liberals is flat out crazy.

We'll just see how Paulite candidates will do vis a vis the top of the ticket.

He was the only candidate polling neck and neck with Obama, and that was jsut during the primary season when he didn't have as much exposure to reach more voters with truth. The RINOs would do what they're told to beat Obama. How do you think Romney became nominee?

He would have been an absolute rockstar if the corporate media wanted him. Truth is, the neocons and corrupt banksters would gladly lose rather than put an honest man who can't be bought like Dr. Paul on the ticket.

So sorry, but that's absolute crap that "he couldn't beat Santorum, so...". People's first preferrence in a 4-way race does not equate to a lack of support in a 1 man race. Aren't all those Santorum supporters holding their nose for Romney now? WQhy wouldn't they for Dr. Paul, if they weren't told that he's a crazy old unelectable kook?

DeMintConservative
10-30-2012, 04:55 PM
Head to head general election polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Ron Paul had 2 leads (again, state polls, polls where he's close but not leading and online polls don't really matter)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

2 Leads for Gingrich.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

2 Leads for Santorum.

And this was before

Once Obama would release his millions on RP plans for SS, Medicare, etc., military, the newsletter stuff, his association with Lew Rocwell, etc, he'd be lucky to get to 35%.


I've seen sore losers before, but nothing in the scale of Ron Paul supporters. The idea that you are the only guys who are entitled to vote for you favorite primary candidate and nobody else but that all the others would fall in line is one of the most delusional and arrogant things I ever read. Your logic is "those guys I bash and call names every time would certainly side with me if it was my guy. I can't support their guy, but they would support mine for sure". It's crazy.

Ron Paul couldn't even beat a total nobody like Rick Santorum. You guys should come to terms with that and focus on working to make Ron Paul's ideas more popular instead of fantasizing about a world where Ron Paul ideas are popular enough for him to win a national general election using some childish logic and wishful thinking.

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 05:04 PM
Head to head general election polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Ron Paul had 2 leads (again, state polls, polls where he's close but not leading and online polls don't really matter)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

2 Leads for Gingrich.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

2 Leads for Santorum.

And this was before

Once Obama would release his millions on RP plans for SS, Medicare, etc., military, the newsletter stuff, his association with Lew Rocwell, etc, he'd be lucky to get to 35%.


I've seen sore losers before, but nothing in the scale of Ron Paul supporters. The idea that you are the only guys who are entitled to vote for you favorite primary candidate and nobody else but that all the others would fall in line is one of the most delusional and arrogant things I ever read. Your logic is "those guys I bash and call names every time would certainly side with me if it was my guy. I can't support their guy, but they would support mine for sure". It's crazy.

Ron Paul couldn't even beat a total nobody like Rick Santorum. You guys should come to terms with that and focus on working to make Ron Paul's ideas more popular instead of fantasizing about a world where Ron Paul ideas are popular enough for him to win a national general election using some childish logic and wishful thinking.

Whatever man, we're working on it. As soon as the establishment and media give him a fair shake, maybe in won't be such an uphill battle. I'm not holding my breath.

So please stop with monday morning QBing trying to make us feel bad about the outstanding efforts that were made with the deck stacked against us. You're right that in the current environment, it's an uphill battle, but Dr. Paul has never been given a fair chance.


In sum, we're not sore losers. We have freaking principles, unlike those who manipulate the elections and give them to bankster candidates before they even start. If you're somehow right that Dr. Paul would lose support if America found out more about his positions in a fair and honest way (which I doubt, because there is a libertarian spirit in all Americans who are being pushed too far and want answers), then well, that's America's problem, not ours...

Sorry, but don't come into our house and shit on us. We've only begun to fight, so again, stop with your monday morning QBing trying to make us feel like our undying support of one of the rare honest men in Washington is something to apologizxe for. Fuck yes I think he could be president, if the deck wasn't stacked against him. So I agree, that's what needs to change.

devil21
10-30-2012, 05:10 PM
So my choices are voting for a socialist, voting for a fascist, or voting for liberty.

