You vote for Romney because Gary Johnson would never win...but... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : You vote for Romney because Gary Johnson would never win...but...


Gundude
10-04-2012, 18:38
http://i46.tinypic.com/15h9qa.jpg

This is the "clean" version of the thread...

Fed Five Oh
10-04-2012, 19:00
Didn't Gary Johnson drop out of the Republican primary because he got even less votes than MoRon Paul?

Sam Spade
10-04-2012, 19:15
Ah, if only time were frozen like in the drawing. Then, we could step out of the loop and enter nirvana.

It's not. There was a time in the process for the better man--one *both* more qualified and more electable--to step up. None did. So now we get to deal with the choices we have, and not the choices we could invent.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 19:17
Didn't Gary Johnson drop out of the Republican primary because he got even less votes than MoRon Paul?Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.

Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?

countrygun
10-04-2012, 19:20
Lets see here.

Obama gets spanked in a debate and the Paul supporters squeal.

Hmmm.......

Sam Spade
10-04-2012, 19:21
Any question that requires us to assume things contrary to reality isn't an important question.

fortyofforty
10-04-2012, 19:25
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:

Ruble Noon
10-04-2012, 19:30
Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.

Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?

Not today's republican's for sure.

Cavalry Doc
10-04-2012, 19:32
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:

Demertarians?

JFrame
10-04-2012, 19:42
Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.

Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?


I was at a TEA Party rally in D.C. where Gary Johnson was one of a host of guest speakers they had lined up. He was such an uninspiring speaker, you could literally feel some of the enthusiasm ebb from the crowd, like air seeping out of a balloon. He muddled through his 10-15 minutes, and walked off the podium to very scattered applause (calling it "polite" applause would be generous).

Now maybe we just caught Gary on a bad day, and he's a regular ball of fire otherwise. But he didn't really seem to show that in the instances he had a chance during the primaries either.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, we shouldn't confer so much priority to the ability to energize a crowd with a speech. But that's a reality with which we have to deal. A dud, even an earnest, well-meaning, and intelligent one, will still fail to build enough of a coalition to matter.

Unfortunately, the era of Silent Cal is over. We have been a media-driven nation since at least JFK, and if a person doesn't have at least a modicum of ability to connect with a wide enough swath of Americans, he really needs to focus his aspirations on a smaller scale.


.

eb07
10-04-2012, 19:47
Johnson is like Paul, unelectable. Both would lose head to head against Obama.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:13
Wow, two anti-Romney threads with IDENTICAL titles. What are the odds? :rofl:It's fascinating that the words "Gary Johnson" and "Ron Paul" appear identical to some.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:15
Lets see here.

Obama gets spanked in a debate and the Paul supporters squeal.

Hmmm.......Even more fascinating how it's impossible for some people to refrain from introducing Ron Paul into places it's uncalled for. It seems Ron Paul is the ultimate straw man.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:23
Any question that requires us to assume things contrary to reality isn't an important question.For the unimaginative, anything that's not right in front of their face is unimportant.

A thought experiment or Gedankenexperiment (from German) considers some hypothesis, theory,[1] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may or may not be possible to actually perform it, and, in the case that it is possible for it to be performed, there need be no intention of any kind to actually perform the experiment in question. The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

So for those who want to think it through, if you had to vote between Johnson and Romney, without allegiance to a party and without a boogeyman waiting in the wings, for whom would you vote?

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:26
I was at a TEA Party rally in D.C. where Gary Johnson was one of a host of guest speakers they had lined up. He was such an uninspiring speaker, you could literally feel some of the enthusiasm ebb from the crowd, like air seeping out of a balloon. He muddled through his 10-15 minutes, and walked off the podium to very scattered applause (calling it "polite" applause would be generous).

Now maybe we just caught Gary on a bad day, and he's a regular ball of fire otherwise. But he didn't really seem to show that in the instances he had a chance during the primaries either.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, we shouldn't confer so much priority to the ability to energize a crowd with a speech. But that's a reality with which we have to deal. A dud, even an earnest, well-meaning, and intelligent one, will still fail to build enough of a coalition to matter.

Unfortunately, the era of Silent Cal is over. We have been a media-driven nation since at least JFK, and if a person doesn't have at least a modicum of ability to connect with a wide enough swath of Americans, he really needs to focus his aspirations on a smaller scale.


.Thank you for accepting the question at face value and giving an honest answer. :beer:

LASTRESORT20
10-04-2012, 21:27
Lets see here.

