Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate


Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 06:24
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=40-points-that-prove-that-barack-obama-and-mitt-romney-are-exactly-the-same

Glock30Eric
08-17-2012, 06:41
GT folks won't buy this.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

TheExplorer
08-17-2012, 06:45
They won't. But neither are my first choice.

Flying-Dutchman
08-17-2012, 06:52
Obama is so radioactive his only defense is Romney is the same.

Keep chanting it and maybe you will believe it.

Can you imagine another 4 years with Obama? It would be a disaster squared.

Admit it or not everyone knows Romney is a far more capable President.

mace85
08-17-2012, 06:54
I have said that since the Republican debates. They both suck ass. The question is what has either party done to change the downward spiral? It's time voters woke up when it comes house and senate elections. Give the presidential nominee gene pool a washing.

Now bracing myself for the " he is a republican so he must love America and have our best interests in mind" tidal wave.

HexHead
08-17-2012, 06:55
One would like to ban guns. And the other one actually has. Pick your poison.

TheExplorer
08-17-2012, 06:56
One would like to ban guns. And the other one actually has. Pick your poison.

So true.:faint:

IvanVic
08-17-2012, 06:59
This is becoming ridiculous. They are not the same. They do not have the same political ideology. We all understand that Romney isn't Ron Paul, but what others apparently refuse to understand is that political ideology is a spectrum - Obama and Romney do not fall anywhere close to each other on that spectrum.

Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 07:05
This is becoming ridiculous. They are not the same. They do not have the same political ideology. We all understand that Romney isn't Ron Paul, but what others apparently refuse to understand is that there is political ideology is a spectrum - Obama and Romney do not fall anywhere close to each other on that spectrum.

You should read the 40 points in the article. I posted another article previously that listed 100 ways in which they are alike. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Found it.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/

The Machinist
08-17-2012, 07:08
This is becoming ridiculous. They are not the same. They do not have the same political ideology. We all understand that Romney isn't Ron Paul, but what others apparently refuse to understand is that there is political ideology is a spectrum - Obama and Romney do not fall anywhere close to each other on that spectrum.
So remind us how the two are different again.

stopatrain
08-17-2012, 07:14
One will destroy America if given the chance the other won't. That's a hard choice for some.

HexHead
08-17-2012, 07:18
One will destroy America if given the chance the other won't. That's a hard choice for some.

Not a hard choice at all, if one's ultimate goal is to see the red states and the blue states go their seperate ways.

Flying-Dutchman
08-17-2012, 07:27
Silly games you people play.

Everyone should have the benefit of spending even a short time living in a Communist country.

Cast your little 3rd party protest vote and see what another 4 years of Obama looks like.

Or maybe you are the 33% freeloading off the tax payers. If you have any concept of the future you know the freebees cannot go on much longer.

aircarver
08-17-2012, 07:29
So since it's all the same to you, make me happy & vote Romney .... :whistling:

.

JBnTX
08-17-2012, 07:40
"There You Go Again!" ~ Ronald Reagan - YouTube

Bren
08-17-2012, 07:50
Yes, their almost the same - but the dozen threads on how "Romney is the same as Obama" all intentionally ignore the most important point:

Let's say the election is between Barrack Obama, the current president, and

Barrack Obama 2, a clone of the current president who is identical in every way and has all the same opinions, but is running as the Republican challenger.

The choice remains very, very simple: we vote for Barrack Obama 2, because (1) it would be his first term, not second, and (2) he would owe his favors and leadership to the Republicans, not the democrats.

If one of those 2 has to be the president...and one of them does if they are the R and D candidates...then I'd stand in line all day to vote for barrack Obama 2, over the original, in order to prevent a second term for Obama 1.

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2012, 08:06
Socialist v. Liberal.

If you can't see a difference, you can't see. Neither are great, or even good, but one IS worse than the other. Considering no president goes to Washington alone, napolitano, holder, Biden et al.

Skyhook
08-17-2012, 08:13
"Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate"

Laughable.

Other than serving as some kind of troll magnet, I can see absolutely no value in any such ridiculous statement.

Silly, just plain silly.:faint:

JohnnyReb
08-17-2012, 08:14
How about we compare the canidates?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/candidate-comparison

JFrame
08-17-2012, 08:20
Given their vastly different influences and experiential backgrounds, I find it wildly unlikely that they are the "same candidate."


