Curious to know the political leanings of those who frequent the S/P forum [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Curious to know the political leanings of those who frequent the S/P forum


RMTactical
06-22-2012, 21:00
I grew up a hardcore republican, however, as I have aged, I have constantly found myself at odds with many GOP leaders.

GWB was a huge disappointment of a POTUS for me. However, I do find it interesting that BHO has been so similar in many regards (granted, worse, yet still similar, particularly in the way of wars and spending).

I have little faith that Romney (or any other of those who were in serious contention for the GOP candidacy) will make large strides in the right direction.

I am in a political limbo right now. I am a registered republican, but I find myself more in line with many libertarians out there.

The more I feel like I learn about the world and politics, the less I feel I really know. I have never been one for conspiracy theories, and the nuts like Alex Jones make me cringe. I don't think everything is a conspiracy (like I don't think the govt was in on 9/11) although I do think the politicians capitalize on things such as 9/11 in order to force unconstitutional legislation such as the patriot act. I am convinced the POTUS (regardless of who he is) is a puppet. I don't know if congress is truly as stupid as they seem, continually spending money we don't have.

Bottom line, I don't know much, but I do believe we are being forced down a path of financial ruin and increasingly being scared into giving away our freedoms for "security".

This is why I prep.

I fear for our country's future, and I don't trust 99% of the politicians out there.

I don't know who to vote for in November. Romney is only slightly less worse than Obama and RP probably won't be running.

Wil Ufgood
06-22-2012, 21:08
I think she would've been great.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_b3GHoGMBNpY/SwH_-ItLaSI/AAAAAAAAEt8/BQdpjVi-ZSA/s1600/Michele+Bachmann.jpg

DoctaGlockta
06-22-2012, 21:26
I think she would've been great.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_b3GHoGMBNpY/SwH_-ItLaSI/AAAAAAAAEt8/BQdpjVi-ZSA/s1600/Michele+Bachmann.jpg

In bed?

Wil Ufgood
06-22-2012, 21:32
In bed?

http://smartactors.com/Blogs%20-%20Picture/yes%20no%20maybe.jpg

cyrsequipment
06-22-2012, 21:36
I consider myself conservative. I mostly agree with the Republican party but I strongly disagree with them on several important issues so I refuse to register Republican. I used to lean towards Libertarian myself but then I read their position on illegal immigration and it sounded so stupid that I gave up on them rather quickly.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

DoctaGlockta
06-22-2012, 21:59
http://smartactors.com/Blogs%20-%20Picture/yes%20no%20maybe.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/files/2011/08/marcus-bachmann.jpg

AK_Stick
06-22-2012, 22:43
I hate both parties.


I agree more with the Republicans but they're far from blameless.

thesurefire
06-23-2012, 02:28
I hate both parties.



Personally I hate both parties about equally. Both sides are liars, crooks, criminals, and generally scum.

Picking one is like deciding which eye to you'd rather lose.

kirgi08
06-23-2012, 02:46
Good thread.I'm classical Libertarian...............

I don't care what folk do,If it effects me and mine then I do.If not,enjoy.'08.

UneasyRider
06-23-2012, 05:41
Good thread.I'm classical Libertarian...............

I don't care what folk do,If it effects me and mine then I do.If not,enjoy.'08.

This sums it up nicely for me too.

As for the OP he is right we have passed the PONR and we will have consequences to pay and no matter how they campaign when they get elected they are faced with the same decision, pull the plug or kick the can down the road.

Aceman
06-23-2012, 06:21
I am a man in search of a party. I am officially OUT of any Repub/Dem dealings. Ever.

At the end of the day I'm a pragmatist/realist. At the end of the day, there are goals problems and solutions. When your philosophies get in the way of doing the right thing, or cause so much dispute as to impede progress, get out of the way. Unfortunately, they won't do that...

I'd say I'm probably mostly libertarian at heart - but I don't know enough to make a commitment there.

As a gun forum, Republican/Conservatism runs rampant here. But I think that as a prepper - in general - we very much recognize all the shortcomings of the government as an entity regardless of affiliation.

At the end of the day, we all know that Congress is going to save their own @$$ before yours, regardless of the party, and then they will both argue about whose fault it was so many of us died.

quake
06-23-2012, 08:18
Social issues, libertarian; because it not only seems logical, but respectful of others. It's also what Jesus did as far as I can tell. Constantly dealing with whores & scumbags, yet he never once threatened to imprison them or take away their property. Works for me.

Fiscal/monetary issues, conservative; because that seems like the only honest way to acknowledge long-term mathematical realities.

Not overly fond of either party anymore. But a 3rd-party presidential candidate isn't yet a realistic, viable option - hopefully soon will be - but as of right now, it's not. Maybe after we get some decent third-party candidates in congress, a presidential candidate might be a possibility, but not yet imo.

That given, that leaves the only viable options to be a choice between having a retarded dog on the school playground or a rabid dog on the school playground. Don't like or want either one, but of the two, retarded is at least less directly dangerous.

thetoastmaster
06-23-2012, 08:20
Every four years I register Republican to vote in Utah's closed primary; and a week after every one of those primaries, I change back to "unaffiliated".

A pox on both of their houses. If they all broke out in a rash of sphincters and defecated themselves to death, well, I'd lose no sleep over it.

Akita
06-23-2012, 11:26
Libertarian with a mean streak.

Gov needs to defend our shores and ensure a level playing field in all things. (with severe punishments for those that wont play right). And everybody needs to leave everybody else the F alone. My rights end where yours begin and vice versa.

coastal4974
06-23-2012, 13:39
The Pub club left me years ago and I realized I’m really Libertarian.

Unfortunately unless we can infiltrate and take over the Pub club as the Marxist have done with the Dems, we won’t be seeing a Libertarian leaning gubmint. These two clubs will continue to rape and pillage our country till there is nothing left.

F350
06-23-2012, 14:02
Socially I lean Libertarian

Fiscally I lean to right of Scrooge

Internationally I lean to the right of Genghis Khan

cowboy1964
06-23-2012, 14:58
I don't know who to vote for in November. Romney is only slightly less worse than Obama and RP probably won't be running.

He may be almost as bad as Obama in some areas (hey, they're all politicians) but come on are you kidding me? Romney ain't a Socialist/Communist out to destroy everything he hates about this country (which is most of it).

AK_Stick
06-23-2012, 15:20
unfortunately, at this time in our country, a vote for anyone other than the Dem, or Rep candidate, is nothing more than a vote thrown away.

DoctaGlockta
06-23-2012, 15:36
I'm pretty much aPolitical.

At this point we are far beyond a political solution to our problems.

System needs a reset.

thetoastmaster
06-23-2012, 16:19
unfortunately, at this time in our country, a vote for anyone other than the Dem, or Rep candidate, is nothing more than a vote thrown away.

At worst a vote for a third party candidate is the same as staying home, nothing worse than that; so if you're so mad that you're planning on staying home anyway, may as well vote your conscience.

At any rate, I've said my piece. This is the S&P forum. I don't want it to take the taint of the political forum. :puking::puking::puking:

Pitt
06-23-2012, 17:05
Socially I lean Libertarian

Fiscally I lean to right of Scrooge

Internationally I lean to the right of Genghis Khan

^^^^^^^^
Yeah!!!! What he said!!!!!
I too think that the system needs a reset. We just don't have the stones to do it. You all can read between the lines on that however you wish.