Obama gets spanked in a debate and the Paul supporters squeal.

Hmmm.......


Thats a fact....Hmmm...go figure!:supergrin:

Gundude
10-04-2012, 21:44
Deleted

GAFinch
10-04-2012, 21:56
I've seen him on tv before...wasn't all that impressed. Romney is a better overall candidate for POTUS.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 22:01
Even more fascinating how it's impossible for some people to refrain from introducing Ron Paul into places it's uncalled for. It seems Ron Paul is the ultimate straw man.
So you copped someone elses visual aid and took the name out and we are just supposed to pretend and play along?

How about we quit dancing around it and just refer to them, in total, as "The libertarian losers" since there is no one, who actually exists in this reality, you could be talking about?

G29Reload
10-04-2012, 22:10
For the unimaginative, anything that's not right in front of their face is unimportant.

For the "imaginative" its always a question of if your aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

Its not a matter of being imaginative or not. Just realistic. Those of us "unimaginative" are just too busy living in reality rather than hyping hypotheticals. Its an exercise not worthy of our time.


The fringe Pauls and Johnson's are an irrelevance because they don't have a chance. The largest success in third party EVARR in modern times was Ross perot, and he got 19%, putting Clinton in the White HOuse. That's a fact not lost on us and why many see the fringe candidates as dangerous, not helpful in the least.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:12
So you copped someone elses visual aid and took the name out and we are just supposed to pretend and play along?

How about we quit dancing around it and just refer to them, in total, as "The libertarian losers" since there is no one, who actually exists in this reality, you could be talking about?"Play along"? My whole point in creating this thread is that having "Ron Paul" in the title of any thread instantly sentences that thread into becoming an idiotic orgy of personal attacks.

The idea the OP presented in the other thread with the graphic is worthy of discussion without Ron Paul's name appearing anywhere. It's the only way of having a "clean" discussion about the topic, hence my statement in my opening post.

Sadly, it wasn't enough to escape the RP hate, which has unfortunately attached itself like a virus to any discussion that isn't solely about Mitt Romney.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:14
For the "imaginative" its always a question of if your aunt had balls would she be your uncle?

Its not a matter of being imaginative or not. Just realistic. Those of us "unimaginative" are just too busy living in reality rather than hyping hypotheticals. Its an exercise not worthy of our time.It appears that you're too busy doing your best to stifle everybody else's imagination than actually living in reality. Living in reality doesn't require you to enter every hypothetical conversation with personal attacks.

countrygun
10-04-2012, 22:30
"Play along"? My whole point in creating this thread is that having "Ron Paul" in the title of any thread instantly sentences that thread into becoming an idiotic orgy of personal attacks.

The idea the OP presented in the other thread with the graphic is worthy of discussion without Ron Paul's name appearing anywhere. It's the only way of having a "clean" discussion about the topic, hence my statement in my opening post.

Sadly, it wasn't enough to escape the RP hate, which has unfortunately attached itself like a virus to any discussion that isn't solely about Mitt Romney.

The obvious seems to slip right by the fanatics.

Many of us had the chance to vote for other candidates, it is what we in good ole' USA on planet Earth call "The Primary"

That"s P R I M A R Y

Many of us didn't vote for Romney. Most of us were mature enough to accept that Romney won the P R I M A R Y, and as such we will support him to defeat Obama, rather than live in denial and keep voting for the candidates that lost, that is L O S T the P R I M A R Y.

Gundude
10-04-2012, 22:35
The obvious seems to slip right by the fanatics.

Many of us had the chance to vote for other candidates, it is what we in good ole' USA on planet Earth call "The Primary"

That"s P R I M A R Y

Many of us didn't vote for Romney. Most of us were mature enough to accept that Romney won the P R I M A R Y, and as such we will support him to defeat Obama, rather than live in denial and keep voting for the candidates that lost, that is L O S T the P R I M A R Y.This thread isn't about Ron Paul.

Get over it.

Nobody is stuck more on Ron Paul than the haters are. I think it's obvious from this thread who is actually bringing Ron Paul into every conversation. How can you expect anybody to let it go when you can't.

Why did you even quote me in your response? It had nothing to do with what you quoted.

fortyofforty
10-05-2012, 02:56
It's fascinating that the words "Gary Johnson" and "Ron Paul" appear identical to some.

It's fascinating that the phrasing is identical, right down to the ellipses. So, nothing to see here, right? :rofl:

"You vote for Romney because [INSERT NAME HERE] would never win...but..."