.

Gundude
08-17-2012, 08:21
Yes, their almost the same - but the dozen threads on how "Romney is the same as Obama" all intentionally ignore the most important point:

Let's say the election is between Barrack Obama, the current president, and

Barrack Obama 2, a clone of the current president who is identical in every way and has all the same opinions, but is running as the Republican challenger.

The choice remains very, very simple: we vote for Barrack Obama 2, because (1) it would be his first term, not second, and (2) he would owe his favors and leadership to the Republicans, not the democrats.

If one of those 2 has to be the president...and one of them does if they are the R and D candidates...then I'd stand in line all day to vote for barrack Obama 2, over the original, in order to prevent a second term for Obama 1.(1) But BO2 will also have a second term coming, unless you switch him out for BO3, and how many times do you think you can repeat that cycle until one of them finally gets a second term? Even on the tiny chance one of them never does, what will that never ending succession of BO's do to the country? If BO clones can win as candidates of either party, we're really screwed.

(2) Owing his favors and leadership to Republicans doesn't make anybody except Republicans feel any better. Republicans are fine (most of the time) at stalling the Democrat agenda, but they are horrible when they get all the power. Having them control congress and the White House is a negative, not a positive.

BuckyP
08-17-2012, 08:22
Now bracing myself for the " he is a republican so he must love America and have our best interests in mind" tidal wave.

No, he is a republican that, if elected, will be beholden to the more conservative base of the party, at least for his first term, in order to get reelected. Maybe in a second term, he would hold the course to get his Veep elected.

On the other hand, Barack "This is my last election. After this election I will have more flexibility" Obama, has not yet released his full radicalism. He could care less about Biden, and certainly in 4 years from now (god forbid) Biden would be unelectable (arguably is now).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2012, 08:23
How about we compare the canidates?

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/candidate-comparison


Nice campaign ad. Bet I can guess which of the three gets less than 5% of the vote. :dunno:

Like it or not, it's essentially a 2 party system.

PawDog
08-17-2012, 08:23
I found this for the OP. He can put it on his blow up doll, if he doesn't already have one. :crying:

http://hoh.rollcall.com/wp-content/uploads/ronpaulmask.jpg

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2012, 08:25
Given their vastly different influences and experiential backgrounds, I find it wildly unlikely that they are the "same candidate."


.

When viewed from Pluto with binoculars, they don't look all that different.

JohnnyReb
08-17-2012, 08:28
Nice campaign ad. Bet I can guess which of the three gets less than 5% of the vote. :dunno:

Like it or not, it's essentially a 2 party system.


And it will continue to be a 2 party system so as long as everyone assumes they are wasting their vote if it isn't a D or R next to the name.

Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

IvanVic
08-17-2012, 08:29
You should read the 40 points in the article. I posted another article previously that listed 100 ways in which they are alike. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Found it.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/17/100-ways-mitt-romney-is-just-like-barack-obama/

So if I make a post stating 100 ways in which an elephant is like a 5 dollar bill, you'll be convinced that they're the same thing? Do you enjoy reading completely one-sided articles?

JFrame
08-17-2012, 08:29
When viewed from Pluto with binoculars, they don't look all that different.

Maybe the view was clearer when it was still a planet... :whistling:


.

Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 08:33
I found this for the OP. He can put it on his blow up doll, if he doesn't already have one. :crying:

http://hoh.rollcall.com/wp-content/uploads/ronpaulmask.jpg

Thank's, but I prefer redheads.

Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 08:35
So if I make a post stating 100 ways in which an elephant is like a 5 dollar bill, you'll be convinced that they're the same thing? Do you enjoy reading completely one-sided articles?

I don't know, why don't you give it a whirl?

Bullwinkle J Moose
08-17-2012, 08:54
Yep. Obama vs Obama Lite

Romney's only saving grace is that BHO has a proven failed record, is promoting racial division and strife, bases the application justice on racial bigotry, wants to make us all totally dependent on the state/Democratic party, has never had a real job, never created a successful business, broken most campaign promises he made, has no understanding of economics and is totally incompetent (just to name a few).
After three and a half years of BHO demonstrating his lack of integrity and leadership skills most people who were swing voters in the last election are all now thoroughly in the ABO (Anybody But Obama) camp.

