PDA

View Full Version : Early voting - voted for Romney




cbc58
10-31-2012, 10:58 AM
Early voting - voted for Romney. Didn't want to but lesser of evils. I figured a write in for RP or a vote for Johnson would do more for Obama and didn't want that. Alot of Obama supporters at the polls...

CaptUSA
10-31-2012, 10:59 AM
Sorry to hear that. All the way around. What state?

tangent4ronpaul
10-31-2012, 10:59 AM
:eek:

Consider yourself shunned!

Eeeeeeewwwww!

-t

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 11:00 AM
Please tell us you're joking before AF sees this.

Acala
10-31-2012, 11:01 AM
Good idea. Voting for the lesser of evils will certainly make the world a better place. Oh, wait . . . isn't the lesser of evils still evil? So you are actually advancing the cause of evil by voting for the lesser of evils? Isn't voting for the lesser of evils like being one of Satan's less effective minions?

If you are going to support evil wouldn't it be better to go all the way with it? Instead of being a half-assed supporter of evil you could be the King of evil. At least you would be good at SOMETHING.

jbauer
10-31-2012, 11:01 AM
My coworkers are pissed because I voted for GJ. I've told them I wasn't voting for Rmoney since March. Heck at this point I think voting for Rmoney is the more evil choice. He'll set back the cause for conservatisim 20 years. I'm to the point where I'm openly hoping for 4 more.

AlexAmore
10-31-2012, 11:02 AM
A vote a disguised socialist is even more dangerous! Yikes! He inspired Obamacare!

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 11:02 AM
You have no reason to complain for the next 4 years.


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

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 11:03 AM
Good idea. Voting for the lesser of evils will certainly make the world a better place. Oh, wait . . . isn't the lesser of evils still evil? So you are actually advancing the cause of evil by voting for the lesser of evils? Isn't voting for the lesser of evils like being one of Satan's less effective minions?

If you are going to support evil wouldn't it be better to go all the way with it? Instead of being a half-assed supporter of evil you could be the King of evil. At least you would be good at SOMETHING.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ET5zMtAB1ns/Ti4Csfoe01E/AAAAAAAAEfc/dV9FpSeevqk/s0-d/CthulhuForPresident

cbc58
10-31-2012, 11:07 AM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

Meatwasp
10-31-2012, 11:10 AM
Early voting - voted for Romney. Didn't want to but lesser of evils. I figured a write in for RP or a vote for Johnson would do more for Obama and didn't want that. Alot of Obama supporters at the polls...
Don't you feel ashamed for broadcating that? I would.

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 11:12 AM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

You are being absolutely delusional if you think people here will fall for that BS.

jbauer
10-31-2012, 11:14 AM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

So you would have voted for Ron had he left the R's and went to the L's but can't bring yourself to voting for the L's because Ron isn't there? Do you really think Ron would have won running as an L?

At this point I've come to accept that I'm perfectly ok with 4 more. Atleast the ship goes down under the D's watch.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:15 AM
Lesser of two evils. M'kay.

I won't give you crap about who you vote for, but if you really believe you're being a realist by voting for Romney because he's somehow better than Obama... I'll give you crap for that.

Eagles' Wings
10-31-2012, 11:17 AM
Don't you feel ashamed for broadcating that? I would.For sure! Too bad OP didn't vote for Ron a third time. That would be a vote to be proud of.

cbc58
10-31-2012, 11:17 AM
Not at all. I honestly think that you will give Obama the election if you vote for RP or Johnson. I do not want Obama - and don't want to waste a vote on principle. I have done that for the last 6 elections and it has never made one iota of difference.

Eagles' Wings
10-31-2012, 11:19 AM
Not at all. I honestly think that you will give Obama the election if you vote for RP or Johnson. I do not want Obama - and don't want to waste a vote on principle. I have done that for the last 6 elections and it has never made one iota of difference.Voting on principle is the only way to vote.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:20 AM
and don't want to waste a vote on principle.

Such a vote is never a waste.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:22 AM
Do you live in a swing state OP?

cbc58
10-31-2012, 11:23 AM
You are being absolutely delusional if you think people here will fall for that BS.

I have listened to everyone here for over 6 years and nothing ever happens - it's all talk. Seriously - nothing has happened except some more visibility for RP and I myself have promoted him extensively. The game is rigged and I am playing it as such.

cbc58
10-31-2012, 11:25 AM
Voting on principle is the only way to vote.

I used to think that... but it doesn't accomplish anything except make me feel better.

I live in NC.

CaptUSA
10-31-2012, 11:30 AM
Hey, to each his own.

But until you realize they only way ANY one is voting for Romney is because they are backing you away from Obama, and the only way anyone is voting for Obama is because they have been backed away from Republicans (well, some vote just for his skin color), you'll never understand that they LIKE the system rigged and they LIKE you to play with them. The one party can keep the populace easily corralled in this manner.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:31 AM
I used to think that... but it doesn't accomplish anything except make me feel better.

I live in NC.

So I'm looking for a straight answer here. In what way does Romney better represent your values/concerns than Obama? You're not allowed to use the words "Obama" or "current president".

CaptUSA
10-31-2012, 11:35 AM
So I'm looking for a straight answer here. In what way does Romney better represent your values/concerns than Obama? You're not allowed to use the words "Obama" or "current president".Hey! That's no fair! They've got him convinced that if he doesn't vote FOR Obama, he's still voting for Obama if he doesn't vote FOR Romney. That's the only rationale Romney can use to get elected!

cbc58
10-31-2012, 11:42 AM
I am a registered Republican. I see Romney/Ryan, as more fiscally conservative and capable of turning the economy around. No one wants to break up the status-quo system more than me - but it's not happening this election and casting my vote for RP or GJ is going to do nothing except help Obama.

CaptUSA
10-31-2012, 11:45 AM
I am a registered Republican. I see Romney/Ryan, as more fiscally conservative and capable of turning the economy around. No one wants to break up the status-quo system more than me - but it's not happening this election and casting my vote for RP or GJ is going to do nothing except help Obama.Again, unless you vote FOR Obama, you are not voting for Obama. You can vote however you wish, but my hope is you understand what they have done to you.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:45 AM
I am a registered Republican. I see Romney/Ryan, as more fiscally conservative and capable of turning the economy around. No one wants to break up the status-quo system more than me - but it's not happening this election and casting my vote for RP or GJ is going to do nothing except help Obama.

What about Romney or Ryan would make you think that? They're both wanting to increase spending and Ryan voted for the bailouts.

ShaneEnochs
10-31-2012, 11:45 AM
I am a registered Republican. I see Romney/Ryan, as more fiscally conservative and capable of turning the economy around. No one wants to break up the status-quo system more than me - but it's not happening this election and casting my vote for RP or GJ is going to do nothing except help Obama.

What about Romney or Ryan would make you think that? They're both wanting to increase spending and Ryan voted for the bailouts.

dean.engelhardt
10-31-2012, 11:49 AM
don't want to waste a vote on principle.