Dexters
06-23-2012, 17:16
This is why I prep.

I fear for our country's future, and I don't trust 99% of the politicians out there.



The Ds and Rs are very similar.

The course for the USA has been set - the major decisions made. The USA has charted the same course as past empires.

Most here are Fatalist. (This has NO relationship to the occult)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fatalism

And I think many younger people are coming to that conclusion.

Dbltapglock
06-23-2012, 18:27
deleted

Dbltapglock
06-23-2012, 18:35
deleted

kirgi08
06-23-2012, 19:24
:faint:

thetoastmaster
06-24-2012, 15:00
Here is a libertarian solution to illegal immigration that I support: Bring our troops home, stop the nation building and put the troops along both the Mexican and Canadian borders with guns pointing out.

The more libertarian solution would be to throw the border wide open, but cut off all entitlements. IF one can come, and make it on his or her own merits, welcome to the US. If not, well, there's the door.

It's really all about limiting the power of the State.

Syclone538
06-24-2012, 15:01
I am registered R, for the primary, but have been voting L as much as R lately. I strongly disagree with their immigration policy, but it's pretty much the same as D or R anyway.

If you want to do something that doesn't hurt anyone else, you should be free to do it.

Dinky
06-25-2012, 14:20
Good thread.I'm classical Libertarian...............

I don't care what folk do,If it effects me and mine then I do.If not,enjoy.'08.


For once, I agree with 08;

Have voted, left, right and down the center. Who ever I think will do the best job gets my vote....:wavey:

LASTRESORT20
06-25-2012, 14:36
The Dem`s are `not the same` Dem`s anymore....Conservative Republicans are not perfect...But a Heck of a lot better than what we have now...Conservatives are capable of learning...trying to improve.....Dem`s cannot....There is no half-way in the middle Garbage (to "please all" and be cowardly safe) ANYMORE.....
No time for Horse-sh!!!!!t...When its time to vote...VOTE...dont talk...
One either votes for the Left or the Conservatives.....enough of the picky small (in the middle) BS stuff to show how special/Tolerant & different you are..

Hugo R
06-25-2012, 15:10
I too am not happy with EITHER of the TWO parties but as has been the case for so long now, I have no choice but to vote R due to D not even coming close to the way I think and want to live!

D's are really S's or in some cases C's. And maybe even F's.
:dunno:

HR:cool:

wjv
06-25-2012, 15:15
I want to be a high ranking member of the Communist party so I can have all perks that you peons will be denied. . . .

But for now I'll settle with being a libertarian leaning conservative.

thetoastmaster
06-25-2012, 16:57
The Dem`s are `not the same` Dem`s anymore....Conservative Republicans are not perfect...But a Heck of a lot better than what we have now...Conservatives are capable of learning...trying to improve.....Dem`s cannot....There is no half-way in the middle Garbage (to "please all" and be cowardly safe) ANYMORE.....
No time for Horse-sh!!!!!t...When its time to vote...VOTE...dont talk...
One either votes for the Left or the Conservatives.....enough of the picky small (in the middle) BS stuff to show how special/Tolerant & different you are..

I'd say this is not an appropriate venue for political proselytizing.

Newcop761
06-26-2012, 01:39
At this point I'll vote for somebody without illegal alien relatives.

http://i.qkme.me/3p6ccb.jpg

BryanG
06-26-2012, 07:31
I am ultra-conservative, therefore I am a man without a political party. I usually vote Republican just because the R candidate is usually less evil than the alternative.

It really does get old always voting against and never really voting for a candidate.

Both republicans and democrats are moving us down the same road to destruction, I just think the democrats are driving faster.

syntaxerrorsix
06-26-2012, 10:55
Good thread.I'm classical Libertarian...............

I don't care what folk do,If it effects me and mine then I do.If not,enjoy.'08.

Agreed.

kirgi08
06-26-2012, 13:12
:beer:

jlavallee
06-28-2012, 19:02
I don't care how a person believes people should act. I care how they act and how they treat others. I used to tolerate the right wing guys and in the past got sucked into the lesser of two evils. I'm just as bad as them if I occasionally vote for anyone who believes a majority gives them the right to infringe on the minority regardless of personal preference.

I will NEVER vote "lesser" again. Years ago, I wanted to believe the hype. Reagan failing to shrink government should have taught me. Bush Sr. enraged me and I had to choke the fear of Bush Jr. In my lifetime only Reagan spoke a good piece but the actions fell far short even if I still like the man. I'll give him credit for talking up liberty even if he granted amnesty, had the Brady BS, imposed massive spending, took our autos and crazy overreaches like 55 limits. Every other president from LBJ to Obama has been a TOTAL 100% disaster when it comes to taking their oath seriously and protecting the Republic. Ben was right, the founders gave us a Republic only as long as we can keep it. We've lost it.

syntaxerrorsix
06-28-2012, 20:26
I don't care how a person believes people should act. I care how they act and how they treat others. I used to tolerate the right wing guys and in the past got sucked into the lesser of two evils. I'm just as bad as them if I occasionally vote for anyone who believes a majority gives them the right to infringe on the minority regardless of personal preference.

I will NEVER vote "lesser" again. Years ago, I wanted to believe the hype. Reagan failing to shrink government should have taught me. Bush Sr. enraged me and I had to choke the fear of Bush Jr. In my lifetime only Reagan spoke a good piece but the actions fell far short even if I still like the man. I'll give him credit for talking up liberty even if he granted amnesty, had the Brady BS, imposed massive spending, took our autos and crazy overreaches like 55 limits. Every other president from LBJ to Obama has been a TOTAL 100% disaster when it comes to taking their oath seriously and protecting the Republic. Ben was right, the founders gave us a Republic only as long as we can keep it. We've lost it.

Welcome to free thinking. Make sure you vote but more importantly make sure you prep food water an ammo.

arclight610
06-28-2012, 20:57
Whig Party for me.

Dirk Pitt
06-29-2012, 09:25
Socially I lean Libertarian

Fiscally I lean to right of Scrooge

Internationally I lean to the right of Genghis Khan


WOW a real liberal.............. :supergrin: LOL

No D or R in front of my name just a C for conservative.

John Rambo
06-29-2012, 09:33
In bed?

I guess if you like bedding down mummies. Good God, thats pretty awful.


For my part, its libertarian moreso than anything else. I'm more or less a moderate, the only noticeable lean I have is towards libertarian.

Bilbo Bagins
06-29-2012, 09:35
I think she would've been great.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_b3GHoGMBNpY/SwH_-ItLaSI/AAAAAAAAEt8/BQdpjVi-ZSA/s1600/Michele+Bachmann.jpg

Sorry but she scared the crap out of me and I was happy when she jumped out of the running. She was more dopey than Palin was, and her religious beliefs made her the Republican version of Tipper Gore.

Kevin108
06-29-2012, 09:38
Tagged. Shall return.

John Rambo
06-29-2012, 09:40
Sorry but she scared the crap out of me and I was happy when she jumped out of the running. She was more dopey than Palin was, and her religious beliefs made her the Republican version of Tipper Gore.