Face it, BHO could be replaced with a Magic 8 Ball and it would result in a greater percentage of sound decisions.

JFrame
08-17-2012, 09:02
Face it, BHO could be replaced with a Magic 8 Ball and it would result in a greater percentage of sound decisions.


The random possibility of doing the right thing...?

Heck -- I'd take it...


.

michael_b
08-17-2012, 09:14
Face it, BHO could be replaced with a Magic 8 Ball and it would result in a greater percentage of sound decisions.

*shakes 8 ball*

"Signs point to yes" hmmmm.....

The Machinist
08-17-2012, 09:33
"Barack Obama And Mitt Romney Are Essentially The Same Candidate"

Laughable.

Other than serving as some kind of troll magnet, I can see absolutely no value in any such ridiculous statement.

Silly, just plain silly.:faint:
It might seem silly if you didn't bother to read the article. Obviously, you didn't. When there are no policy differences between the candidates, how do you call them different?

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2012, 10:04
And it will continue to be a 2 party system so as long as everyone assumes they are wasting their vote if it isn't a D or R next to the name.

Its a self fulfilling prophecy.

Without a cosmic shift in current attitudes, it will remain what it is now. It's up to the third parties to rise. Their messages have to appeal to a lot of people in order to gain ground. Until then, they will remain background noise.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 11:10
People have been so poorly educated about the political system that they have no clue about the advantages to a two party system and how to use it to the benefit of the people. It isn't the system that is broken it is the people's understanding that fails.

The two party system provides more representation for the people than a multi party system but the people are clueless to that fact.

G29Reload
08-17-2012, 11:39
They're essentially NOT the same candidate, except to the intellectually dishonest haters.

BHO is a marxist thug bent on a clowerd piven strategy, while being as criminal and lawless as he can get away with.

Romney is an R with some liberal scars on his record who has repented somewhat, adjusted his populism to his next governance and a broader audience than his liberal homestead and with his first act of his new administration, shown his flexibility and respect for the center right by choosing a thoughtful, effective partner, not being some stubborn liberal ideologue the way hussein is behaving. And by all accounts acting and living within the law rather than making it up as he goes along.

They get more different every day, in fact.

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 11:54
People have been so poorly educated about the political system that they have no clue about the advantages to a two party system and how to use it to the benefit of the people. It isn't the system that is broken it is the people's understanding that fails.

The two party system provides more representation for the people than a multi party system but the people are clueless to that fact.

Ah OK.

How has this two party benefited the people? By running up 15+ trillion in debt? Running trillion plus deficits? Borrowing money leveraged by taxes of future generations? Promising a hundred plus trillion in future obligations?

Do tell O great one.

Cambo
08-17-2012, 12:06
One of them hates business(Obama) and the other embraces it(Romney), and that's all that matters if you want the economy to get better. Unless Ruble can prove Mitt Romney is a child molester, I will be voting Romney without hesitation. One other thing, for every anti-Romney post put out by Ruble, I will contribute 5 dollars to Romney's campaign. Keep em coming Ruble, let's get OUR man financed!!

countrygun
08-17-2012, 12:11
Ah OK.

How has this two party benefited the people? By running up 15+ trillion in debt? Running trillion plus deficits? Borrowing money leveraged by taxes of future generations? Promising a hundred plus trillion in future obligations?

Do tell O great one.


Your ignorance is too great to overcome in the short "sound bite" sized posts your attention span requires.

Your lack of knowledge about America's political system is a palpable object unto itself.

I suggest, that if you actually possess the intellectual capability you do some reasearch on the development and history of the two-party system. Doubtful you will, more doubtful you will understand, but at least I have tried.

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 12:17
Your ignorance is too great to overcome in the short "sound bite" sized posts your attention span requires.

Your lack of knowledge about America's political system is a palpable object unto itself.

I suggest, that if you actually possess the intellectual capability you do some reasearch on the development and history of the two-party system. Doubtful you will, more doubtful you will understand, but at least I have tried.