Thank you for screwing everybody else!

How do you still have a green rep bar?

acptulsa
10-31-2012, 12:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4

If you think you're going to get anything more than a whip stripe on your back for your efforts, you're crazy.

And I'm not talking about from us. I'm talking about from the powers that be. They don't have any more concern or respect for you than you seem to have for the Constitution.

Odin
10-31-2012, 12:23 PM
So you would have voted for Ron had he left the R's and went to the L's but can't bring yourself to voting for the L's because Ron isn't there? Do you really think Ron would have won running as an L?

At this point I've come to accept that I'm perfectly ok with 4 more. Atleast the ship goes down under the D's watch.

I've wondered about that point, and I'm not sure whether it would be good or bad. Yes the ship will sink, so to speak, I have little doubt about it, but then do we want Obama to be captaining the ship as it sinks? I would argue that for him and the Democrats, that is an opportunity not a liability, and I fear for what will happen to the country with them at the helm as we go down. New Deal 2.0 probably.

acptulsa
10-31-2012, 12:28 PM
New Deal 2.0 probably.

Hoover and the Republicans could never have pulled the New Deal off. There was no confidence in him. Black Friday happened with a Republican in the White House and the Democrats took full advantage of the 'mandate' they were given. When the dollar collapses under a Democrat (note I say when--I am not deluding myself that your R vote will make the slightest difference to the outcome) they won't have the confidence or the mandate to do a New Deal II. The Republicans will, but that doesn't mean we won't have enough hooks into the party to prevent it.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 12:35 PM
I see the stealth plan for taking over the GOP is paying off.

tangent4ronpaul
10-31-2012, 12:36 PM
And don't forget war.

Rmoney wants 2 Trillion in new military spending. Ships, aircraft, etc. Gee - wonder why...
Rmoney wants to attack Iran and god knows who else. That's a line in the sand for Russia and China. Can you say WWIII? I thought you could! What's that going to do to the economy?

-t

acptulsa
10-31-2012, 12:41 PM
And don't forget war.

Rmoney wants 2 Trillion in new military spending. Ships, aircraft, etc. Gee - wonder why...
Rmoney wants to attack Iran and god knows who else. That's a line in the sand for Russia and China. Can you say WWIII? I thought you could! What's that going to do to the economy?

-t

It's going to destroy the economy and the FRN with it, with a Republican in the White House, thus restoring faith in the Democratic Party and giving the Democrat who is elected after Romney's one term wonder blunder all of the confidence and all of the mandate he needs to create the very New Deal II that this character says he fears so much.

And thanks for asking.

Nothing like using the lesser evil argument as an excuse to cut your own throat.

V3n
10-31-2012, 12:42 PM
You'd better hope your state isn't decided by just 1 vote!! :mad:

Just kidding - obviously it won't be - so quit jumping down OP's throat! The Powers have already decided the election anyway!

qh4dotcom
10-31-2012, 12:45 PM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

Are you in a swing state?

acptulsa
10-31-2012, 12:47 PM
You'd better hope your state isn't decided by just 1 vote!! :mad:

Just kidding - obviously it won't be - so quit jumping down OP's throat! The Powers have already decided the election anyway!

We're just trying to make sure that, after he wises up, he remembers who tried to save him from that painful 'what have I done?' feeling of remorse.

He'll be welcome to come back. We're always happy to have someone around who has wised up. Even if--maybe even especially if--he did it the hard way.

V3n
10-31-2012, 12:55 PM
We're just trying to make sure that, after he wises up, he remembers who tried to save him from that painful 'what have I done?' feeling of remorse.

He'll be welcome to come back. We're always happy to have someone around who has wised up. Even if--maybe even especially if--he did it the hard way.

Your responses were not among some of the harshest. Some were pretty cruel.

It just shows that we've got a long way to go if even those 'among us' can get caught up in voting for either of these candidates. He's not the problem, it's the symptom. But being harsh and cruel doesn't help - we need to respond softly.

Different people are going to vote differently this time around based on their own system and desired outcome. No sense getting up in arms about it.

angelatc
10-31-2012, 01:15 PM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

That's ridiculous, on many levels. But I might vote for Obama now, just for spite.

alucard13mmfmj
10-31-2012, 01:58 PM
I am more concerned with Romney and Ryan being serious with their war and bombing rhetoric.

If I had to choose one of the two and there were no write-in allowed, I would not vote or I will vote for Obama to have another chance in 2016 in the republican party.

alucard13mmfmj
10-31-2012, 02:05 PM
huh, double post.

supermario21
10-31-2012, 02:17 PM
I also early voted for Romney (Ohio). Had I lived in a non swing state I would have written in Paul. I actually wrote him and Judge Nap on my ballot and filled in the Romney bubble. Ohio could be headed for a recount on election night so the Republican SOS will get to see my somewhat weak support of Gov. Romney. I think one of the ways the movement can be strengthened is to not bash people who vote for Romney. I'll admit, I was much more enthused to cast my primary ballot for Paul than I was to vote for Romney in the general, but no matter what we do, GJ isn't getting to 5%, and Romney or Obama will get elected. I truly believe Romney would be forced to repeal obamacare by the Republicans in Congress and I'd rather stop the growth of the nanny state than expand it more under Obama. I see Romney as a place holder more than anything else.

Also, since we truly have no dog in this fight, stop acting like a vote for Romney is betraying the movement. If we ever want to take over the party we need to accept those who would vote and support the libertarian movement on most/if not all issues and still vote for Romney. Casting out people who might lean libertarian just because they voted for Romney is the wrong way of going about things. Otherwise we're going to be stuck at our still tiny base of support in the party. Remember, they'll try to do what they want regardless of what we do. It's going to take coalition building with the other tea-partiers to defeat the establishment (Lindsey, et. all) in 2014 and 2016.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 02:20 PM
It was a pragmatic vote in a swing state. I see nothing at all wrong with that. And to the OP, you are correct in that voting "principle" over the years has done nothing to change things. In fact, we can argue that over the past few decades, our wing has shrunk in size because we have many people who dig their heels in the ground on principle, and in essence wind up empowering the moderates and neo-cons.

One of the issues libertarians and traditional conservatives have had over the years is this insistence on principled votes, and honestly it winds up hurting us because it causes those within the party to place no trust in us. Take the NV GOP for example, who is sitting on their hands this year in large part rather than doing their job and pushing the ticket. I would expect to see some very strong, organized challenges to these committee seats in the upcoming years. We could lose control of that state as quickly as we attained it. In Iowa though, we don't see this problem, as Spiker is doing the job of the state chair and supporting the ticket.