She was the one who wanted to outlaw jerking off, right? Or was she the "I'm not a witch!" one? I can't keep the Republican sideshows straight anymore.

greentriple
06-29-2012, 09:55
One of the best and most honest threads I've read here! No vicious attacks, just posting.

I'm Independent: I lean left on social issues, right on spending and in the middle on international involvement. The Bill of Rights is not a pick and choose which one you support and which one you don't. Our Political Parties are all about the $$ and perpetuating a system that perpetuates their personal interest. Neither Obama nor Romney are the devil, anti-American or evil as their detractors would have us think, they are just weak willed politicians. America is not doomed, but our glory days are far behind us.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Ruble Noon
06-29-2012, 14:41
Good thread.I'm classical Libertarian...............

I don't care what folk do,If it effects me and mine then I do.If not,enjoy.'08.

I think you and I would get along great.:beer:

Warp
06-29-2012, 21:56
Each of the two major parties royally piss me off by being retarded as all hell.

Color me libertarian.

SDDL-UP
06-29-2012, 23:46
I too grew up republican, but not simply because they were "republicans".

I would be libertarian, but most people take it too far - I'm pro-life for one. Secondly, I believe that religion can and in fact does have a place in public. The government "establishing" a religion is NOT a public figure saying a voluntary prayer at a public gathering. Some libertarians are threatended by such simple things.

Kind of just out here by myself I guess ...

Harbour
07-02-2012, 17:41
unfortunately, at this time in our country, a vote for anyone other than the Dem, or Rep candidate, is nothing more than a vote thrown away.

Unfortunately, that is exactly wrong. At this time in our country, a vote for either the Republican or Democratic Presidential Candidate is "nothing more than throwing your vote away."

If you keep being willing to accept the crap they are offering, you will never...ever..... get anything better.

I'm not saying "don't vote." I advocate voting Third Party.....any Third Party. The important thing is to rack up as many votes as possible against both Barky and Mittens. That will be an indisputable rejection of such horrible candidates.

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 17:53
Unfortunately, that is exactly wrong. At this time in our country, a vote for either the Republican or Democratic Presidential Candidate is "nothing more than throwing your vote away."

If you keep being willing to accept the crap they are offering, you will never...ever..... get anything better.

I'm not saying "don't vote." I advocate voting Third Party.....any Third Party. The important thing is to rack up as many votes as possible against both Barky and Mittens. That will be an indisputable rejection of such horrible candidates.


Yeah but he'll keep telling everyone that until the Republicans get us back on track :rofl:

jlavallee
07-02-2012, 18:02
If you keep being willing to accept the crap they are offering, you will never...ever..... get anything better.

If only the sheep understood.

Harbour
07-02-2012, 18:09
Yeah but he'll keep telling everyone that until the Republicans get us back on track :rofl:

Mittens is going to get you "back on track?" :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 18:18
Mittens is going to get you "back on track?" :rofl:


Seems unlikely but it appears to be the only acceptable answer to the Us v Them crowd :supergrin:

jakebrake
07-02-2012, 18:25
liberterian beliefs, however, i live in reality. getting rid of this "president" is a priority. there is too much riding on this.

voted for paul in primaries. i will vote for a shoe over obama. he will destroy, the 2nd ammendment, the economy, and eventually the country...and i figure roughly in that order.

the third party thing, is, in my opinion a guarantee of obama's second term. and, at that point, he will have nothing to lose. why all the tax horrors start when they do.

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 18:29
liberterian beliefs, however, i live in reality. getting rid of this "president" is a priority. there is too much riding on this.

voted for paul in primaries. i will vote for a shoe over obama. he will destroy, the 2nd ammendment, the economy, and eventually the country...and i figure roughly in that order.

the third party thing, is, in my opinion a guarantee of obama's second term. and, at that point, he will have nothing to lose. why all the tax horrors start when they do.


The reality is the two party system isn't working and you continue to propagate it. Your shoe, be it Democrat or Republican will not fix this country.

Best of luck with that.

Warp
07-02-2012, 19:24
liberterian beliefs, however, i live in reality. getting rid of this "president" is a priority. there is too much riding on this.

voted for paul in primaries. i will vote for a shoe over obama. he will destroy, the 2nd ammendment, the economy, and eventually the country...and i figure roughly in that order.

the third party thing, is, in my opinion a guarantee of obama's second term. and, at that point, he will have nothing to lose. why all the tax horrors start when they do.

That's what everybody said going into this term. If that happened, I missed it.

Same thing I said 4 years ago...I think too many legislatures have too much to lose to get something like an AWB2 onto his desk anyway.

jakebrake
07-02-2012, 19:26
Best of luck with that.

best of luck with the write in.

not gonna happen

quake
07-02-2012, 19:49
Okay, here's where I get flamed as a heretic. I'm a libertarian exactly as described - do what you want, and as long as you don't impact me or mine, more power to you. None of my business if you want to smoke crack in your living room, or if you want to smoke your brother's pecker in your mom's living room while she does a fan dance. Not my thing, but this IS supposed to be the land of the free.

I do like the "tell me how the lesser of two evils is working out" quote.

I also, however, live in realville. And in realville, there have been libertarians on the ticket in pretty much every national election for decades now.

And after 40 years, how many are there in the house? Zero.
How many are there in the senate? Zero.
How many libertarians have ever won the white house? Zero.

Historically, how many libertarian candidates have EVER won national office? As far as I know, still zero. To the best of my recollection, every libertarian party candidate has lost, every national election, every time. Zero wins. Never a success. Seems like the pattern should be discernable after forty years now.

It's possible I"m wrong on that, but I surely can't think of a single one in my lifetime; and I'm over 50 years old.

In realville, "repeatedly doing the same thing, hoping for different results" is irrational.

So no offense intended to anyone, and as I said earlier, some day (hopefully soon) that will change. But as far as I'm aware, with a 40+ year track record now, they've batted a resounding "zero" on the national level since the days of Richard Nixon. How am I, in good conscience, to jump on that party bandwagon as some form of "deliverer", when they can't win a single national election in forty years of trying?

Even if it was my own son up to bat, if he had a 40-year streak of batting zero in that league, it would would be inarguably irrational of me to keep betting money on him simply because he's my "favorite".

jakebrake
07-02-2012, 19:51
quake... remember the name perot?

how many of us pulled that lever hoping to change something.

twice!

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 19:52
best of luck with the write in.

not gonna happen

The difference here is I'm not expecting my choice to change anything but you are.

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 19:54
Delusional comes to mind but the definition of insanity is closer to the truth.

Feel free to maintain the status quo. It's done so well to date.

syntaxerrorsix
07-02-2012, 19:58
<clipped>

Even if it was my own son up to bat, if he had a 40-year streak of batting zero in that league, it would would be inarguably irrational of me to keep betting money on him simply because he's my "favorite". party association

:thumbsup:

quake
07-02-2012, 20:26
I have no party association. I've voted for republicans & democrats both over the decades, strictly choosing the more conservative of the two individuals. Tends to be more republican than democrat number-wise, but not at all because of any party membership, affiliation, or loyalty. I have family members that vote automatically democrat, and I think they're foolish. I have family members that vote automatically republican, and I think they're foolish as well. Absolutely zero party affiliation or loyalty on my part; strictly, absolutely, and consciously choices made based on "which one is closer to my personal beliefs".