So you have no idea what you are talking about, ah got it. Thanks for your time. :wavey:

One thing you do know however, is how to sit way up high on that pedestal of yours and throw insults. Who's the A-hole again? :supergrin:

The Machinist
08-17-2012, 12:21
One of them hates business(Obama) and the other embraces it(Romney), and that's all that matters if you want the economy to get better.
Destroying the value of the dollar will ensure our economy only gets worse, not better. Romney isn't going to do anything any differently than his predecessors have. More spending, more debt, more inflation. It's the Republican/Democrat way.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 12:29
So you have no idea what you are talking about, ah got it. Thanks for your time. :wavey:

One thing you do know however, is how to sit way up high on that pedestal of yours and throw insults. Who's the A-hole again? :supergrin:


Are you really capable of reading a multi paragraph post that explains all you missed while you werre skipping class?

You would then get snarky about "long posts" so I will leave it to you to do your own research. I realize you are used to being spoon fed knowledge in tiny bites, so i expect it will keep you busy for quite some time.

Cambo
08-17-2012, 12:31
Destroying the value of the dollar will ensure our economy only gets worse, not better. Romney isn't going to do anything any differently than his predecessors have. More spending, more debt, more inflation. It's the Republican/Democrat way.

Businesses are not hiring because of the commie, what they are looking forward to is Romney winning, so they can hire and expand. A lot of them are just sitting on cash, waiting it out. As far as spending goes, you are correct. I hope I am pleasantly surprised by spending cuts from Romney. I know for a fact we won't get them from Obama.

Lethaltxn
08-17-2012, 12:38
Hell, a cheeseburger and a hamburger are essentially the same, but yet completely different.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 12:46
Businesses are not hiring because of the commie, what they are looking forward to is Romney winning, so they can hire and expand. A lot of them are just sitting on cash, waiting it out. As far as spending goes, you are correct. I hope am pleasantly surprised by spending cuts from Romney. I know for a fact we won't get them from Obama.


Indeed, that would be "a clue" to rational folks. There is plenty of "Capital" in the Country, the owners are just holding on to it due to uncertainty and lack of faith in the current administration and the political climate. There is nothing that can be done to get them to voluntarily put it in to play except increasing their confidence. Of course those in office who are incapable of doing that want to point at these people, who hold the capital, and claim they need to "pay more of their fair share" . It would be much more effective and efficient if they were incentivised to invest on their own, since they have a better success rate than does Government with money extorted from them.

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 12:46
Are you really capable of reading a multi paragraph post that explains all you missed while you werre skipping class?

You would then get snarky about "long posts" so I will leave it to you to do your own research. I realize you are used to being spoon fed knowledge in tiny bites, so i expect it will keep you busy for quite some time.

That's funny, you didn't present any facts on why a two-party system is better, just a bunch of hyperbole about how everyone is stupid but you and doesn't understand it. Carry on though.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 12:49
That's funny, you didn't present any facts on why a two-party system is better, just a bunch of hyperbole about how everyone is stupid but you and doesn't understand it. Carry on though.


And you have shown no grasp whatsoever of Americas political system, it's roots, the intentions of those that created it and of those who changed it to favor a two-party system after experience with the more "free-for-all" method.

I am trying to keep this in short managable pieces for you.

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 12:55
And you have shown no grasp whatsoever of Americas political system, it's roots, the intentions of those that created it and of those who changed it to favor a two-party system after experience with the more "free-for-all" method.

I am trying to keep this in short managable pieces for you.

Please inform us simpletons. :whistling: Try and use no more than 150 characters.

ModGlock17
08-17-2012, 12:58
Please inform us simpletons. :whistling: Try and use no more than 150 characters.

us ??

Speaketh thou for thy self.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 13:01
us ??

Speaketh thou for yourself.


Funny about his attitude, isn't it?

I certainly don't think there are more than one or two simpletons around here, but it's nice when they self-identify

Glock30Eric
08-17-2012, 13:01
Destroying the value of the dollar will ensure our economy only gets worse, not better. Romney isn't going to do anything any differently than his predecessors have. More spending, more debt, more inflation. It's the Republican/Democrat way.

And aiding Israel in every ways even they are shooting at us. Do not forget USSN Liberty.

Screw Israel.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 13:04
us ??

Speaketh thou for thy self.


touché.

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 13:06
Funny about his attitude, isn't it?

I certainly don't think there are more than one or two simpletons around here, but it's nice when they self-identify

Not nearly as funny as yours. My pedestal is not quite as high.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 13:09
And aiding Israel in every ways even they are shooting at us. Do not forget USSN Liberty.