The thing that boggles my mind, is that this generation of libertarians/conservatives is ignoring the playbook that the previous generation used to gain control of the party and eventually win with Reagan (yes I know Reagan did not govern like he campaigned, but that is a separate issue). When we began taking control of the party in the Goldwater years, the MO was to fight in the primaries and unite in the general. By doing so, even though "our guy" might have lost in the primary, we gained respect and trust with others in the party. This allowed us to retain our committee positions and gain seats as the years went on. It took some time, but many of the state committees across the country were controlled by rock solid old school conservatives by the mid 70's. In all honesty, if after the primaries, we would have taken our ball and went home, not working for the ticket - I don't think we would have been able to accomplish what we did.

rpfocus
10-31-2012, 02:23 PM
I figured a write in for RP or a vote for Johnson would do more for Obama and didn't want that.

I respect you exercising your civic duty. That said, there's no way in HELL I'm falling for that line of thinking. Me writing in Ron Paul is me voting for Ron Paul. If Romney happens to lose the election, I couldn't care less. Romney and the GOP had the opportunity to treat RP supporters with respect and instead decided to give us a collective kick in the throat. In fact, I now hope Romney loses, at least it gives our soldiers a chance at not dying in Iran.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 02:41 PM
Christ in a fox hole! How anyone could vote for Rmoney knowing what he and his campaign and GOP goons did to the Ron Paul delegates is beyond my reckoning. Some people must like getting kicked in the nuts by replying with a "Thank you."

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 02:54 PM
Christ in a fox hole! How anyone could vote for Rmoney knowing what he and his campaign and GOP goons did to the Ron Paul delegates is beyond my reckoning. Some people must like getting kicked in the nuts by replying with a "Thank you."

Not for nothing, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that what took place at the RNC was in reaction to the fact that Paul was the only candidate in the past 20+ years that did not drop out of the race when the winner of the nomination clinched it with bound delegates? Granted, the underhanded tricks were too much for my taste, but in many ways the Paul campaign sort of forced the Romney campaign's hand. Santorum (12), Huckabee (08), Romney (08), McCain (00), Dole (88) - all of them won the 5 states, but they dropped out when the nominee clinched it. Paul went against the norm by staying in the race and having the delegates fight for a nomination speech that would not get him a shot at the nomination.

I'm not saying what they did was right, but it was anticipated that they would do something.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but maybe if Paul had dropped out, he could have gotten a speech that night like Buchanan did in 92.

kathy88
10-31-2012, 03:09 PM
I have listened to everyone here for over 6 years and nothing ever happens - it's all talk. Seriously - nothing has happened except some more visibility for RP and I myself have promoted him extensively. The game is rigged and I am playing it as such.

So 8 years of Romney is preferable to 4 of O?

kathy88
10-31-2012, 03:13 PM
Not for nothing, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that what took place at the RNC was in reaction to the fact that Paul was the only candidate in the past 20+ years that did not drop out of the race when the winner of the nomination clinched it with bound delegates? Granted, the underhanded tricks were too much for my taste, but in many ways the Paul campaign sort of forced the Romney campaign's hand. Santorum (12), Huckabee (08), Romney (08), McCain (00), Dole (88) - all of them won the 5 states, but they dropped out when the nominee clinched it. Paul went against the norm by staying in the race and having the delegates fight for a nomination speech that would not get him a shot at the nomination.

I'm not saying what they did was right, but it was anticipated that they would do something.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but maybe if Paul had dropped out, he could have gotten a speech that night like Buchanan did in 92.

R U serious? They wouldn't even let him in the building in 2008. Ron played by the rules and got FUCKED. Don't turn this into his fault.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 03:27 PM
Not for nothing, but has anyone ever stopped to consider that what took place at the RNC was in reaction to the fact that Paul was the only candidate in the past 20+ years that did not drop out of the race when the winner of the nomination clinched it with bound delegates? Granted, the underhanded tricks were too much for my taste, but in many ways the Paul campaign sort of forced the Romney campaign's hand. Santorum (12), Huckabee (08), Romney (08), McCain (00), Dole (88) - all of them won the 5 states, but they dropped out when the nominee clinched it. Paul went against the norm by staying in the race and having the delegates fight for a nomination speech that would not get him a shot at the nomination.

I'm not saying what they did was right, but it was anticipated that they would do something.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but maybe if Paul had dropped out, he could have gotten a speech that night like Buchanan did in 92.

A little too much? But, not enough to deny them the election and show them that without the libertarian leg of the foot stool then they will become an irrelevant party? It's one thing to party 'rah-rah' but unless the libertarian wing cements itself as something that is needed then there is no place for us in their party.
The best way to do that is to deny a Rmoney win. In enough numbers that they know why they lost.

RDM
10-31-2012, 04:27 PM
I have listened to everyone here for over 6 years and nothing ever happens - it's all talk. Seriously - nothing has happened except some more visibility for RP and I myself have promoted him extensively. The game is rigged and I am playing it as such.

The OLIGARCHY loves you man. They LLLLOOOOVVVVEEEE YOU. How's it feel to be loved?

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 04:29 PM
R U serious? They wouldn't even let him in the building in 2008. Ron played by the rules and got FUCKED. Don't turn this into his fault.

Not saying that it is hi fault, per se, but the reaction from the Romney campaign should have come as no surprise. If the situations were reversed, I would expect the Paul forces to do everything they could to prevent Romney from being a "fly in the ointment" at the convention, and taking the focus off the nominee.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 04:32 PM
A little too much? But, not enough to deny them the election and show them that without the libertarian leg of the foot stool then they will become an irrelevant party? It's one thing to party 'rah-rah' but unless the libertarian wing cements itself as something that is needed then there is no place for us in their party.

Judging by polling they can win without the Paul supporters. Paul supporters, as in the die hard support, is a very small fraction of the voting population. And I think sometimes folks here tend to think that the hardcore Paul base is the liberty movement as a whole.

There is a conservative/libertarian leg for sure - many of those folks voted for Paul in the primaries, but the majority of that leg are not die-hard Paulites. Paul was merely the candidate du jour for that wing of the party, there have been others in the past and there will be others in the future. For some within the Paul faction, this was all about Ron Paul and they were neither here before, nor will they be here after.

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 04:36 PM
Christ in a fox hole! How anyone could vote for Rmoney knowing what he and his campaign and GOP goons did to the Ron Paul delegates is beyond my reckoning. Some people must like getting kicked in the nuts by replying with a "Thank you."

Thats what I want to know. We should be sticking it to those bastards.

Instead, we have people here whimpering and returning to their masters like pathetic slaves. Kind of like the abusive boy/girlfriend you've been with for 5 years or so.

devil21
10-31-2012, 04:37 PM
cbc said he/she is in NC, which is sort of a swing state this election since it's kinda purple right now.

I don't like the Romney vote (he's the last one I would consider voting for in NC) but it was to be expected that some of the softer supporters would vote for Romney under the pressure. Heck, someone tried to trash one of my RP yard signs the other day and Im pretty sure it was one of the Romney drones that thinks Im giving the election to O by STILL reminding anyone who happens to pass by on my busy street about Ron Paul. Not everyone can stand up to the pressure.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 04:42 PM
Judging by polling they can win without the Paul supporters. Paul supporters, as in the die hard support, is a very small fraction of the voting population. And I think sometimes folks here tend to think that the hardcore Paul base is the liberty movement as a whole.