A request - please correct what you find in my post that is incorrect or even just illogical. If I'm incorrect factually or historically (and I may well be; I make no claim of omniscience), please post the corrected info; I'll genuinely appreciate learning something new.

If my facts or historical recollection aren't incorrect, please explain how my logic is.

Ruble Noon
07-02-2012, 20:27
quake... remember the name perot?

how many of us pulled that lever hoping to change something.

twice!

I would be one of those. Damn the people that didn't go along with us.

jakebrake
07-02-2012, 20:31
I would be one of those. Damn the people that didn't go along with us.

i couldn't find the people that didn't. i think everyone did.

that whole thing smelled funky,

quake
07-02-2012, 20:37
Even if it was my own son up to bat, if he had a 40-year streak of batting zero in that league, it would would be inarguably irrational of me to keep betting money on him simply because the 12,000th time's the charm.
Still doesn't make sense, does it?

And fwiw, I did once vote for Perot. How did that work out for me? I voted Puritan and won a Clinton.

Warp
07-02-2012, 20:51
Quake: You are not wrong.

However...and I'm not saying that this is the case, merely pointing out the possibility...the libertarian, or other third party candidate, need not necessarily win in order for a vote cast in support of said candidate to have the effect that has been expressed by several in this thread. All the third party votes need to do is get the attention of a politician from either of the major parties, get that politician to think about those votes being lost, and perhaps alter their platform/votes/actions a little bit in an effort to attract some of those third party voters.

I intend to step away from the 'lesser of two evils' theory this time. I've had enough of it. I went with that last time, and have been since extremely disappointed with some of the utter and completely bull ****ing **** that has been spewed by the one I voted. Same as every other time, really.

I realize there is 0.00% chance that a libertarian candidate, Ron Paul, you-name-it third party candidate can win. But they need not WIN to, potentially, have the desired effect.


Of course, being a resident of your village I realize that isn't very likely happen anyway. :(

Devans0
07-03-2012, 00:52
Moderate Libertarian. Vote Democratic because of the wing nuts that have taken over the RepubliCon party in my local area.

gosnmic
07-03-2012, 01:44
So no offense intended to anyone, and as I said earlier, some day (hopefully soon) that will change. But as far as I'm aware, with a 40+ year track record now, they've batted a resounding "zero" on the national level since the days of Richard Nixon. How am I, in good conscience, to jump on that party bandwagon as some form of "deliverer", when they can't win a single national election in forty years of trying?


Oh, first - I typically identify myself as conservative although I do associate myself with the Republicans. I agree that at the higher/est levels, the parties seem to show little difference. ((An in fact, at the most local levels, some of the LONG time Democrats are more conservative than some of the new/current Republican candidates!))

I've been involved with a political party for ~4+ years now and I'm convinced that to see the changes we'd like to see, we need to pitch in a little time and do it ourselves - cleaning out the party from the inside (as Quake points out, coming at it from outside isn't a viable option). Sure, there's an entrenched group of "Well they're Republican/Democrat so I have to vote for them" but there's also some common-sense thinkers - finding like-minded folks willing to step in and attend monthly meetings, etc. can really impact the political landscape. I've personally seen how a small core group of conservative/libertarian folks can make an impact in everything from the county through the state level. It can get a little time consuming depending on how involved you want to get, but it's also surprising where you can get if you're willing to be involved.

My bottom line is that it seems like too many people sit back and expect the whole "political" thing to take care of itself. Whereas, we can be prepping our own political landscapes which can pay dividends down the road. For example, do you know where your Sheriff candidates stand on how they'd respond to Federal folks (think FDA coming in to shut down a raw milk facility...)? :dunno: I think political prepping can be just as important as any other area we routinely discuss (well, except for me - I rarely discuss anything around here any more :whistling: )

Anyway, that was my post for the year :faint: good thread.

Happypuppy
07-03-2012, 04:44
I am a man in search of a party. I am officially OUT of any Repub/Dem dealings. Ever.



+1. I find my thoughts much the same. When I grew up the Democrats were thought of
As the party for the "Working Man" Union, Blue Collar. The Republicans were conservative , less government is better and very much value based centric to the idea do "pulling yourself up by the Bootstraps".

Now what I see as both move to Centralistic goal , they have abandoned their roots and pander to SuperPacs, corporate and public special interests.




Sent using 2 cans and string

pugman
07-03-2012, 07:05
I have no political leanings.

One of the great victories of the American politican was to convince everyone they need to "side" themselves - so while Republicans are screaming about the Democrats and vice versa the American politican rapes the country blind.

I am neither a Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal - I vote issue and results

Friends have tried to pigeon hole me on both sides of the fence. I usually respond with I'm a Free Market, Limited Government Libertarian with stripes of Anarchism. They usually are then so fustrated they can't comprehend this they just call me some name like a Fascist and move on.

uptomyneck
07-03-2012, 08:54
I am 100% Libertarian. I despise RINOS and Statists more so than Libtards. IMO, they're far more destructive to our Republic.

Up until a few years ago, I was a diehard Rah Rah Republican.

wjv
07-03-2012, 11:11
The reality is the two party system isn't working and you continue to propagate it. Your shoe, be it Democrat or Republican will not fix this country.

Best of luck with that.

Then come up with a REAL alternative candidate who can actually get the votes needed to get elected in a general election. . . (Hint: Ron Paul does not meet this description)

Best of luck with that.

syntaxerrorsix
07-03-2012, 12:32
Then come up with a REAL alternative candidate who can actually get the votes needed to get elected in a general election. . . (Hint: Ron Paul does not meet this description)

Best of luck with that.

Hint: Ron Paul is a Republican and part of the two party system I just denounced.

While he happened to be, in my opinion the best hope for the Republican party he will not be nominated and I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up.

To come up with a "REAL" candidate is easy. To come up with voters that aren't interested in only voting themselves largess and not what's best for the country is another matter.

Our fate is sealed.

thetoastmaster
07-03-2012, 13:46
Aaand this thread over.

Let the circular arguing commence in earnest.

wjv
07-03-2012, 15:12
If only the sheep understood.

They're watching you. . . Don't look behind you!!!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/bcvojak/RVNet3/BlackSheep_01.jpg

AK_Stick
07-03-2012, 15:45
Unfortunately, that is exactly wrong. At this time in our country, a vote for either the Republican or Democratic Presidential Candidate is "nothing more than throwing your vote away."

If you keep being willing to accept the crap they are offering, you will never...ever..... get anything better.

I'm not saying "don't vote." I advocate voting Third Party.....any Third Party. The important thing is to rack up as many votes as possible against both Barky and Mittens. That will be an indisputable rejection of such horrible candidates.


Unfortunately, a third party, currently is not a viable alternative either.

All the 3rd party candidate does, is serve to waste votes on

syntaxerrorsix
07-03-2012, 15:53
Unfortunately, a third party, currently is not a viable alternative either.

All the 3rd party candidate does, is serve to waste votes on


Votes are not wasted. Votes indicate where a group of people stand on an issue and who they feel best represents those ideas. The only thing wasted is the time it takes to explain such a simple process. Feel free to support whoever you like. I won't call it a wasted vote even though it stands little chance of improving anything.