Screw Israel.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Jihad much?

Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 14:58
Destroying the value of the dollar will ensure our economy only gets worse, not better. Romney isn't going to do anything any differently than his predecessors have. More spending, more debt, more inflation. It's the Republican/Democrat way.

Romney is owned by Government Sachs just as obama is.

Ruble Noon
08-17-2012, 14:59
People have been so poorly educated about the political system that they have no clue about the advantages to a two party system and how to use it to the benefit of the people. It isn't the system that is broken it is the people's understanding that fails.

The two party system provides more representation for the people than a multi party system but the people are clueless to that fact.

Do tell. Just what are the benefits of a two party system?

chickenwing
08-17-2012, 15:24
Do tell. Just what are the benefits of a two party system?

Don't you get it Ruble, you aren't smart enough to understand.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 15:26
Do tell. Just what are the benefits of a two party system?


Since this is your thread I shall comply with your request, but it will take a while to write it up since it normally is quicker with a black board. I will post when I have finished.

Hang on, it will be complicated for some.

jakebrake
08-17-2012, 15:27
One other thing, for every anti-Romney post put out by Ruble, I will contribute 5 dollars to Romney's campaign. Keep em coming Ruble, let's get OUR man financed!!

is your last name Koch?

if not, i think you may be broke in about a week.

countrygun
08-17-2012, 16:19
OK ruble, here it is. I am not convinced that most will wade through it but my hope does spring eternal.


To understand the advantages of the two-party system, as opposed to a multi party system as it relates to representation one must have an understanding of the concept of a "plurality" and realize that it is not uncommon, even with a two-party system, for a President to be elected by a plurality rather than a majority.

When one has that concept firmly in their grasp we may proceed.

A two-party system recognizes the polemic nature of man. The founders were aware of this, and example being the "Fedralist" VS "Anti-Federalist" issue of their day, but it took a little tweaking by the very next generation (figuratively speaking) to bring us what we have today.

If you doubt the polemic effect, ask yourself "Why is it all of our popular team sports are played between two teams at a time? Certainly sports could be devised to allow multiple teams" ( This will appeal to the philosophers in the crowd)

In our two-party system the name of the game is to get the largest plurality in order to win the election. (given write-ins, the presence of insignificant third or fourth parties the largest plurality is the generally desired goal). In order for a party to build toward that goal they must bring together as many people with their general philosophy together, as opposed to the other party's philosophy (that polemic thing). This starts before the primary (generally with the "challenging party") as individual candidates vie for enough votes to make a "run" at it possible. Voters with specific interests and goals gravitate towards a candidate that supports those goals. As the primary quickly moves candidates who have garnered a certain amount of delegates or supporters may approach other candidates that perhaps show a greater chance of winning and offer to contribute their support in exchange for representation of at least some of their constituents issues in that candidate's platform. This is called "compromise" a word that has somehow become a negative in this age of spoiled indidviduals who wish to have everyting their own way (we will address this very shortly) but compromise is essential in the two-party system, and for a balanced political system.

At the primary convention deals are made and the eventual or "presumptive" candidate works to compromise and develop a base which will support them in acheiving the needed plurality. And they move foreward to the election.

To simplify the incumbent generally runs on a "Status Quo" platform. as. generally does the incumbent party at the end of an incumbents two-terms.

If we move to the theoretical multi party system it becomes rather evident (and especially as individuals become more determined to have everything their way and not compromise) that, the more parties there are, the smaller the neccessary plurality. At a point, it no longer becomes a requirement to gain consensus among different factions, but to simply have the largest faction.

To make a point of this, bear in mind that the single largets voting block by any descriptor is black Americans, but also bear in mind that just purely by gross definition "Christians" are not far behind. When we start dividing the pie (of voters) among many groups it doesn't take a very big piece to have the largest plurality. Who here want Blacks, 'Christians", White supremacists, etc to actually have a fair chance to take the Presidency without having to compromise with anyone else? ( it is becomming more apparent that some people think that THEIR faction could win, but overlook the possibility that they might not)

Does it take too imagination to see just a couple of factions forming a "coalition", Blacks and the Communists, or Christians and wite supremacists to gain the small needed plurality? Does anyone want any elected branch of Government run by a 20% minority that is extremist and needs to compromise with no one?