There is a conservative/libertarian leg for sure - many of those folks voted for Paul in the primaries, but the majority of that leg are not die-hard Paulites. Paul was merely the candidate du jour for that wing of the party, there have been others in the past and there will be others in the future. For some within the Paul faction, this was all about Ron Paul and they were neither here before, nor will they be here after.

Actually, no. If the conservative/libertarian wing were resolute. But, they aren't. Many of those that espoused to be of the conservative'libertarian wing of the party will fall in line and back the republican party even though they were shit on. The OP as the case in point.

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 04:43 PM
Judging by polling they can win without the Paul supporters. Paul supporters, as in the die hard support, is a very small fraction of the voting population. And I think sometimes folks here tend to think that the hardcore Paul base is the liberty movement as a whole.

There is a conservative/libertarian leg for sure - many of those folks voted for Paul in the primaries, but the majority of that leg are not die-hard Paulites. Paul was merely the candidate du jour for that wing of the party, there have been others in the past and there will be others in the future. For some within the Paul faction, this was all about Ron Paul and they were neither here before, nor will they be here after.

We might be a small fraction of the voting population, but lately we have had a lot of Romney people claiming to be former Paul supporters to try to convince us to vote for Romney.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 04:44 PM
cbc said he/she is in NC, which is sort of a swing state this election since it's kinda purple right now.

I don't like the Romney vote (he's the last one I would consider voting for in NC) but it was to be expected that some of the softer supporters would vote for Romney under the pressure. Heck, someone tried to trash one of my RP yard signs the other day and Im pretty sure it was one of the Romney drones that thinks Im giving the election to O by STILL reminding anyone who happens to pass by on my busy street about Ron Paul. Not everyone can stand up to the pressure.

And that is why the conservative/libertarian leg of the party will ultimately fail. The OP's post as case in point.

ronpaulfollower999
10-31-2012, 04:45 PM
I want one of these Romney supporters from Florida to tell me how they early voted for Romney. I'll seriously vote for Obama to neutralize his/her vote. I'm not voting any other way.

kathy88
10-31-2012, 04:46 PM
Not saying that it is hi fault, per se, but the reaction from the Romney campaign should have come as no surprise. If the situations were reversed, I would expect the Paul forces to do everything they could to prevent Romney from being a "fly in the ointment" at the convention, and taking the focus off the nominee.

If the situation were reversed, Romney would have got his speech, there would have been no rules broken or delegates kidnapped and Ron would have DESTROYED Romney in a floor debate.

misean
10-31-2012, 04:49 PM
Early voting - voted for Romney. Didn't want to but lesser of evils. I figured a write in for RP or a vote for Johnson would do more for Obama and didn't want that. Alot of Obama supporters at the polls...

I think this is perfectly reasonable.

I'm probably going to vote for Johnson. I'm hoping 2016 gives Rand Paul or Mitch Daniels a shot and I see a decent showing for the LP as a way to get ideas incorporated into the Republican. I think Romney winning will be bad for libertarian ideas long term.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:08 PM
If the situation were reversed, Romney would have got his speech, there would have been no rules broken or delegates kidnapped and Ron would have DESTROYED Romney in a floor debate.

If the situations were reversed there would have not been a floor debate. Paul would have had more than enough delegates to win the nomination from the primary process, Romney would have had a few hundred hold outs that managed to get themselves a ticket to Tampa through the primary process. It would have been Ron Paul's night, and you would honestly have wanted the moderate who failed to win a single primary up on the stage for 15 minutes potentially trashing Ron Paul?

angelatc
10-31-2012, 05:10 PM
A swing state vote for Romney is the worst thing you can do.

I respect you, Captain Lou, but putting Romney in the driver's seat will significantly undermine any progress the TEA Party has made. If he loses, the party will be forced to yet again take a long hard look at themselves. We don't have a candidate running on anything I can support. He's not any better than Obama on the economy, he's worse than Obama on foreign policy, and his actions at the convention showed that he's not a team builder - he's a bully.

The GOP doesn't actually represent us in any capacity. The best we can get out of this deal is a deadlocked system, and that won't happen with a GOP president in the driver's seat.

I absolutely want the Johnson vote to be the vote that costs him the election.

angelatc
10-31-2012, 05:11 PM
If the situations were reversed there would have not been a floor debate. Paul would have had more than enough delegates to win the nomination from the primary process, Romney would have had a few hundred hold outs that managed to get themselves a ticket to Tampa through the primary process. It would have been Ron Paul's night, and you would honestly have wanted the moderate who failed to win a single primary up on the stage for 15 minutes potentially trashing Ron Paul?

It isn't supposed to be any candidate's night. It's a nomination, not a coronation. ANd I do like to think that Ron Paul would have allowed him to speak if he was entitled to, yes.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:11 PM
Actually, no. If the conservative/libertarian wing were resolute. But, they aren't. Many of those that espoused to be of the conservative'libertarian wing of the party will fall in line and back the republican party even though they were shit on. The OP as the case in point.

Because that is how you build a majority within the party. You fight in the primary and unite in the general. It worked before and it will work again, if we have enough people involved. If when you lose in the primary you sit on the sidelines in the general you will not be able to build coalitions within the party going forward. I have been a committeeman before, and am running again for the seat here in my home county. Because of this, when I was asked to do some canvassing for the ticket this year, I did so. Romney was the last guy I wanted to see win, but the battle is long over (we voted in January). You take your losses like a man, and come back again to fight the next time out. But in the meantime, you do what you can to support the party as a whole. That is how party politics work - if you want to choose the other route then that is how the LP and CP works.

angelatc
10-31-2012, 05:13 PM
. You take your losses like a man, ....

Yeah, I"m done in this thread. IMHO, no real man would ever make a case for voting for Milquetoast Mitt.

I'm really, really glad I didn't vote yet. Rumors are that Michigan is in play too.

supermario21
10-31-2012, 05:15 PM
And that is why the conservative/libertarian leg of the party will ultimately fail. The OP's post as case in point.

How can the conservative/libertarian wing in this case fail? It's not like there was a viable alternative. If Ron was running as an independent he would probably be pulling in Perot like numbers. At that point, I'd vote against the establishment Republican. We fought the fight in the primary, lost it, and some of us moved on. When the next opportunity to vote for a liberty candidate arises, we will be back to support him. And we can still help local guys across the country sympathetic to our cause get elected. I'm not for those conspiracies saying that we got screwed out of the nomination. Did we get screwed out of a speaking slot/major presence? Yes, but I don't think there was a realistic way we would have won on the floor. You don't think Rand thought about these things?

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:17 PM
It isn't supposed to be any candidate's night. It's a nomination, not a coronation. ANd I do like to think that Ron Paul would have allowed him to speak if he was entitled to, yes.