AK_Stick
07-03-2012, 16:02
Agree to disagree.

syntaxerrorsix
07-03-2012, 16:03
Fair enough.

greentriple
07-03-2012, 22:19
Yup, just like other posts it goes from open simple statement about political leaning to full blown ideological chest pumping fest.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Warp
07-04-2012, 13:52
Votes are not wasted. Votes indicate where a group of people stand on an issue and who they feel best represents those ideas. The only thing wasted is the time it takes to explain such a simple process. Feel free to support whoever you like. I won't call it a wasted vote even though it stands little chance of improving anything.

No more wasted than a vote for anybody else that loses.

jakebrake
07-04-2012, 13:58
They're watching you. . . Don't look behind you!!!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/bcvojak/RVNet3/BlackSheep_01.jpg

as an aside, am i the only one that loved that campy ridiculous movie? seriously.

Harbour
07-04-2012, 16:25
Okay, here's where I get flamed as a heretic. I'm a libertarian exactly as described - do what you want, and as long as you don't impact me or mine, more power to you. None of my business if you want to smoke crack in your living room, or if you want to smoke your brother's pecker in your mom's living room while she does a fan dance. Not my thing, but this IS supposed to be the land of the free.

I do like the "tell me how the lesser of two evils is working out" quote.

I also, however, live in realville. And in realville, there have been libertarians on the ticket in pretty much every national election for decades now.

And after 40 years, how many are there in the house? Zero.
How many are there in the senate? Zero.
How many libertarians have ever won the white house? Zero.

Historically, how many libertarian candidates have EVER won national office? As far as I know, still zero. To the best of my recollection, every libertarian party candidate has lost, every national election, every time. Zero wins. Never a success. Seems like the pattern should be discernable after forty years now.

It's possible I"m wrong on that, but I surely can't think of a single one in my lifetime; and I'm over 50 years old.

In realville, "repeatedly doing the same thing, hoping for different results" is irrational.

So no offense intended to anyone, and as I said earlier, some day (hopefully soon) that will change. But as far as I'm aware, with a 40+ year track record now, they've batted a resounding "zero" on the national level since the days of Richard Nixon. How am I, in good conscience, to jump on that party bandwagon as some form of "deliverer", when they can't win a single national election in forty years of trying?

Even if it was my own son up to bat, if he had a 40-year streak of batting zero in that league, it would would be inarguably irrational of me to keep betting money on him simply because he's my "favorite".

OK you say you live in "realville."

You certainly portray Libertarians in a way that infers that only a Republican or Democrat can win.

I don't want to put words into your mouth. But when I read your post above, it really sounds like you are saying that if an American votes for other than Romney or Obama, they are "wasting" their vote.

Is that what you are trying to say....or not?

Warp
07-04-2012, 16:33
OK you say you live in "realville."

You certainly portray Libertarians in a way that infers that only a Republican or Democrat can win.

I don't want to put words into your mouth. But when I read your post above, it really sounds like you are saying that if an American votes for other than Romney or Obama, they are "wasting" their vote.

Is that what you are trying to say....or not?

Has a libertarian ever won?

What's the closest one has come to winning a position of significance?

syntaxerrorsix
07-04-2012, 16:50
Has a libertarian ever won?

What's the closest one has come to winning a position of significance?

Doesn't matter. We won't ever hold enough seats.

Libertarians don't have enough lobbyists. Ethics continually get in the way.

jlavallee
07-04-2012, 16:51
It has been my experience that there are a lot more people who only believe in their freedom than in the concept of it.

The supposed ideals of most Republicans and Democrats is far different than they state and the true drivers in my experience have been tax and spend for Dems and Imperialism for Repubs. They often spew about freedom on either side but it doesn't really matter to them. If they loose control of the two party system, their real driver goes away.

I'm surprised that Libertarians have managed to do what they have given the twist put on any time logic is framed as ideals. When Ron Paul spoke of the golden rule in a Republican debate, he actually got boo'd. Anytime he speaks of freedom of choice over your own body, consumption of drugs is brought to the extreme of crack and heroin. When ideas scare, people on the other side attack. Look at Johnson who has a far better record as a governor than the others on stage and he was omitted from most debates because he doesn't represent the neo con mass.

So, how do libertarians hold office? They typically don't run Libertarian, they govern libertarian and run Republican. Republicans say they're like minded on some issues so they can occasionally do it.

Voting big L libertarian or small l libertarian is not really the issue. I'll vote based on how they respect the Constitution. I don't ever want to vote lesser because that signifies that I accept that and I don't.

syntaxerrorsix
07-04-2012, 16:59
It has been my experience that there are a lot more people who only believe in their freedom than in the concept of it.

The supposed ideals of most Republicans and Democrats is far different than they state and the true drivers in my experience have been tax and spend for Dems and Imperialism for Repubs. They often spew about freedom on either side but it doesn't really matter to them. If they loose control of the two party system, their real driver goes away.

I'm surprised that Libertarians have managed to do what they have given the twist put on any time logic is framed as ideals. When Ron Paul spoke of the golden rule in a Republican debate, he actually got boo'd. Anytime he speaks of freedom of choice over your own body, consumption of drugs is brought to the extreme of crack and heroin. When ideas scare, people on the other side attack. Look at Johnson who has a far better record as a governor than the others on stage and he was omitted from most debates because he doesn't represent the neo con mass.

So, how do libertarians hold office? They typically don't run Libertarian, they govern libertarian and run Republican. Republicans say they're like minded on some issues so they can occasionally do it.

Voting big L libertarian or small l libertarian is not really the issue. I'll vote based on how they respect the Constitution. I don't ever want to vote lesser because that signifies that I accept that and I don't.

Well said.

Unfortunately on GT we are surrounded mostly by neocons and progressives. Most wouldn't recognize liberty if it were humping their leg.

Harbour
07-04-2012, 17:22
Has a libertarian ever won?

What's the closest one has come to winning a position of significance?

To answer your question, I'm not aware of any Libertarian ever winning an election of national consequence.

And I don't know how close any Libertarian may or may not have come to doing so.

As much as I agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy, the issue is not about voting for or against Libertarians. And I didn't specifically advocate voting for Libertarians.

The issue is whether or not to vote for the corrupt criminals that now control both the Republican and Democrat Parties

Stop hiding behind these "realville"...."lesser of two evil" cop outs.

Are you going to vote for a corrupt Republican or a corrupt Democrat? (That's certainly not a "wasted" vote, if corruption is what you want.)

Or are you going to vote against corruption?

Warp
07-04-2012, 18:17
To answer your question, I'm not aware of any Libertarian ever winning an election of national consequence.

And I don't know how close any Libertarian may or may not have come to doing so.

As much as I agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy, the issue is not about voting for or against Libertarians. And I didn't specifically advocate voting for Libertarians.

The issue is whether or not to vote for the corrupt criminals that now control both the Republican and Democrat Parties

Stop hiding behind these "realville"...."lesser of two evil" cop outs.

Are you going to vote for a corrupt Republican or a corrupt Democrat? (That's certainly not a "wasted" vote, if corruption is what you want.)

Or are you going to vote against corruption?

I suggest you go back and read this thread again. And read my posts again. And consider the context of what I posted, and you quoted. Because you are not following along very well.