The two-party system blunts the sharp edge of extremism by forcing compromise.

There will always be those who shout that "Well we are disenfranchised now anyway" but the solution to that is, provided you have enough in your "group", to participate in the two-party system and effect the outcome through forcing recognition of your position in the candidates platform. If you don't have enough voters to do that......well you probably shouldn't be running things in this Country anyway.

Gundude
08-17-2012, 16:39
There will always be those who shout that "Well we are disenfranchised now anyway" but the solution to that is, provided you have enough in your "group", to participate in the two-party system and effect the outcome through forcing recognition of your position in the candidates platform. If you don't have enough voters to do that......well you probably shouldn't be running things in this Country anyway.Taking everything in your post at face value, do you have any problem with people of a libertarian (or smaller-government) bent forcing recognition of their position in the Republican party by refusing to vote for (or vowing to vote against) a candidate who represents none of it, and in fact represents the very antithesis of it? The party has shown no willingness to adapt any small-government principles through other methods of persuasion, so isn't taking one's vote elsewhere a reasonable tool of leverage when attempting to effect some of that all-important compromise?

Skyhook
08-17-2012, 16:45
Taking everything in your post at face value, do you have any problem with people of a libertarian (or smaller-government) bent forcing recognition of their position in the Republican party by refusing to vote for (or vowing to vote against) a candidate who represents none of it, and in fact represents the very antithesis of it? The party has shown no willingness to adapt any small-government principles through other methods of persuasion, so isn't taking one's vote elsewhere a reasonable tool of leverage when attempting to effect some of that all-important compromise?

Have you ever considered getting inside the party most aligned with your values and trying to influence it from the inside?

Just seems logical, somehow.:cool:

countrygun
08-17-2012, 16:46
Taking everything in your post at face value, do you have any problem with people of a libertarian (or smaller-government) bent forcing recognition of their position in the Republican party by refusing to vote for (or vowing to vote against) a candidate who represents none of it, and in fact represents the very antithesis of it? The party has shown no willingness to adapt any small-government principles through other methods of persuasion, so isn't taking one's vote elsewhere a reasonable tool of leverage when attempting to effect some of that all-important compromise?

Again, if Ron Paul had leveraged his early "victories" and negotiated with an electable candidate to turn some of the principles into useful planks in the final platform it would have been great.

If they want to run off by themselves and have a pity party and not accomplish anything because everything isn't going to be their way, that is there business. I just wish they would quit annoying the grownups.

Gundude
08-17-2012, 16:53
Again, if Ron Paul had leveraged his early "victories" and negotiated with an electable candidate to turn some of the principles into useful planks in the final platform it would have been great.

If they want to run off by themselves and have a pity party and not accomplish anything because everything isn't going to be their way, that is there business. I just wish they would quit annoying the grownups.If it changes the outcome of the election, wouldn't it increase their negotiation power in the next primaries?

Gundude
08-17-2012, 16:55
Have you ever considered getting inside the party most aligned with your values and trying to influence it from the inside?

Just seems logical, somehow.:cool:Influence it how? Writing letters? Sending a couple of hundred dollars?

How are those methods OK, but influencing it with your vote (or lack thereof) is so awful?

countrygun
08-17-2012, 17:01
If it changes the outcome of the election, wouldn't it increase their negotiation power in the next primaries?


In as much as this thread is about Obama and Romney,

in as much as my post was in response to the OP's request

you Ron Paul diatribe really doesn't fit in.

I will stoop low enough to deal with a Rongoloid one more time however.

You're living in a dream world. George Wallace got far more votes in '72 that Paul ever will and didn't change either party. Perot....you remember him? what did he change?

Gundude
08-17-2012, 17:04
In as much as this thread is about Obama and Romney,

in as much as my post was in response to the OP's request

you Ron Paul diatribe really doesn't fit in.

I will stoop low enough to deal with a Rongoloid one more time however.

You're living in a dream world. George Wallace got far more votes in '72 that Paul ever will and didn't change either party. Perot....you remember him? what did he change?You brought up Ron Paul, not me. I was talking about people who want smaller government in general (let's call them tea partiers if it makes you more receptive to the concept) using their votes to influence the Republican party into compromise next time around, given that nothing in their platform made it in this time around.

jakebrake
08-18-2012, 10:32
Perot....you remember him? what did he change?

well, he did manage to bring us 8 years of clinton.

and , he did help quite a few of us realize just how difficult creating a third party will really be .

and, he taught more than a lot of us when to say when, when it comes to write ins/ third party candidates.