But it is a coronation, and has been since the primary process became the means for determining the nominee as opposed to the old means with the state committees and party bosses choosing the nominee in the proverbial smoke filled rooms. The roll call of states is just a formality these days. The last time the roll call had any meaning to it was in 76 when Reagan and Ford essentially split the states during the primaries.

And while you like to think that the Paul campaign would have let Romney speak, I personally doubt it. Then again, perhaps Romney would not have held out like Paul did, and followed the lead of every single other contender for the nomination in recent years and dropped out when they lost.

Again, the Romney campaign used every dirty trick in the books they could, but the Paul campaign put a target on their back by not dropping out and conceding.

dannno
10-31-2012, 05:21 PM
https://forums.playfire.com/_proxy/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi604.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2F tt122%2FGoldyfan%2Fhalf%2520baked%2FBooThisMan.gif&hmac=0f50ad61c729d7db6d10a5139210bb2d

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 05:24 PM
Because that is how you build a majority within the party. You fight in the primary and unite in the general. It worked before and it will work again, if we have enough people involved. If when you lose in the primary you sit on the sidelines in the general you will not be able to build coalitions within the party going forward. I have been a committeeman before, and am running again for the seat here in my home county. Because of this, when I was asked to do some canvassing for the ticket this year, I did so. Romney was the last guy I wanted to see win, but the battle is long over (we voted in January). You take your losses like a man, and come back again to fight the next time out. But in the meantime, you do what you can to support the party as a whole. That is how party politics work - if you want to choose the other route then that is how the LP and CP works.

That is how you lose any voice in the party. If you are shut out, and the party wins, then they will claim it is their "mandate" and that you and your concerns are irrelevant. Voice whatever support you feel you need to. But, for all that is good, don't vote for a piece of shit, flip-flopper, in the booth.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 05:27 PM
How can the conservative/libertarian wing in this case fail? It's not like there was a viable alternative. If Ron was running as an independent he would probably be pulling in Perot like numbers. At that point, I'd vote against the establishment Republican. We fought the fight in the primary, lost it, and some of us moved on. When the next opportunity to vote for a liberty candidate arises, we will be back to support him. And we can still help local guys across the country sympathetic to our cause get elected. I'm not for those conspiracies saying that we got screwed out of the nomination. Did we get screwed out of a speaking slot/major presence? Yes, but I don't think there was a realistic way we would have won on the floor. You don't think Rand thought about these things?

See my above post. If you keep supporting the Rmoneys and McCains that is what you will continue to get. It takes LOSES for a party to consider where it is at and where it needs to go to affect a win.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:30 PM
That is how you lose any voice in the party. If you are shut out, and the party wins, then they will claim it is their "mandate" and that you and your concerns are irrelevant. Voice whatever support you feel you need to. But, for all that is good, don't vote for a piece of shit, flip-flopper, in the booth.

Incorrect. It is the exact playbook that conservatives used in the 60's and 70's to take majority control of many county and state committees. You work your ass off in the primaries for your guy and then you act as a team player in the general.

My only suggestion for all of you is to run for committee and be a part of the process. Commentary from the sidelines is all well and good, but until folks roll up your sleeves and do the work yourself of building coalitions with like minded folks you don't really get to experience this.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 05:33 PM
Incorrect. It is the exact playbook that conservatives used in the 60's and 70's to take majority control of many county and state committees. You work your ass off in the primaries for your guy and then you act as a team player in the general.

My only suggestion for all of you is to run for committee and be a part of the process. Commentary from the sidelines is all well and good, but until folks roll up your sleeves and do the work yourself of building coalitions with like minded folks you don't really get to experience this.

Then we will just disagree.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:36 PM
See my above post. If you keep supporting the Rmoneys and McCains that is what you will continue to get. It takes LOSES for a party to consider where it is at and where it needs to go to affect a win.

No they don't. The only thing that changes who a nominee will be, whether it is the Presidential race, the Senate or the House is the county and state committees. You have no idea how powerful a committee is, and how much a committee man can steer votes one way or another. When I was in NJ our county committee was far more conservative than the rest of the state. We routinely would endorse conservatives in the primaries even though the state committee would endorse a moderate. Even with the backing of the state committee, the candidate we endorsed at the county level would generally win our county. We had the lists and beyond that the personal contact with the voters to move the vote in one direction or another.

Even today with the internet and the barrage of advertising, robocalls, etc this still plays out and you can see it in statewide races across the country. The reason being is because when someone a voter knows and respects knocks on their door and asks for then to vote for a particular candidate they will.

kathy88
10-31-2012, 05:40 PM
If the situations were reversed there would have not been a floor debate. Paul would have had more than enough delegates to win the nomination from the primary process, Romney would have had a few hundred hold outs that managed to get themselves a ticket to Tampa through the primary process. It would have been Ron Paul's night, and you would honestly have wanted the moderate who failed to win a single primary up on the stage for 15 minutes potentially trashing Ron Paul?If he had the delegates yes. That's how it works. Ron is a gentleman who always plays by the rules.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 05:40 PM
No they don't. The only thing that changes who a nominee will be, whether it is the Presidential race, the Senate or the House is the county and state committees. You have no idea how powerful a committee is, and how much a committee man can steer votes one way or another. When I was in NJ our county committee was far more conservative than the rest of the state. We routinely would endorse conservatives in the primaries even though the state committee would endorse a moderate. Even with the backing of the state committee, the candidate we endorsed at the county level would generally win our county. We had the lists and beyond that the personal contact with the voters to move the vote in one direction or another.

Even today with the internet and the barrage of advertising, robocalls, etc this still plays out and you can see it in statewide races across the country. The reason being is because when someone a voter knows and respects knocks on their door and asks for then to vote for a particular candidate they will.

And you still, as yet, have not posted an argument for actually voting for Rmoney. "Act" the part all you want. But if you, or anyone that supports Ron Paul, actually casts a vote for Rmoney then you betray everything that the liberty movement espouses.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 05:45 PM
And you still, as yet, have not posted an argument for actually voting for Rmoney. "Act" the part all you want. But if you, or anyone that supports Ron Paul, actually casts a vote for Rmoney then you betray everything that the liberty movement espouses.

Your definition of the liberty movement, which as I find on here is really isolated to a small number of Ron Paul diehards and not representative of the liberty movement as a whole. There are many people who supported Paul in the primaries, who donated and worked for him. People who will support Davis in SC as he takes on Graham in 2014, people who worked their asses off for Sanford when he was in the House and as Governor. To say that all these people will betray the movement (a movement that many of these people have been involved in for decades) is disingenuous and very narrow minded.