Tough call! I think I'll vote for fascism. /sarc

GunnyFreedom
10-30-2012, 05:17 PM
Things to consider, since the original-poster seems a bit thrown off by many responses here. Let me fill you in on the past 5 years here:

This is not a Libertarian Party community board. In fact, many here (not all) have a disdain for the Libertarian Party, their enacted principles, and their decisions (see: Bob Barr 2008).
While many here (certainly not all) might consider themselves libertarians; there is a big distinction between the capital "L" (party) and lowercase "l" (philosophy) and most on this board consider it important to distinguish this.
This is certainly not a Gary Johnson forum, even though there happens to be some folks here who consider him the best remaining ballot option and will vote that way for the general election.
This is a Ron Paul forum, which should be obvious. An affinity for Ron Paul is really the only single thing that most (almost all) the people here have in common.
As soon as the Republican primary ended, and it was clear Ron Paul would not be the nominee, this forum has had a barrage of threads pushing Gary Johnson (and to some extent Obama or Romney). Some of these are honest appeals and useful discussions, but some are basically spambots. Regardless, there is a general atmosphere of annoyance that has developed because of this.
Ron Paul, his delegates, and his community were not treated well throughout the Republican Primary or at the conventions. Our people were cheated and sometimes even physically beaten. As you can imagine, especially for those who participated, a disdain towards Romney and the GOP establishment has been amplified.
Not all people here, but most of us do not see Romney as the lesser of two evils, not even marginally. The climate here is not the "do anything to get Obama out of office" mindset that you find in other Republican circles. No, Obama is not popular here either. On average, the sentiment is that Obama and Romney are the same and work for the same globalist & corporatism interests. Any apparent minor difference is rhetoric: a dog and pony show not based on principle. Even within this fabricated rhetoric, both Romney and Obama will hit some positives: Romney sometimes claims to want to deal with taxes and a more free market -- Obama sometimes claims to want to limit US foreign wars and protect civil liberties. All these issues, on both sides, are technically appealing to us; however evidence and history have shown that these claims are not true. Both candidates, in equal action, have gone against any such concern in virtual totality. Hence, many of us see two different brands of poison.
Principles! On a forum dedicated to Ron Paul, you should not be surprised to find people who value principle at a high stake. Romney has proven to not have a track record of principled behavior and consistency.
Please remember the issues that Ron Paul emphasizes, and do not be surprised if those issues are the most important to people on this forum. This is includes:

reforming monetary policy and disempowering the Federal Reserve system.
changing the bankrupt and immoral philosophy of empire building, undeclared wars, and international-meddling.
seriously and aggressively balancing the budget and solving the US debt, including cuts on all fronts.
limiting the federal government's involvement to CONSTITUTIONAL levels.
stressing individual natural rights and property rights: not collective rights, not "government given" fake rights.
minimizing the collusion between big business and government by removing the tools from the government: such as food and energy subsidies, industry regulations written by big companies, bailouts / corporate welfare, etc.

The above issues generally go equally ignored by Romney and Obama, and equally ignored by most politicians in general.
It is false to assume that people voting for 3rd party (or writing in Paul) would otherwise vote for Romney or Obama: especially within the microcosm of this forum. Many people here, like most of the country, simply wouldn't vote at all if presented a two option ballot. There are many people who really do not care who wins between the two, not because they don't care in general, but because they do care in general.
This post has gotten too long for my tastes, so I will end it here. I just felt like the thread-starter did not understand this forum and did not have a good grasp of key issues which dominate Ron Paul's philosophy (and hence are popular on RonPaulForums).

I must say that this is one of the most solid and accurate analyses I have ever seen about the mob which inhabits this realm. +Rep

anaconda
10-30-2012, 05:51 PM
Yeah, but then you are partially responsible for the results. At least with my NOBP vote, I can let my children know that I was not responsible in any way for what has happened. I can sleep a little easier knowing I voted for the person I want to be President. Not giving my vote for some tyrant for "strategic" pruposes.