Adamz04
07-04-2012, 18:40
He may be almost as bad as Obama in some areas (hey, they're all politicians) but come on are you kidding me? Romney ain't a Socialist/Communist out to destroy everything he hates about this country (which is most of it).

ding ding ding

registered republican here

Your average Ds and Rs arent to different, but Obama is a whole different animal. The dude is trying to destroy our great country while we sit idle and watch. No thanks.

I would vote for mickey mouse over Obama if he were on the ticket.

Harbour
07-04-2012, 19:19
First, you said this....

"However...and I'm not saying that this is the case, merely pointing out the possibility...the libertarian, or other third party candidate, need not necessarily win in order for a vote cast in support of said candidate to have the effect that has been expressed by several in this thread. All the third party votes need to do is get the attention of a politician from either of the major parties, get that politician to think about those votes being lost, and perhaps alter their platform/votes/actions a little bit in an effort to attract some of those third party voters."

And I somewhat agree, although I'd like to see those third party votes result in the sold out puppet masters who control both parties being ejected from leadership.

But after you said a libertarian "need not necessarily win," for that vote to have an effect, you go back to hammering on the point that a libertarian can't win.

Has a libertarian ever won?
What's the closest one has come to winning a position of significance?

Apparently you forgot what you said earlier about that not being the point.

SevenSixtyTwo
07-04-2012, 19:30
ding ding ding

registered republican here

Your average Ds and Rs arent to different, but Obama is a whole different animal. The dude is trying to destroy our great country while we sit idle and watch. No thanks.

I would vote for mickey mouse over Obama if he were on the ticket.

Looks like you'll get your chance this November. He's running against O.
Registered Democrat from back when Dems were the conservative "working" class party. Really disappointed with what the party has turned into. I don't see the Republican party as the answer either.
Every test I've taken says I'm Libertarian. I vote for the candidate who's most likely to leave me the phq alone. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a minute.
Tired of paying for other peoples' kids and other peoples' private beaches. I'd vote against Congressman Bill Young over the beach re-nourishment welfare tax grab but his Dem opponents all appear to be section 8 welfare recipients themselves. So like the Whitehouse, it's forever trying to pick my favorite Menendez brother.

Warp
07-04-2012, 22:57
First, you said this....

"However...and I'm not saying that this is the case, merely pointing out the possibility...the libertarian, or other third party candidate, need not necessarily win in order for a vote cast in support of said candidate to have the effect that has been expressed by several in this thread. All the third party votes need to do is get the attention of a politician from either of the major parties, get that politician to think about those votes being lost, and perhaps alter their platform/votes/actions a little bit in an effort to attract some of those third party voters."

And I somewhat agree, although I'd like to see those third party votes result in the sold out puppet masters who control both parties being ejected from leadership.

But after you said a libertarian "need not necessarily win," for that vote to have an effect, you go back to hammering on the point that a libertarian can't win.



Apparently you forgot what you said earlier about that not being the point.

It's all about context.

Note that my question about whether or not a libertarian had won was in direct response to this:


OK you say you live in "realville."

You certainly portray Libertarians in a way that infers that only a Republican or Democrat can win.


What Quake "hammered" on was the fact that a libertarian has never won. And then you seemed to dislike his post because you felt he was inferring that a libertarian cannot win...well, as he pointed out...they never have!

Do you agree or disagree with the point you believe Quake was inferring, that a libertarian cannot win...?

G29Reload
07-05-2012, 01:59
I don't know if congress is truly as stupid as they seem, continually spending money we don't have.

Really? Need some more time to think about this, huh?

(Jeopardy theme)



Bottom line, I don't know much

Ok Alex, and…back to you!


And….we're done here.:upeyes:

kirgi08
07-05-2012, 03:20
Ease up.'08.

Glockworks
07-05-2012, 08:26
In bed?
She would have been outstanding as Prez, and as far as in bed, well she does look nice, but that is a different thread I think. I've always voted Republican since 1980. I have though often had to hold my nose while voting for the party's choice. I'm not a Republican, but except for some, (Henry Jackson (deceased), Mark Warner (maybe), I could never vote for the Democrats I read/hear about. I am a conservative on almost all issues, but I try not to paint with too wide a brush, like both sides seem to do on a regular basis.

RED64CJ5
07-05-2012, 08:43
Social issues, libertarian; because it not only seems logical, but respectful of others. It's also what Jesus did as far as I can tell. Constantly dealing with whores & scumbags, yet he never once threatened to imprison them or take away their property. Works for me.


Bravo. :thumbsup:


Fiscal/monetary issues, conservative; because that seems like the only honest way to acknowledge long-term mathematical realities.


Right. We need a balanced budget. Why on earth is this not already done?


Not overly fond of either party anymore. But a 3rd-party presidential candidate isn't yet a realistic, viable option - hopefully soon will be - but as of right now, it's not. Maybe after we get some decent third-party candidates in congress, a presidential candidate might be a possibility, but not yet imo.


I had almost given up on the Republican party myself. However, this year I had a chance to serve as a delegate to the state convention in Texas. Wow -- it was eye-opening! Here I was thinking I'd be one of the few libertarians. WRONG. The tides are turning. The old blue hairs who basque in the glory days of Richard Nixon are starting to realize they have strayed from their founder's vision. They are under attack. The "establishment" GOP is starting to cave under pressure. Sure, we have Romney, but I am not convinced all the money in the world could put another one like him in the front-runner seat again for a long time.

quake
07-05-2012, 09:25
...You certainly portray Libertarians in a way that infers that only a Republican or Democrat can win...
Didn't mean to, there have been some very few independents that have won. There's one that I'm aware of in office now; don't recall his name, but there is one as far as I know. But implying that - on a national level - a Libertarian will not win? Absolutely yes, just based on documented historical reality.

...I don't want to put words into your mouth. But when I read your post above, it really sounds like you are saying that if an American votes for other than Romney or Obama, they are "wasting" their vote.
I'm saying that we each get one vote, and regardless of how much impact that one vote genuinely has, it's all we've got as individuals.

I've twice asked for correction to my assertion that no libertarian candidate has ever - EVER - won any national-level election. House, senate, whatever. And since nobody has posted evidence (or even a claim) to the contrary, I have to go with the assumption that that recollection on my part is correct.

My point on the "D or R only" issue is simply that at this point in time, voting for a Libertarian Party candidate in a national election is absolutely 'throwing away' that vote, at least from any perspective other than that of some kind of protest or point-making.

Let me belabor that by simply listing the national elections that have been complete strikeouts for that party:

1972 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1976 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1978 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1980 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1982 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1984 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1986 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1988 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1990 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1992 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1994 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1996 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
1998 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2000 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2002 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2004 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2006 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2008 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2010 seen by many as our best option - and lost every race
2012 seen by many as our best option - and ____________

I know that's kind of a prickish way to present it, but it does boil down to that for me. Since expecting that party to win is irrational based on historical reality, voting for that party can only be seen as a protest at best. If that's what someone wants to do with their vote, then more power to them. It's a free country and a person can vote for whomever they want; they can write in their own name if they feel the desire to do so. And I do understand the desire for protest votes and the frustration that drives them. Fact is, I did a write-in candidate myself in the 2008 elections. Same time I voted for Barack Obama. In 2008, I wrote him in for (iirc) county animal control officer.