As far as an argument for Romney - I have one and really for me it is all that matters. Rand's legislation will have a far greater chance of being signed by Romney than by Obama. One of two men will win, I want the one that will sign the bills I support.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 05:50 PM
Your definition of the liberty movement, which as I find on here is really isolated to a small number of Ron Paul diehards and not representative of the liberty movement as a whole. There are many people who supported Paul in the primaries, who donated and worked for him. People who will support Davis in SC as he takes on Graham in 2014, people who worked their asses off for Sanford when he was in the House and as Governor. To say that all these people will betray the movement (a movement that many of these people have been involved in for decades) is disingenuous and very narrow minded.

As far as an argument for Romney - I have one and really for me it is all that matters. Rand's legislation will have a far greater chance of being signed by Romney than by Obama. One of two men will win, I want the one that will sign the bills I support.

No. You are deliberately pussy footing around my main, and only, argument. And that is that voting for Rmoney goes against anything that those on these boards have fought against for so long. And that is disingenuous.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 06:00 PM
No. You are deliberately pussy footing around my main, and only, argument. And that is that voting for Rmoney goes against anything that those on these boards have fought against for so long. And that is disingenuous.

And that is fine if you choose a protest vote. You have every right to do so, but saying that those who cast a pragmatic vote are essentially traitors to the movement is wrong. For a lot of people that care deeply about liberty and a restoration of Constitutional principles, the sun doesn't rise and set with Ron Paul alone. For myself, he was just one of dozens of candidates that I financially supported this year. Paul lost, I'm over it. I wish he would have run a better campaign, I wish he would have spent time in SC and made a decent run for the votes here, but he didn't. It's done now, time to move on and keep working.

And I'll modify my previous statement and say that if Romney and Obama are identical on every single issue and policy, but Romney will sign the Audit the Fed bill then that is enough reason for me to vote for him.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 06:11 PM
And I'll modify my previous statement and say that if Romney and Obama are identical on every single issue and policy, but Romney will sign the Audit the Fed bill then that is enough reason for me to vote for him.

Has this become the Mitt Rmoney forums? What's next? Threads actually SUPPORTING Rmoney? :rolleyes: Christ.

rpfocus
10-31-2012, 06:27 PM
Has this become the Mitt Rmoney forums? What's next? Threads actually SUPPORTING Rmoney? :rolleyes: Christ.

No kidding. Chickenhawk Romney WILL give the green light to Israel to strike Iran, then we can spend trillions on another useless war. Geezus, Ron, why won't they listen?

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons." - Ron Paul

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 06:36 PM
Has this become the Mitt Rmoney forums? What's next? Threads actually SUPPORTING Rmoney? :rolleyes: Christ.

No I think you have two mindsets here. One is all about 2012, and the other is for the long game. Part of taking over a party is being part of the party, and as an elected official/activist in a party you have to support the ticket. Rand did it and so did nearly every other elected official and candidate from our side. Some of you have a mentality that is better suited for minor parties like the LP and CP where you are surrounded by people who agree with you 100% and if you ever do fight you split off and form another minor party.

Any way one chooses is fine, but to demonize folks who choose a pragmatic vote this year will only further drive a wedge between the small number of Ron Paul diehards and the rest of the libertarians and conservatives out there. Just because you want to cast a protest vote this year for President does not make you a better libertarian than someone else. That is bordering on a cult like mentality.

I say this because I have seen this time and time again. There were factions of the so-cons that were like that in the 80's, particularly the Robinson group and again later with the Keyes group. And it occurred again with the Buchanan faction in the 90's. None of those factions survived, because they became so exclusionary that they dwindled into nothingness.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 06:50 PM
Part of taking over a party is being part of the party, and as an elected official/activist in a party you have to support the ticket. Rand did it and so did nearly every other elected official and candidate from our side.


I do not recall Ron Paul giving his support to Rmoney. And this IS the Ron Paul Forum. It is not the Rand Paul Forum. Nor the Every Other Elected Official and Candidate Forum. Perhaps one day it will change. Until such a time I cannot condone support for Rmoney on these forums.
Be a pragmatist all you want. In another post you said you have been involved in the party politics for 20 years. I'd say being a pragmatist has gotten us nowhere. Nowhere except a two party system that just keeps rolling along and steam rolling any opposition.
Do what you want. Espouse how you feel we need to work within the system to change it.
But, don't come on Ron Paul Forums and shill for Rmoney. Ron didn't do it. That's the example to follow. If you feel differently perhaps this is the site you should be on...http://www.topix.com/forum/who/mitt-romney


Does Ron Paul Support Mitt Romney Yet? “No.”

As the presidential race tightens three weeks out from the vote, Ron Paul still hasn’t come to terms with Mitt Romney. Asked by CNBC if he was prepared to get behind the Romney-Ryan ticket, the libertarian Republican said flatly, “No.”


Paul, who decided not to seek re-election to the House this year to focus on his presidential campaign, never formally withdrew from the race. He carried 190 delegates into the Republican National Convention, where his supporters staged disruptions to protest Romney’s nomination. Paul says he can’t support Romney or Obama because he sees little substantive difference between mainstream Democrats and Republicans, the same position he held in the 2008 election.

Still unclear is whether Paul will endorse fellow libertarian candidates as he has in the past. This year, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has made the ballot as the Libertarian Party nominee in 48 states. Johnson’s small but perceptible blip in the polls in certain states has stoked G.O.P. fears that he could have a spoiler effect, just as Ralph Nader did for Democrats in 2000.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/trending/2012/10/15/ron_paul_endorsement_mitt_romney_still_doesn_t_hav e_paul_s_support.html

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 07:11 PM
phill4paul

Your post above illustrates exactly what I spoke of in my previous post. The simple fact that you cannot tolerate anyone voting in a pragmatic manner is troubling. And yes I have been involved for many years, 50 years involvement and roughly 20 years as an elected official. I was a Goldwater supporter in 64 and a Reagan delegate in 76 and 80. So I have been through the ups and downs of the conservative/libertarian movement over the years. I was telling people about the gold standard long before a lot of the folks here were born. I am part of that "remnant" that Paul speaks of.

But have your little forum, and you 1000 or so people that agree with one another can huddle together, and complain how everyone else sucks but them. The rest of the liberty movement will carry on fine without you all, because Lord knows you wouldn't dare associate with those traitors who might cast a pragmatic ballot at times.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 07:17 PM
phill4paul

Your post above illustrates exactly what I spoke of in my previous post. The simple fact that you cannot tolerate anyone voting in a pragmatic manner is troubling. And yes I have been involved for many years, 50 years involvement and roughly 20 years as an elected official. I was a Goldwater supporter in 64 and a Reagan delegate in 76 and 80. So I have been through the ups and downs of the conservative/libertarian movement over the years. I was telling people about the gold standard long before a lot of the folks here were born. I am part of that "remnant" that Paul speaks of.

But have your little forum, and you 1000 or so people that agree with one another can huddle together, and complain how everyone else sucks but them. The rest of the liberty movement will carry on fine without you all, because Lord knows you wouldn't dare associate with those traitors who might cast a pragmatic ballot at times.