JFrame
10-05-2012, 04:49
Thank you for accepting the question at face value and giving an honest answer. :beer:

No problemo... :beer:

:drink:


.

walt cowan
10-05-2012, 06:29
if mitts going to win hands down....so why are you all so worried about johnson?

Sam Spade
10-05-2012, 06:38
For the unimaginative, anything that's not right in front of their face is unimportant.


Bull. If your idea of imagination is the denial of reality, go draw anime. I prefer to live in the real world. Too many people who want to assume conditions that don't, can't and won't exsist so that they can peddle their own special brand of snake oil---the budget forecasts leap instantly to mind as a related example.

Imagination is wonderful, when it manipulates facts to produce innovation. You've glommed onto it as escapist fantasy. When you want to be serious and deal with the world, let me know.

Snowman92D
10-05-2012, 06:54
Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

"...apart from his inability to get elected..." :rofl:

Quintessential doper logic. :smoking:

Brucev
10-05-2012, 06:59
Re: OP. I will vote for Romney b/c winning is the only thing that matter in November. The winners will be the deciders. The loosers will get to stand around and watch the winners do the deciding. Romney is the best means of conservatives and republicans winning in November. It's that simple. Whining about loosers who couldn't make it through the primary process is a waste of time.

In the future, those who want a more conservative candidate/executive will have to do a better job of convincing not only their faithful fringe supporters but the broader electorate. That's as it should be.

Bren
10-05-2012, 07:25
http://i46.tinypic.com/15h9qa.jpg

This is the "clean" version of the thread...

You are correct. Problem is, that description is accurate - as in, there is no exit from the circle, other than giving up and giving the election to the side you dislike most.

To vote Libertarian, you have to agree to let Obama win (since Libertarian votes are, for the most part, people who would vote Republican, if forced to choose beteen D and R).

Cavalry Doc
10-05-2012, 07:49
It's fascinating that the words "Gary Johnson" and "Ron Paul" appear identical to some.

They are more similar than Barry and Mittens.

Diesel McBadass
10-05-2012, 08:04
maybe people like romney better than johnson, ever think of that?

Acujeff
10-05-2012, 18:55
As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress. Gun owners had to wait till Johnson left office to even get CCW. He publicly presented himself then as a non gun owner and had no desire to own one. Now that he’s running for President, he wants to own a gun. How is he good for gun owners?

Gary Johnson was a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for five months now.

Libertarians are just hypocrites when they come to gun forums to call gun owners sheep for voting Republican when they are voting Johnson for the sake of "their" party. Johnson has no chance of even winning one state! How is that good for gun owners?

If Libertarians were honest about helping the RKBA they would be helping Romney beat Obama rather than calling for splitting the vote and trying to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

How is another 4 years of Obama good for gun owners?

Most Libertarians realize that and are voting for Romney.
From Cato: Polls Show Romney Winning the Libertarian Vote
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-shows-romney-winning-high-water-mark-for-libertarian-vote/

The benefits of President Romney platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama win and send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.

fortyofforty
10-06-2012, 05:54
As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress. Gun owners had to wait till Johnson left office to even get CCW. He publicly presented himself then as a non gun owner and had no desire to own one. Now that he’s running for President, he wants to own a gun. How is he good for gun owners?

Gary Johnson was a Republican for his entire political career from 1994 to late 2011, when he abandoned his Republican primary candidacy. He's only been an official Libertarian for five months now.

Libertarians are just hypocrites when they come to gun forums to call gun owners sheep for voting Republican when they are voting Johnson for the sake of "their" party. Johnson has no chance of even winning one state! How is that good for gun owners?

If Libertarians were honest about helping the RKBA they would be helping Romney beat Obama rather than calling for splitting the vote and trying to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

How is another 4 years of Obama good for gun owners?

Most Libertarians realize that and are voting for Romney.
From Cato: Polls Show Romney Winning the Libertarian Vote
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/poll-shows-romney-winning-high-water-mark-for-libertarian-vote/

The benefits of President Romney platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama win and send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.

Pointing out the hypocrisy in positions taken and lived by self-proclaimed "libertarians" does no good. Supporters excuse any behavior that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas of what their candidate represents. It happened with Ronnie Earmarks, where his words and his deeds were quite far apart. It is happening with Gary Johnson. I appreciate the arguments you make, though, for those of us unfamiliar with Johnson's history. Some libertarians apparently either want to destroy the country (maybe hoping to build a libertarian utopia on the ash heap) or are really Odumbo supporters in libertarian clothing (which seems prevalent here on GT).