...Is that what you are trying to say....or not?
In a national election, yes. In a local or even state election, they've had some wins, and I frankly often vote independent/libertarian at those lower levels. I also believe that if we keep fostering and growing that at the state & local levels, then the day will someday come (please, god, soon) that there can be a chance of them winning something - anything - on a national level.

But so far, in all those elections I prickishly listed above, they've lost every single time for 40 years at that level. I checked their website and found that after the 2010 elections, there are a total of only 154 libertarian party members in office across the entire country, at local & state levels from city council members to state legislature members. I wish it were a hundred times that, and I do often go with their option at the state & local level.

On a national level however, as I said before, they've batted zero for forty years straight. I'm not using/committing/wasting, whatever word we want to use, my one little vote on a party that's shown a track record of exactly zero successes since many (possibly most) of the people on this board were born.

Again, I get it if someone wants to; but I don't believe they have anywhere near a prayer of a chance of winning, and voting for someone I'm totally convinced can't win just isn't my personal preference. If it's yours, more power to you and I genuinely, sincerely would not mind being proven wrong; but history has me convinced otherwise.

sebecman
07-05-2012, 10:46
Chances are a libertarian would win if people would have the confidence to vote their beliefs and not follow the herd.

Frankly I am surprised at the sheepish responses in this thread.

I vote for who I want to win, not who I think will win or who I am told will win.

And yes in some elections I have written in my own pick.

You call that a throw away vote??? I call that how the system is supposed to work.

:faint:

rwrjr
07-05-2012, 11:01
Yeah, having to hold your nose while you vote is no way to live. You're really better off not voting at all. If you vote for the garbage that both parties produce at the national level then you're giving your consent to be governed just as we have been by both parties for the last 30 years. By not voting you are withholding your consent. May seem like a small point and maybe pissing into the wind but let it sink in and stew for a while. The first step in real change is to make it clear that the status quo is unacceptable. By voting R or D you're showing your acceptance each election by bending over and grabbing your ankles.

How many R's here think that if Romney wins that Obamacare will be repealed, that the TSA will be disbanded, that the Patriot Act will be rescinded, that entitlements will be severely curtailed? I could go on and on. Go ahead make your case, I'll wait.

quake
07-05-2012, 12:40
...think that if Romney wins that Obamacare will be repealed, that the TSA will be disbanded, that the Patriot Act will be rescinded, that entitlements will be severely curtailed? I could go on and on. Go ahead make your case, I'll wait.

Don't think or claim that, but I do think two important things:

First - I believe that a first-term Romney presidency would be hugely less destructive than would a second-term, lame-duck Obama presidency. I'd love for someone to explain to me how this is unlikely.

And secondly - I believe that either the Republican or Democrat candidate WILL be elected in November. I'd be happy to be wrong on this one; I'm NOT a Romney fan. But I'm confident enough of that belief that I'll go on record now saying that I'll donate a thousand dollars - gleefully - to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. And again, I'd love to be wrong on this.

If anyone's willing to take the other side of that, I'd be curious to hear from them. Because if a person's not willing to wager a charitable donation on their opinion of possible outcomes, why would they wager their one-and-only vote on it..?

One of the following will be sworn in next January - either a rabid dog who intentionally targets me & my kids, or a retarded dog who makes a mess everywhere, sometimes in my yard as well. The simple answer is "get rid of both of them", but that's just not going to happen, at least not in the immediate future. Analogy-wise, I see two parachutes coming toward our property; one with a rabid dog hanging from it and one with a retarded dog, and I have only one bullet. I see the rabid one as the worse option of the two, and there's just not a libertarian guard dog close enough to help me - yet. Someday that could be our solution and I'll be all over it at the time; feeding those libertarian guard dogs when they finally arrive in numbers enough to accomplish something. The libertarian guard dog is my favorite breed, and it would be all kinds of fun to spend my time thinking about the eventual arrival of the mythical, as-yet-unseen libertarian guard dog, but that rabid dog is still parachuting toward my home. I just think it's a mistake to turn my back on the visible, dangerous, rabid dog while hoping for some heard-of-but-never-seen libertarian guard dog.

quake
07-05-2012, 13:09
...I vote for who I want to win, not who I think will win or who I am told will win.
And yes in some elections I have written in my own pick...

As I've repeatedly said, 'no offense meant', and 'I get it' when people feel that way. I also don't vote for "who I think will win", or "who I'm told will win". Never said I did, as far as I recall.

After once voting Perot, I now vote for who I want to win out of the list of those who have a chance of winning.

I personally know a dozen or more people (largely rotarians & chamber people) who would make a better president than obama or romney either one; but as good as they might be, they're not going to be elected. One guy in particular is younger than me, a libertarian and christian simultaneously, and created, ran, and then sold multiple successful businesses; and now (probably ten years younger than I am) is semi-retired & having fun. Thing is, as good a candidate as he'd make, it doesn't change the fact that writing in his name would be pointless, and therefore absolutely would be a waste of the only vote I've got.

As much as I "want" him to win, it doesn't matter. He's not going to, is he.

Guys, I was a libertarian before there WAS a "libertarian party"; there's no antipathy for the LP on my part at all, and no antipathy for anyone who votes for them. I vote for them when it might accomplish something; and at this point in time, the fact is that that's ONLY at the state & local level. We need MORE of them at the state & local level, and that, imo, is the best & speediest way to create ANY libertarian party office-holders at the national level. Because - no matter how much we debate it or how much we hate it - there is still an absolute zero-quantity of LP office-holders from even the smallest or most-conservative congressional districts anywhere in the country.

I wish that weren't the case, but wishing doesn't help.

rwrjr
07-05-2012, 13:22
Don't think or claim that, but I do think two important things:

First - I believe that a first-term Romney presidency would be hugely less destructive than would a second-term, lame-duck Obama presidency. I'd love for someone to explain to me how this is unlikely.

And secondly - I believe that either the Republican or Democrat candidate WILL be elected in November. I'd be happy to be wrong on this one; I'm NOT a Romney fan. But I'm confident enough of that belief that I'll go on record now saying that I'll donate a thousand dollars - gleefully - to your favorite charity if I'm wrong. And again, I'd love to be wrong on this.

I agree to your first point. But "less destructive" doesn't float my boat. I'm not sure I agree on the "hugely" part though. Time will tell. The cynic in me says we're going to end up in the same bad place anyway so it might just be better to get there faster and get it over with. Maybe it would be better to pull the old D lever let the chips fall where they may. :whistling:

I agree to your second point. Absolutely a R or D will be elected. I also agree that a true libertarian will never be elected. That's why I've personally come to the conclusion that voting at the national level is an exercise in futility and frustration.

I get your rabid vs retarded dog analogy. I was use a different analogy. With the current dude you have a burning bag of dog poop on your front step. With the challenger you have just a bag of dog poop on your front step, no flames. You're trying to stamp out your burning bag of dog poop but in the end you'll still end up with a big bag of poop. :supergrin:

mac66
07-05-2012, 15:45
In reference to the original question...Considering the question posed is on a gun forum, I would think most people on gun forums lean conservative or libertarian. If you ask the same question on the DU site, you are likely to get a different response.