I empathize completely. But it is a virtual certainty that one of these two buffoons will be President. Skewing the results can make some impact on the political landscape in a positive way. I can live with that.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:10 PM
Carter caused the worst problem since the Depression? What problem was that?

this was off topic when the last person brought it up -- but if you weren't around for Carter, these were his numbers:
21% Intrest rate
18% inflation
11% unemployment

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:19 PM
So, I'm likely not voting GJ - prolly RP write-in for me.

D.Q. does have hamburgers, btw. :P

I like a good burger too!
and I hope they stay legal in PA

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:21 PM
this was off topic when the last person brought it up -- but if you weren't around for Carter, these were his numbers:
21% Intrest rate
18% inflation
11% unemployment

What exactly did Carter do that you think caused that?

Was it that he spent too much?

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:27 PM
By denying GOP enough conservative votes when they nominate liberal candidates, hopefully the GOP will suffer loss after loss, and realize that the real formula to winning is to nominate actual conservative candidates.

Based on the uproar against TARP, the other bailouts, and the pre-emptive wars, and seeing the tea party victories in 2010, etc., I believe real conservatism is not only philosophically and pragmatically right, but it is actually the majority view of US voters and is a winner.


Isn't there also a risk of dividing the vote of those who favor the Right Wing ideals? That is what sounds to be happening in this election and may for a long time. Those on the left are staying on the left and so when you divide the vote on the right, don't you run the risk of having a Left Wing person in the oval office for decades?

And I don't pose this question as a reason to or not to vote for someone in this election - just a general question to ask for all.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:36 PM
I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. This is a troll thread and your intention to persuade us to vote for your guy is quite obvious. Since yesterday, you have 91 posts all on the same troll thread, you obviously have no interest in any other discussion that doesn't involve a bump to said troll thread.

Sorry you feel that way.
I have 91 posts here because people keep asking questions and making comments and I am here to talk about things with people. This is a question I personally have and some (a select few) people on here have been very helpful.

[QUOTE=rpfocus;4706388]
You state that your intention is to find out why we're not doing 'all we can to get Obama out of office'. The answer is because your guy is certainly no better. Romney is a warmonger[QUOTE]
And I dont understand why everyone is saying how Romney is so Pro War. He very well may put us into a war, but Obama HAS done this already -- he threw us into Libya!!! and yet when people talk about Romney and Wars they almost always forget that Obama is the only one running for the white house that actually HAS taken us to war!

erowe1
10-30-2012, 07:38 PM
And I dont understand why everyone is saying how Romney is so Pro War. He very well may put us into a war, but Obama HAS done this already -- he threw us into Libya!!! and yet when people talk about Romney and Wars they almost always forget that Obama is the only one running for the white house that actually HAS taken us to war!

Libya is bad, and I don't see anyone excusing it. But a war with Iran, like Romney and a lot of Republicans are itching to get us into, would be a million times worse than that, and twice as bad as Obamacare.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:39 PM
I don't think this is an unhealthy thread.



Thank you for your kind words.
I look forward to chatting with you more about the issues! I am thankful to all those on here offering thoughts, opinions and facts!

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 07:40 PM
See PauliticsPolitics post, and then please leave us alone. You cant guilt trip us into voting for that Goldman Sachs scumbag over the other Goldman Sachs scumbag.

And please dont try to act like youre here to talk about the issues. Every single post has been trying to convince us that Obama is so much worse. It doesnt make romney any better. We've given you ample evidence why.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:43 PM
Well, I think it still could be a troll thread, given that he resorted to the "you guys are just paranoid conspiracy theorists for claiming I have alterior motives (even when I clearly do)" argument.

Haha, that is because you and a handful of others were attacting me from the start without answering any questions, making any positive comments or even asking your own questions -- just attacks directed at me. If you are so upset with my questions and don't want to offer your thoughts, opinions and facts as others have been kind enough and polite enough to do - you can feel free to stop making posts.