I think your history speaks volumes to how casting a 'pragmatic' vote has done no service and done nothing more than bring us to the position we are in today.

RickyJ
10-31-2012, 07:19 PM
He is probably worse than Obama. It sucks that there are even sheep on this forum.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 07:24 PM
I think your history speaks volumes to how casting a 'pragmatic' vote has done no service and done nothing more than bring us to the position we are in today.

Then run for office yourself and see how you can do better.

Qdog
10-31-2012, 07:25 PM
Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.
yep. thats what I want. For Johnson to get his 5%, 4 more years of Obama, and to give the middle finger to the GOP and Romney.

Then we run Rand in 2016

AFPVet
10-31-2012, 07:28 PM
I could never give my vote to Rumbles. I vote for the best candidate on the ballot. ... and since my state does not count write in votes, that would be Gov. Johnson. Still to this day, I remember what that fuck said to the poor kid in the wheelchair... "I can't support medical marijuana." Wow....

Carehn
10-31-2012, 07:32 PM
I am a realist. I have voted for Paul the last 2 elections and no main stream candidates before that. I do not want Obama back in office and this is the only real choice available. Sorry - but that's the reality of the situation. If Ron had switched to the Lib. party I would have voted for him but he didn't. Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

The force is weak with this one.

MozoVote
10-31-2012, 07:32 PM
"Being a team player" doesn't mean voting for candidates you can't stand. I wrote in Paul and voted for one Libertarian, my other umpteen votes on my ballot went to the GOP slate. No Democrats. I spent $100 or so out of pocket, distributing GOP voting guides in my area and planting campaign signs. Frankly I am more involved for the party than probably half the county precinct officers, who treat it like a ceremonial title and do absolutely zip.

We should NOT "unite in the general" when a candidate is beneath our standards. I simply do not trust Romney and could not vote for him.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 07:33 PM
Then run for office yourself and see how you can do better.

Not everyone is suited for public office. And not everyone who is suited for it deserves the position. Regardless of party affiliation.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2012, 07:35 PM
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/political-choice-cartoon.png

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2012, 07:43 PM
I can't and won't vote for the radical establishmentarians at the top of the ticket, but unlike many I do not begrudge another for voting to eject Obama. I have two different methodologies that I promote for restoring the Constitution from the voting booth. The 'lower tier' Constitutionalist voting pattern is to fire anybody who ignores or violates the Constitution regardless of party. The second 'higher tier' method is to never vote for anyone you know has or will ignore or violate the Constitution.

I am a 'higher tier' Constitutionalist voter, which means I can only vote for those I know or suspect will obey the Constitution.

However, I do not begrudge those who use method one, as BOTH methods will get us there. Method one will only get us there slower, at half the speed. Method two will get us here faster, at twice the speed, but each and every person we convince to enforce the Constitution must do so in accord with their own conscience.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 07:45 PM
Not everyone is suited for public office. And not everyone who is suited for it deserves the position. Regardless of party affiliation.

Excuses, excuses. Most local offices take very little of one's time.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2012, 07:49 PM
Excuses, excuses. Most local offices take very little of one's time.

o.O

define... local

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 07:51 PM
o.O

define... local

Committee, township, school board. Most of those require very little time. A meeting or two a month

MozoVote
10-31-2012, 07:54 PM
Excuses, excuses. Most local offices take very little of one's time.

In small town USA, perhaps. Here in Mecklenburg county, if you decide to throw your hat in the ring for Charlotte city coucil, even a district seat covers about 120,000 voters. It's like running for mayor of a small city in its own right.

GunnyFreedom
10-31-2012, 07:54 PM
Committee, township, school board. Most of those require very little time. A meeting or two a month

OK, because most Paulers would consider a State General Assembly to be 'local,' and I can assure you that takes up a lot of time.

CaptLouAlbano
10-31-2012, 07:57 PM
OK, because most Paulers would consider a State General Assembly to be 'local,' and I can assure you that takes up a lot of time.

Agreed, full time in many states. We do need people to run at every level though. You probably know, but even local guys can have tremendous influence for state and federal candidates.

RickyJ
10-31-2012, 08:03 PM
Anyone who writes in Paul or votes for GJ is giving Obama the election - if that's what you want go for it.

Romney < Obama -> I don't want either of them and would never vote for either of them, but I think Obama is the lesser of the two evils so why the heck would want Romney to win?

You threw your vote away voting for Romney and you will live to regret if he wins.

phill4paul
10-31-2012, 08:10 PM
Excuses, excuses. Most local offices take very little of one's time.

For someone who knows NOTHING about me, my situation or my locale you'll just have to take my word for it. No, thanks.

Odin
10-31-2012, 09:47 PM
Hoover and the Republicans could never have pulled the New Deal off. There was no confidence in him. Black Friday happened with a Republican in the White House and the Democrats took full advantage of the 'mandate' they were given. When the dollar collapses under a Democrat (note I say when--I am not deluding myself that your R vote will make the slightest difference to the outcome) they won't have the confidence or the mandate to do a New Deal II. The Republicans will, but that doesn't mean we won't have enough hooks into the party to prevent it.

Look I agree - I think any person who understands Austrian economics knows a collapse is coming. When exactly is impossible to say, it probably depends on when the world decides they've lost confidence in the dollar and start dumping it. The right policies could still prevent it imo, but I don't see that happening.

I would be careful of drawing comparisons between Obama and Hoover, I don't think it will be like that and I would be extremely worried if Obama is in power when this dollar collapse happens. First of all, the media will help him along and put out propaganda blaming conservatives, libertarians, 'business,' Bush, and the free market. I guarantee you that will happen, and we will get all kinds of programs and solutions that people will become dependent on, the government will put its hand into many more sectors of the economy and take credit for every "success" as they are doing now with GM and the auto bailout. It will never be undone imo. If you are comfortable with Obama in power when this time comes then fine I guess we have a genuine disagreement but I do not believe that they will roll over and accept their failures, they won't be lame ducks and it will be very bad for us I'm afraid.

misean
10-31-2012, 11:06 PM
Look I agree - I think any person who understands Austrian economics knows a collapse is coming. When exactly is impossible to say, it probably depends on when the world decides they've lost confidence in the dollar and start dumping it. The right policies could still prevent it imo, but I don't see that happening.


What do you mean by collapse? Do you mean a downturn like 2008 or eating canned food and bartering gold? Do you mean a dollar devaluation like the 70's.

One of the doomsday scenarios may happen, but I would bet against it.

devil21
10-31-2012, 11:07 PM
Your definition of the liberty movement, which as I find on here is really isolated to a small number of Ron Paul diehards and not representative of the liberty movement as a whole. There are many people who supported Paul in the primaries, who donated and worked for him. People who will support Davis in SC as he takes on Graham in 2014, people who worked their asses off for Sanford when he was in the House and as Governor. To say that all these people will betray the movement (a movement that many of these people have been involved in for decades) is disingenuous and very narrow minded.