Skyhook
08-18-2012, 13:18
well, he did manage to bring us 8 years of clinton.

and , he did help quite a few of us realize just how difficult creating a third party will really be .

and, he taught more than a lot of us when to say when, when it comes to write ins/ third party candidates.

...annnnnnd, there ya have it. One needn't be a world class historian to know what a third party would accomplish for the good old USA.:faint:

countrygun
08-18-2012, 13:37
A short synopsis of the career of the Darling of the third party fans.

Bills proposed by Ron Paul

482

bills proposed by Ron Paul that passed

1

It allowed a customs house building to be sold. presentation and debate= 2 minutes, vote= 8 seconds.


In the primary he got less than 11% in his home State and didn't even carry his home district.

Ruble Noon
08-18-2012, 15:00
Originally Posted by Cambo http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19317699#post19317699)
One other thing, for every anti-Romney post put out by Ruble, I will contribute 5 dollars to Romney's campaign. Keep em coming Ruble, let's get OUR man financed!!



is your last name Koch?

if not, i think you may be broke in about a week.

Ha! That is funny. :rofl:

Don't worry Cambo, your boy Romney has plenty of financial backers. Coincidentally a lot of them are the same ones backing Obama, you know like Government Sachs, JP Morgan etc.

steveksux
08-18-2012, 15:02
Can't wait for their debate. Then we'll find out for sure, as they are finally going to have to appear in the same room together!

We'll see if they're really the same candidate or not! :tongueout:

Randy

Ruble Noon
08-19-2012, 08:08
well, he did manage to bring us 8 years of clinton.

and , he did help quite a few of us realize just how difficult creating a third party will really be .

and, he taught more than a lot of us when to say when, when it comes to write ins/ third party candidates.

That's the difference between you and I Jake. You came away from that election defeated while I came away from that election determined to succeed.

Cavalry Doc
08-19-2012, 08:33
That's the difference between you and I Jake. You came away from that election defeated while I came away from that election determined to succeed.

Determination is a good thing, and many times it's admirable.

Situational awareness rules the day though. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Cambo
08-19-2012, 08:36
Ha! That is funny. :rofl:

Don't worry Cambo, your boy Romney has plenty of financial backers. Coincidentally a lot of them are the same ones backing Obama, you know like Government Sachs, JP Morgan etc.

Who's your boy? Obama or Ron Paul? If it's Ron Paul, you should realize IT'S OVER FOR HIM!!!!! The funny thing is, IF Ron Paul was the presumptive nominee, I would be supporting him even though I disagree with some of what he stands for. This is because I want Obama out of the White House. You and fellow RP supporters have this ridiculous fantasy about Obama winning again, the country going down the toilet, and 90% of America waking up to see the "light" and voting for Ron Paul the next time around or someone like him. It may be too late by that time(look at all the people getting comfortable with government handouts). Like him or not, Romney is who we are stuck with. So, I am predicting one of three things come election day:
1. You will vote Romney despite all of your posturing here
2. You will vote Paul and waste your vote anonymously
3. You will vote Obama to help secure your fantasy mentioned above

JFrame
08-19-2012, 09:26
Can't wait for their debate. Then we'll find out for sure, as they are finally going to have to appear in the same room together!

We'll see if they're really the same candidate or not! :tongueout:

Randy


Ha -- Randy, you are ever the pragmatist! :supergrin:


.

Ruble Noon
08-19-2012, 10:21
Who's your boy? Obama or Ron Paul? If it's Ron Paul, you should realize IT'S OVER FOR HIM!!!!! The funny thing is, IF Ron Paul was the presumptive nominee, I would be supporting him even though I disagree with some of what he stands for. This is because I want Obama out of the White House. You and fellow RP supporters have this ridiculous fantasy about Obama winning again, the country going down the toilet, and 90% of America waking up to see the "light" and voting for Ron Paul the next time around or someone like him. It may be too late by that time(look at all the people getting comfortable with government handouts). Like him or not, Romney is who we are stuck with. So, I am predicting one of three things come election day:
1. You will vote Romney despite all of your posturing here
2. You will vote Paul and waste your vote anonymously
3. You will vote Obama to help secure your fantasy mentioned above

I can guarantee you that I won't be voting for Obama or Romney and the only fantasy that I have involves a couple of big breasted redheaded babes.