Dr.3D
10-30-2012, 07:43 PM
See PauliticsPolitics post, and then please leave us alone. You cant guilt trip us into voting for that Goldman Sachs scumbag over the other Goldman Sachs scumbag.

And please dont try to act like youre here to talk about the issues. Every single post has been trying to convince us that Obama is so much worse. It doesnt make romney any better. We've given you ample evidence why.
Yes, this post pretty much explains the view of most on these forums.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?393862-Libertarians-In-Swing-States-Can-we-risk-4-more-Obama-years-by-voting-for-Johnson&p=4706774&viewfull=1#post4706774

TheGrinch
10-30-2012, 07:44 PM
Haha, that is because you and a handful of others were attacting me from the start without answering any questions, making any positive comments or even asking your own questions -- just attacks directed at me. If you are so upset with my questions and don't want to offer your thoughts, opinions and facts as others have been kind enough and polite enough to do - you can feel free to stop making posts.
False. You solicited us from the start. Like i said, I could care less your intentions, but we aint interested.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:45 PM
I just felt like the thread-starter did not understand this forum and did not have a good grasp of key issues which dominate Ron Paul's philosophy (and hence are popular on RonPaulForums).

I know this was a long post and I cut it short, but I wanted to tahnk you for taking all your time to point out ways to help me better understand this forum. You are correct, I did not understand the forum. And thanks to you taking the time to explain things more clearly - I now do. Thank you for that!!!

Qdog
10-30-2012, 07:48 PM
Can you please talk more about your points - you sound like you have something to say of value and I would enjoy hearing about it. Please try not to make this about your vote and not about my personal word choices. But, I do welcome hearing you write a few things Capt USA - we are both in PA, please tell me why you think I should change my "Romney Lean" to a "Johnson Vote" .... I would be curious to hear about it if you have the time, thank you!

The argument to NOT vote for Romney is mostly based upon his foreign Policy. This is especially important because the President is the Commander in Chief, and can bring the troops home on his 1st day in office period. I am not going to vote for a guy who will start WW3. I will only vote for someone who will bring the troops home and stop trying to be the policeman of the world. In this sense, Romney is an even BIGGER warmonger than Obama.

In every other sense, economic, civil liberties, etc, I dont see any significant differences between Obama and Romney (they both totally suck, support NDAA/PatriotAct, are keynesians,etc) I would rather vote for Johnson... who has a chance to get 5%, represents about 90% of what I believe in as a Libertarian Conservative, and seems like the best way for me to clearly give the middle finger to the GOP since they screwed Ron Paul.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:49 PM
Heck, I heard it all the time four years ago and McCain wasn't even an incumbent - but there were lots of "libertarians" claiming "I'll vote for Obama because the GOP needs to be punished for what they did in the last 4 years". Same in 2004. But in years like this one or 2000, that argument stops being valid.

And then they expect the GOP to move towards their direction to conquer their votes. Insanity.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Do you mean to say that people vote for 3rd party in the past and it isn't teaching any lessons to the GOP?
Don't you think the GOP is upset to not have "their boy" in office?

angelatc
10-30-2012, 07:50 PM
you are spot on with #4 and other points, but in #1, i agree 28 years is a joke!! but can you please list these 4 points about what may happen if Obama has 4 more years? Because rather than ballance in 3 decades, we could double our debt in 4.

If that's your biggest worry, you're better off hoping that Obama wins, and the House stays Republican. Deadlock is better than a GOP president and a GOP house. Obama has made it clear that he can't work with a GOP House - that means government can't do much to hose us.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:52 PM
Oh, and for those who said this was a troll thread. I still think the OP is digesting his food for thought. But the trolls have arrived...

Not my intent at all.
I don't know this person.
And him bashing anything is not helpful -- I do not support his attacks!