Bren
10-06-2012, 06:05
Honestly, I like Libertarian domestic policy, but I would never vote for them for national office because their foreign policy amounts to: never do anything until it's too late and your enemies are in the middle of New York.

Cavalry Doc
10-06-2012, 06:24
maybe people like romney better than johnson, ever think of that?

That was pretty evident in the primaries. RP & GJ were just not getting the votes. It's just simple reality.

Cavalry Doc
10-06-2012, 06:26
Honestly, I like Libertarian domestic policy, but I would never vote for them for national office because their foreign policy amounts to: never do anything until it's too late and your enemies are in the middle of New York.

Ditto. I've traveled too much to accept that neoisolationism is based on reality. It just won't work. Barry bent over and kissed their arses and they are burning him in effigy. You cannot appease them enough.

G29Reload
10-06-2012, 06:35
If you didn't "belong" to a party,

and there was no Obama to kick out,

and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?

And I Had eggs for breakfast?

But not if the moon were full...

And the Rolling stones released another hit album in the next 30 days

but only if Apple canceled the new Mini IPAD?

Then….maybe Johnson.

On the other hand….


If your Aunt had balls would she be your Uncle?

Just hypothetically speaking.

Cavalry Doc
10-06-2012, 06:46
Let's all agree that his positions aren't Republican positions.

Is there anything about him, apart from his inability to get elected, that makes him a worse choice than Romney?

If you didn't "belong" to a party, and there was no Obama to kick out, and you had a choice between Romney and Johnson, who would you pick?


The only thing that makes him worse than Romney is his foreign policy. IF you could meld GJ's domestic policy with Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, presence, ability to speak and belief in American exceptionalism, he'd be a good candidate.

onebigelf
10-06-2012, 06:51
The obvious seems to slip right by the fanatics.

Many of us had the chance to vote for other candidates, it is what we in good ole' USA on planet Earth call "The Primary"

That"s P R I M A R Y

Many of us didn't vote for Romney. Most of us were mature enough to accept that Romney won the P R I M A R Y, and as such we will support him to defeat Obama, rather than live in denial and keep voting for the candidates that lost, that is L O S T the P R I M A R Y.

This:goodpost:

If all you libertarians and conservative independents would get back in the party and back in the game, what comes out of the primary might be better choices. When you abandon the primaries to the moderates, what you get is more moderate choices. To then come back and whine, "If only you people would make better choices we wouldn't be in this mess..." .... yeah. Piss off.

John

Ruble Noon
10-06-2012, 07:56
The only thing that makes him worse than Romney is his foreign policy. IF you could meld GJ's domestic policy with Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, presence, ability to speak and belief in American exceptionalism, he'd be a good candidate.

Gary Johnson believes in a strong military and protecting America's foreign interests. He does not however believe in wasting money on nation building.

Ruble Noon
10-06-2012, 07:58
The fringe Pauls and Johnson's are an irrelevance

So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.

G29Reload
10-06-2012, 11:00
So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.

No, I did not say that, Dishonest One.

Anything that does not help Romney fire Bongo, helps bongo.

Irrelevant as they don't have a prayer of ever winning themselves. Their sole purposes are to stroke their own ego, and perhaps be a spoiler by vote siphoning, out of childish vindictiveness. Which you know well.

Gundude
10-06-2012, 11:54
In the future, those who want a more conservative candidate/executive will have to do a better job of convincing not only their faithful fringe supporters but the broader electorate. That's as it should be.Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?

Gundude
10-06-2012, 11:56
You are correct. Problem is, that description is accurate - as in, there is no exit from the circle, other than giving up and giving the election to the side you dislike most.

To vote Libertarian, you have to agree to let Obama win (since Libertarian votes are, for the most part, people who would vote Republican, if forced to choose beteen D and R).Yes!! :thumbsup:

At least you get it, whether or not you agree with it. Thanks.

series1811
10-06-2012, 13:38
I've already made my stupid vote on principal when I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and helped put Clinton in office.

One of my rewards was having Clinton fire my great boss and make one of the biggest morons I ever met in my life my new boss.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 13:45
Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?