Cambo
08-19-2012, 11:20
I can guarantee you that I won't be voting for Obama or Romney and the only fantasy that I have involves a couple of big breasted redheaded babes.

I can't argue with that fantasy.:supergrin:

Glock30Eric
08-19-2012, 13:27
Who's your boy? Obama or Ron Paul? If it's Ron Paul, you should realize IT'S OVER FOR HIM!!!!! The funny thing is, IF Ron Paul was the presumptive nominee, I would be supporting him even though I disagree with some of what he stands for. This is because I want Obama out of the White House. You and fellow RP supporters have this ridiculous fantasy about Obama winning again, the country going down the toilet, and 90% of America waking up to see the "light" and voting for Ron Paul the next time around or someone like him. It may be too late by that time(look at all the people getting comfortable with government handouts). Like him or not, Romney is who we are stuck with. So, I am predicting one of three things come election day:
1. You will vote Romney despite all of your posturing here
2. You will vote Paul and waste your vote anonymously
3. You will vote Obama to help secure your fantasy mentioned above

You fail. If you vote Obama or Romney and you will get the same result: decaying the America. You cannot deny on that fact.

Whenever you vote and your vote wasn't never a waste. If you think I vote Ron Paul is a waste vote then you must love the communist system, where we have to vote to whatever they give to us (no choice = no liberty), that is what they want us to think like that, lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils brought us the decay of America. Guess what? You are the problem. Thank you for decaying the America, comrade!

Please understand this before you cast a vote in Nov.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Glock30Eric
08-19-2012, 13:30
Can't wait for their debate. Then we'll find out for sure, as they are finally going to have to appear in the same room together!

We'll see if they're really the same candidate or not! :tongueout:

Randy

Be prepared to be shocked that Obama will do very well at the debates. The media will make Obama look good. Ron Paul fellows have saw that in their own eyes they are really good at that.

Remember Kennedy and Nixon's debate? This won't be a new thing and it has been like that.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
08-19-2012, 13:35
You fail. If you vote Obama or Romney and you will get the same result: decaying the America. You cannot deny on that fact.

Whenever you vote and your vote wasn't never a waste. If you think I vote Ron Paul is a waste vote then you must love the communist system, where we have to vote to whatever they give to us (no choice = no liberty), that is what they want us to think like that, lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils brought us the decay of America. Guess what? You are the problem. Thank you for decaying the America, comrade!

Please understand this before you cast a vote in Nov.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Bills proposed by Ron Paul

482

bills proposed by Ron Paul passed

1

It allowed a customs house building to be sold. presentation and debate= 2 minutes, vote= 8 seconds.

In the primary he got less than 11% in his home State and didn't even carry his home district.

Now how can a man with a record of such failure of support and lack of cooperation from others possibly do anything from the office of POTUS? what does he actually know about cooperating to reach a goal? He has shown nothing but a willingness to march off to his own drummer.

We know how Obama managed it but Paul doesn't have the same advantage.

The only things he could do from the office are they very things that turn people away from him, everything he says he will do, that sound good, require the cooperation of Congress and he never had that as a member.

Cambo
08-19-2012, 13:44
You fail. If you vote Obama or Romney and you will get the same result: decaying the America. You cannot deny on that fact.

Whenever you vote and your vote wasn't never a waste. If you think I vote Ron Paul is a waste vote then you must love the communist system, where we have to vote to whatever they give to us (no choice = no liberty), that is what they want us to think like that, lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils brought us the decay of America. Guess what? You are the problem. Thank you for decaying the America, comrade!

Please understand this before you cast a vote in Nov.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Ron Paul doesn't have the numbers to back him. As I said, if he were in the running, he would have my support. It's not my fault that he does not appeal to a significant portion of the population. Do you realize that the majority of voters are looking for someone more towards the center? They are not going to vote for a libertarian. I don't like that fact, but it is reality. I am not thrilled with Romney, but look at Obama - openly hostile to business, to law enforcement, to the military, to the upper class, to the middle class, etc.