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:55 PM
You guys should come to terms

This isnt the point of this topic.
Please start your own if you want to talk more about this with other people....but under this topic, feel free to talk about reasons you want to vote for Romney and why you think he is a better choice than Obama. But please stop with all the attacks on Paul -- that isnt helpful and has no reason to be posted here. I hope you understand, and I thank you in advance!

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 07:58 PM
I empathize completely. But it is a virtual certainty that one of these two buffoons will be President. Skewing the results can make some impact on the political landscape in a positive way. I can live with that.

Skewing things how...meaning voting 3rd party and putting Obama in office?
Isn't that exactly what happened 4 years ago....and GOP came back with an even worse choice (if that is possible) in Romney. Can you see there being a risk of getting two left wing choices in 2016?

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 08:03 PM
Libya is bad, and I don't see anyone excusing it. But a war with Iran, like Romney and a lot of Republicans are itching to get us into, would be a million times worse than that, and twice as bad as Obamacare.

The war with Libya DID happen and the war with IRAN did not.
Yet you only brought up one of these wars .... the one that has NOT taken place.
So while you dont excuse it, you surely took time to NOT highlight it either.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 08:04 PM
False. You solicited us from the start. Like i said, I could care less your intentions, but we aint interested.

You keep hanging around though....sure sounds as though you are interested in what i write ;)
haha
thanks for your support and ALL your interest! I'm sure you will stay interested and keep hanging around.

erowe1
10-30-2012, 08:06 PM
The war with Libya DID happen and the war with IRAN did not.
Yet you only brought up one of these wars .... the one that has NOT taken place.
So while you dont excuse it, you surely took time to NOT highlight it either.

But we're talking about electing the next president, and all the things that will happen, and have not yet happened, whoever that may be.

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 08:08 PM
The argument to NOT vote for Romney is mostly based upon his foreign Policy. This is especially important because the President is the Commander in Chief, and can bring the troops home on his 1st day in office period. I am not going to vote for a guy who will start WW3. I will only vote for someone who will bring the troops home and stop trying to be the policeman of the world. In this sense, Romney is an even BIGGER warmonger than Obama.

In every other sense, economic, civil liberties, etc, I dont see any significant differences between Obama and Romney (they both totally suck, support NDAA/PatriotAct, are keynesians,etc) I would rather vote for Johnson... who has a chance to get 5%, represents about 90% of what I believe in as a Libertarian Conservative, and seems like the best way for me to clearly give the middle finger to the GOP since they screwed Ron Paul.

Obama promised to bring all the troops home in 6 months -- he did NOT keep to his word and did no such thing. I understand there is a good chance Romney will try to start a war with Iran, but there is a chance that Iran raises a white flag and no war takes place. Yet if you care about Foreign Policy, can you defend the war in Libya that Obama has thrown us into? Again I must say, of these two "Warmongers" running for office, only one has actually put our troops into War and it wasnt Romney

As for giving the middle finger to the GOP - I'm wondering if a vote for Johnson does that. Clearly the GOP didn't listen 4 years ago when people did this in protest of McCain...and here we are with another horrible choice in Romney....so maybe this isnt the right way of giving them the finger. What do you think, is there anything else that can be done aside from the 3rd party vote?

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 08:09 PM
If that's your biggest worry, you're better off hoping that Obama wins, and the House stays Republican. Deadlock is better than a GOP president and a GOP house. Obama has made it clear that he can't work with a GOP House - that means government can't do much to hose us.

WOW....This has been said before but not in such a way as you have said it. It actually made me laugh - and you are correct. Obama cannot work with a GOP congress (unless they change the rules and start Bills in the Senate -- and yes I know this has happened before). But I like your thoughts here. The more government can stall, the better we are. Very good point!

LibertyPA
10-30-2012, 08:11 PM
But we're talking about electing the next president, and all the things that will happen, and have not yet happened, whoever that may be.

Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

erowe1
10-30-2012, 08:32 PM
Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

So, since Romney has never been president before, that makes him less likely to start a war with Iran than Obama, despite any evidence to the contrary?

anaconda
10-30-2012, 09:56 PM
Skewing things how...meaning voting 3rd party and putting Obama in office?
Isn't that exactly what happened 4 years ago....and GOP came back with an even worse choice (if that is possible) in Romney. Can you see there being a risk of getting two left wing choices in 2016?

Skewing things to make the GOP loss as devastating as possible (I have decided this means voting for Obama). There is not only a risk, but a tremendous likelihood that we will have two left wing candidates in 2016 (just like we always do). Short of Rand and about 3 or 4 others, they are all left wing on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully we can keep growing the liberty movement and open some eyes to the wide spread corruption. I am hoping that Rand can sway lots of red state rank and file voters, and sell his platform as the most "patriotic" one. If Rand is to make an impact, he will have to capture the casual low information conservative voter as well as others. We have to stop thinking that we have to educate everyone at the Mises Institute before getting their vote. We need to start selling liberty like sex, dog food, and Pepsi.

acptulsa
10-30-2012, 10:04 PM
Obama promised to bring all the troops home in 6 months -- he did NOT keep to his word and did no such thing. I understand there is a good chance Romney will try to start a war with Iran, but there is a chance that Iran raises a white flag and no war takes place. Yet if you care about Foreign Policy, can you defend the war in Libya that Obama has thrown us into? Again I must say, of these two "Warmongers" running for office, only one has actually put our troops into War and it wasnt Romney

Don't go disingenuous on us now. You were the one talking lesser of evils in the first place, and you know damned well the governor of Massachusetts has little opportunity to declare war on anyone but the unfortunate fools of Massachusetts. And some of those have given their lives for the state, when tiles of the massive, astoundingly expensive and notoriously corrupt Big Dig have fallen on their cars and crushed them.

At least Obama has the good grace to talk peace before he then flip flops and takes us into undeclared police actions. And at least (unlike the last R Team president) he settles for police actions instead of full fledged wars. This is no area in which to try out the saddle of the high horse.


Not my intent at all.

Well, maybe a little, eh? But you weren't logged in when I typed that a troll had arrived, so no, I wasn't talking about you.

angelatc
10-30-2012, 10:10 PM
Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

Which one threatened a nuclear first strike on Iran? Not Obama.

LibertyPA
10-31-2012, 03:42 AM
So, since Romney has never been president before, that makes him less likely to start a war with Iran than Obama, despite any evidence to the contrary?

It makes Obama the only one to have sent our men and women into war (between the two).
And you keep ignoring this point. It's as if you're okay with what Obama did just because someone else, down the line, may do something worse. I guess it was okay when Obama forced through Obama Care too -- but lets blame Romney if he keeps portions of the bill -- because after all its Romney's fault and we can just forget all the problems Obama caused.

Should we forget this too??

http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

or does this count because Obama is telling us about his "future" plans after we forget all the harm he has caused his country in the past.

And I dont mean to suggest you should like Romney or even vote for Romney -- but I do find it to be unfair to suggest Romney is the Big Bad War Guy when Obama actually sent us to war!!!

LibertyPA
10-31-2012, 03:44 AM
Skewing things to make the GOP loss as devastating as possible (I have decided this means voting for Obama). There is not only a risk, but a tremendous likelihood that we will have two left wing candidates in 2016 (just like we always do). Short of Rand and about 3 or 4 others, they are all left wing on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully we can keep growing the liberty movement and open some eyes to the wide spread corruption. I am hoping that Rand can sway lots of red state rank and file voters, and sell his platform as the most "patriotic" one. If Rand is to make an impact, he will have to capture the casual low information conservative voter as well as others. We have to stop thinking that we have to educate everyone at the Mises Institute before getting their vote. We need to start selling liberty like sex, dog food, and Pepsi.



But you live in Cali -- the state is going Obama anyway.
This is a perfect chance for you to write-in someone or vote 3rd party....why wouldnt you do that?
or, based on your picture, do you support left wing people in the white house?