RMTactical
07-05-2012, 16:17
In reference to the original question...Considering the question posed is on a gun forum, I would think most people on gun forums lean conservative or libertarian. If you ask the same question on the DU site, you are likely to get a different response.

Does the DU site have a SP forum on it?

quake
07-05-2012, 16:17
I...I'm not sure I agree on the "hugely" part though. Time will tell...
Yeah, shame my prognosticator's in the shop... :cool: I could well be completely wrong; I was convinced that the AWB wouldn't be allowed to sunset back in 2004, and was completely wrong on that.

Main thing that concerns me about a second-term obama is that with no worries about keeping up appearances like he does now, he'd go full-steam socialist tyrant, at least as far as congress let him. I've heard people worry that if he loses this election, he'd go full-steam lame-duck tyrant from day after election until inauguration day. They may be right, but I'd much rather have two months of lame-duck tyrant than four years of it. :dunno:

Harbour
07-05-2012, 16:29
What Quake "hammered" on was the fact that a libertarian has never won. And then you seemed to dislike his post because you felt he was inferring that a libertarian cannot win...well, as he pointed out...they never have!

Do you agree or disagree with the point you believe Quake was inferring, that a libertarian cannot win...?

I agree that no Libertarian has yet won on the national level. Still, past performance is no guarantee of future results. But once again, that's not the point The objective at this time is not about electing a Libertarian!

The objective in this election cycle should be to tally as many votes as possible against both Romley and Obama. What we need to achieve is an irrefutable rejection by the electorate of what the two main parties are offering. Those votes can be for Libertarian, or Green or Peace and Freedom, or some other third party, or an Independent write in candidate. The effect will be cumulative. And there is no way the media can spin it as laziness or voter apathy, as they could if people simply stayed home and refused to vote.

So once again, it is not about Libertarians. Both you and Quake are smart enough to "get it." What I don't like is what almost seems a deliberate attempt to obscure the real issue.

quake
07-05-2012, 19:33
...it is not about Libertarians. Both you and Quake are smart enough to "get it." What I don't like is what almost seems a deliberate attempt to obscure the real issue.
No deliberate attempt on my part; just sticking to the concept of "why I don't plan to vote for my 'favorite' candidate", which would in fact be a Libertarian.

I've been focused on libertarians and kind of stayed there. I didn't catch on that your comment of:
...You certainly portray Libertarians in a way that infers that only a Republican or Democrat can win...
was probably due to me blathering on about libertarians, rather than you intending to keep them the subject. I misunderstood & assumed; my bad, sorry about that.

My response really doesn't change though. Whether it's libertarians, greens, or whoever, I still stand by by my belief that O or R will be inaugurated in January. Period. No question in my mind. I do get the point, and have said I get the point, of the "protest vote" mindset. I did it once myself, as I also said. Thing is, if everyone who did what I did at that time had instead voted for the "less bad" of the D or R choices, we would not have had a President Clinton from 1992 to 1996. That's inarguable math and historical reality. While I'm not a Bush fan, I do believe that the country would have been better off (or "less bad off") had Clinton lost that year. Can't prove it, but I absolutely believe it. Did Bush "deserve" a win? Not in my opinion at all, but kicking out Bush to replace him with Clinton was a lot like kicking a pothead out of my town in order to make room for a tweeker. Bad idea imo.

SilverCity
07-05-2012, 20:00
We are toast...:shocked:

(closet Libertarian)

SC

jlavallee
07-05-2012, 20:48
Mittens is everything vile and wrong with politicians. Obama is that and a hateful SOB. If mittens gets in you know he is going to do what the people that bought him tell him to do, just as Obama has done. Sure, Obama hates America but neither love it or even respect it. Both are happy to be puppets as they help destroy everything she stands for.

My whole life we have had bad presidents with only Reagan who even spoke about a respect for liberty. One more term and another four years of bad leadership looks to be almost certian. Yes it is depressing and yes, I loathe seeing every 4th of July pass with this country having lost more of what made it great. I love this country too damn much to vote to destroy it. If you vote for either man, you're in my opinion striking a blow against the individual liberty this nation was based on.

Is it too much to ask for a president that actually takes his oath seriously? Maybe I ask for too much in expecting a president to live up to his oath. Then again, maybe others accept too little by tolerating president after president that don't?

recon
07-05-2012, 21:35
Anyone but obama!

Syclone538
07-05-2012, 21:41
I do not want people to vote ANY third party. Voting Libertarian or Constitution Party could push R's a little away from being so authoritarian, but voting Green Party could push D's to being more authoritarian.

If in the up coming election, LP and CP combined got 20%, yeah Obama would win, but you know that would push everyone a little less authoritarian.

UneasyRider
07-06-2012, 05:25
Two candidates are running for office in any election. Candidate A is more conservative than candidate B by the smallest amount.

Q: What happens if candidate A always gets elected?

A: Eventually you have a competition to be the most conservative candidate in the race.

Every vote does count and every vote not cast counts for something too, they drove you out of the election process that defines your freedom to self govern, don't turn government over to the politicians. Vote!

sebecman
07-06-2012, 05:58
As I've repeatedly said, 'no offense meant', and 'I get it' when people feel that way. I also don't vote for "who I think will win", or "who I'm told will win". Never said I did, as far as I recall.

I realize my post was below yours but it was not directed entirely at you. I almost always quote when I direct at a single person.

The overall theme in this thread seems to be "vote R or D because anything else is a throw away" - and I just don't see it that way.

Sure my horses don't usually win but I am who I am and would rather not vote at all than vote any less than my true opinions/candidates etc.

But that's all I am saying in this thread. :wavey:

Warp
07-06-2012, 22:08
Two candidates are running for office in any election. Candidate A is more conservative than candidate B by the smallest amount.

Q: What happens if candidate A always gets elected?

A: Eventually you have a competition to be the most conservative candidate in the race.

Every vote does count and every vote not cast counts for something too, they drove you out of the election process that defines your freedom to self govern, don't turn government over to the politicians. Vote!

No you don't. Everybody knows that if candidate A were to be moderately more conservative than candidate B, they would then lose. When candidate B becomes less conservative, so does candidate A. Relative to one another (parties, candidates, whatever) their positions may remain the same, but that doesn't do us much good now does it?

AK_Stick
07-06-2012, 23:43
I do not want people to vote ANY third party. Voting Libertarian or Constitution Party could push R's a little away from being so authoritarian, but voting Green Party could push D's to being more authoritarian.

If in the up coming election, LP and CP combined got 20%, yeah Obama would win, but you know that would push everyone a little less authoritarian.



I really don't think it'd help at all.


The only thing it would do, is serve to make it even easier for them to win.

pmwglock19
07-07-2012, 07:35
We need to vote ALL the politicians(crooks) out of office, and replace them with people interested in keeping america strong and also kick all the special interest groups out of wasington forever.

rwrjr
07-07-2012, 09:08
We need to vote ALL the politicians(crooks) out of office, and replace them with people interested in keeping america strong and also kick all the special interest groups out of wasington forever.

When the finance industry finances 40% of all fed, state, and local races (both parties) that isn't going to happen any time soon. Both parties are bought and paid for and there will never be anybody from either party on the ticket that isn't already beholden to them.