As far as an argument for Romney - I have one and really for me it is all that matters. Rand's legislation will have a far greater chance of being signed by Romney than by Obama. One of two men will win, I want the one that will sign the bills I support.

I can see someone working to get inside the party itself wanting to "play ball" by voting for Romney as a talking point but an average non-hardcore RP voter should not be considering a vote for Romney as a sign of anything other than weakness. You gain nothing in the long run from voting for Romney or Obama. At least you can claim to be a team player if you're working to take a party position (while still keeping your eye on the ball). Even then it should only a political move, not because you want to vote for Romney.

Interesting that someone got CaptLou to basically admit he's a Romney voter. Nice work whoever got that mild admission. Ive suspected such. Im very wary of any 2012 join dates now.

Odin
10-31-2012, 11:26 PM
What do you mean by collapse? Do you mean a downturn like 2008 or eating canned food and bartering gold? Do you mean a dollar devaluation like the 70's.

One of the doomsday scenarios may happen, but I would bet against it.

I don't think it will be a doomsday scenario but the truth is that eventually we have to pay the price for the standard of living we've unjustly enjoyed for years. Our government is in debt but we also export our dollars to import valuable goods. We don't produce nearly enough to justify our imports, we print green pieces of paper and expect other countries to accept them indefinitely, against their interests. We are going to be screwed big time if the world loses confidence in the dollar. As it is, they pay for our life style, they produce goods for us, they have no reason to continue to do so and you have to wonder what the motives of Chinese leaders are in continuing a policy that is detrimental to their people. Maybe they are doing it to bring us down, idk if that is their motive but they have us by the balls now.

supermario21
11-01-2012, 12:16 AM
Showing weakness? In order to show weakness you must first show strength! We aren't super strong just yet, we need to build more grassroots support before we act like we are a powerful faction of the party. Strides, yes, but we cannot get arrogant here.

devil21
11-01-2012, 12:45 AM
Showing weakness? In order to show weakness you must first show strength! We aren't super strong just yet, we need to build more grassroots support before we act like we are a powerful faction of the party. Strides, yes, but we cannot get arrogant here.

We (not including you btw) showed enough strength to scare the shit out of the party bosses enough to change the future convention rules to exclude delegates the nominee doesn't find acceptable. That's power. If our Electors had stayed low they could have possibly been literal "Kingmakers" for this election. WTF are you talking about strength? Did you pay any attention to the primary season or did you just sign up to shill for Romney without any knowledge of what Paul supporters dealt with?

An average Paul supporter voting for Romney helps this movement in no way, shape or form. The only time I can respect it is if that person intends of winning a party position. Then again every one of us should be working toward that any way regardless of who any one votes for.

cbc58
11-01-2012, 07:24 AM
Just an observation - this "movement" is never going to go anywhere in the Republican Party. What is needed is a new party that disgruntled Republicans and Democrats can switch to - and there are 1000x more of those people than RP supporters.

You are also not going to win people over to your side by just talking, or by belittling them - which seems to be the method many use. Demographics, inflation, and the poor economy are by far the largest educator of the electorate and people have to make their own decisions on how to vote. Best you can do is create an avenue for them when they are ready to change and right now a viable alternative does not exist for this "movement".

CPUd
11-01-2012, 07:29 AM
Just an observation - this "movement" is never going to go anywhere in the Republican Party. What is needed is a new party that disgruntled Republicans and Democrats can switch to - and there are 1000x more of those people than RP supporters.

You are also not going to win people over to your side by just talking, or by belittling them - which seems to be the method many use. Demographics, inflation, and the poor economy are by far the largest educator of the electorate and people have to make their own decisions on how to vote. Best you can do is create an avenue for them when they are ready to change and right now a viable alternative does not exist for this "movement".

People come to our side when they realize this is exactly what we are doing.

CaptLouAlbano
11-01-2012, 07:29 AM
Just an observation - this "movement" is never going to go anywhere in the Republican Party. What is needed is a new party that disgruntled Republicans and Democrats can switch to - and there are 1000x more of those people than RP supporters.

I have seen this many times in 2008 and 2012 by RP supporters. And we saw the same thing from the LP in 1972, the CP in 1991, the Reform Party in 1995 and dozens of other minor parties over the last 40+ years.

The truth is a new party will never amount to anything, unless there is a mass exodus of sitting elected officials from the GOP that collectively form a new party. Otherwise this new party will be running the same failed playbook that the LP, CP, et al have run over the years.

If you want to see real change in the GOP it is going to require people like yourself and others who post on message boards to step away from the computer and run for office - particularly county committee seats. It is an easy seat to win, requires very little time on the part of the office holder, and has a tremendous amount of influence shaping the direction of the party and the candidates who are run for office at every level of government.

cbc58
11-01-2012, 07:42 AM
People come to our side when they realize this is exactly what we are doing.

That avenue is far to narrow for most.

The Goat
11-01-2012, 07:52 AM
I did that last time, still feel dirty after voting for McCain. Enjoy your filth. lol


Just remember, you voted to keep Obama's policies going for 8 years instead of 4. Status quo FTW!

DeMintConservative
11-01-2012, 01:43 PM
Early voting - voted for Romney. Didn't want to but lesser of evils. I figured a write in for RP or a vote for Johnson would do more for Obama and didn't want that. Alot of Obama supporters at the polls...

Repped.

DeMintConservative
11-01-2012, 01:44 PM
I have seen this many times in 2008 and 2012 by RP supporters. And we saw the same thing from the LP in 1972, the CP in 1991, the Reform Party in 1995 and dozens of other minor parties over the last 40+ years.

The truth is a new party will never amount to anything, unless there is a mass exodus of sitting elected officials from the GOP that collectively form a new party. Otherwise this new party will be running the same failed playbook that the LP, CP, et al have run over the years.

If you want to see real change in the GOP it is going to require people like yourself and others who post on message boards to step away from the computer and run for office - particularly county committee seats. It is an easy seat to win, requires very little time on the part of the office holder, and has a tremendous amount of influence shaping the direction of the party and the candidates who are run for office at every level of government.


Well said.

V3n
11-02-2012, 06:45 AM
After Romney's power-grab at the RNC - if he's elected, he's put the rules in place to make sure he cannot be Primaried in 2016.
We cannot afford that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/26/gop-officials-accuse-romney-of-power-grab/


Senior GOP officials are accusing the Romney campaign’s chief attorney, Ben Ginsberg, of pushing through a rules change for delegate selection that would give Mitt Romney enormous power over the primary process should he win the White House and seek re-election in 2016.

I respect everyone's decision to vote for whomever they choose - but then I saw a poster from my State say they chose Romney too - I was going to write-in Ron Paul - but I might have to choose Obama just to cancel them out.

The worst thing that could happen for the pursuit of Liberty is a Romney win and a Romney presidency.

NIU Students for Liberty
11-02-2012, 06:17 PM
I have a headache after reading through this thread.