Because people who actually try to convince others that, all of a sudden, a third party messiah is going to come along and actually be elected, much less accomplish anything without having the backing of a political caucus on Capitol Hill, are rightly viewed as ...well...."Loony"

Bren
10-06-2012, 13:54
if mitts going to win hands down....so why are you all so worried about johnson?

My only worry is that in a fairly close race, he could draw enough R votes to reelect Obama, which is really his only possible impact on American politics.

Dukeboy01
10-06-2012, 16:10
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.

Example 1: Election of 1912. Teddy Roosevelt gets into a snit with President Taft and essentially splits the Republican party when he creates the Progressive "Bull Moose" party. Together TR and Taft pull 50.6% of the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson wins just under 42% of the popular vote and takes a whopping 435 electoral votes. You think Obama is a socialist? He's got nothing on Woodrow Wilson. The actual socialist candidate in that race, Eugene Debs, only got 6% of the popular vote and didn't win a single state, so he's not really a factor.

Examples 2 and 3: The elections of 1992 and 1996. Minature clown H. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected twice in 1992 and 1996.

Example 4: The election of 2000. Ralph Nader spoiled this one for Al Gore, hands down. Why? Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush's final victory margin over Gore after all of the hanging chads and divination of voter intent was 537 votes. I know people can legitimately argue about how votes for Perot might have split evenly- ish between Clinton and either of his GOP competitors in 1992 or 1996 and maybe not really affected the outcome, but does anyone seriously doubt that Al "Earth In The Balance" Gore wouldn't have won 90%+ of the votes of the type of enviroweenies dumb enough to throw their votes away to the Green party? If those people had functioning brain cells, Al Gore would have won Florida by well over 89,000 votes. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that over 90,000 bunny- huggers were dumb enough to vote their hearts instead of their heads. Can you imagine if Gore had been POTUS on 9/11?

Bottom line: We have the system we have. It's ultimately a lot stronger and more stable than multi-party systems that are always having to form various "coalition" governments after their elections are split 16 different ways. Protest votes in this country are for children. Civil libertardians should grow up.

fortyofforty
10-06-2012, 16:22
Good analysis. It's reality. We don't have a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. We have, for all intents and purposes, a two party system. Pick the one that more closely represents you and your interests and leave the vanity candidates like Paul and Johnson for the late night comedians. Even if we had a parliamentary system, you’d still end up with a compromise Prime Minister that you weren’t happy with, since he or she would be elected by coalitions within the parliament. Politics means not getting everything you want. So does adulthood, for that matter.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 16:28
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.

Example 1: Election of 1912. Teddy Roosevelt gets into a snit with President Taft and essentially splits the Republican party when he creates the Progressive "Bull Moose" party. Together TR and Taft pull 50.6% of the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson wins just under 42% of the popular vote and takes a whopping 435 electoral votes. You think Obama is a socialist? He's got nothing on Woodrow Wilson. The actual socialist candidate in that race, Eugene Debs, only got 6% of the popular vote and didn't win a single state, so he's not really a factor.

Examples 2 and 3: The elections of 1992 and 1996. Minature clown H. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected twice in 1992 and 1996.

Example 4: The election of 2000. Ralph Nader spoiled this one for Al Gore, hands down. Why? Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush's final victory margin over Gore after all of the hanging chads and divination of voter intent was 537 votes. I know people can legitimately argue about how votes for Perot might have split evenly- ish between Clinton and either of his GOP competitors in 1992 or 1996 and maybe not really affected the outcome, but does anyone seriously doubt that Al "Earth In The Balance" Gore wouldn't have won 90%+ of the votes of the type of enviroweenies dumb enough to throw their votes away to the Green party? If those people had functioning brain cells, Al Gore would have won Florida by well over 89,000 votes. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that over 90,000 bunny- huggers were dumb enough to vote their hearts instead of their heads. Can you imagine if Gore had been POTUS on 9/11?

Bottom line: We have the system we have. It's ultimately a lot stronger and more stable than multi-party systems that are always having to form various "coalition" governments after their elections are split 16 different ways. Protest votes in this country are for children. Civil libertardians should grow up.



Well said!

Gundude
10-06-2012, 16:30
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.That "only thing" probably means a lot to the losing party. Enough to change their platform to bring in those missed votes next time around? Only if the voters aren't bullied into voting mainstream next time around. If the voters steadfastly refuse to vote mainstream until the mainstream party accommodates them in some way, the mainstream party will have to do just that. I'm not talking about the Republican party going all out libertarian to get those votes, just return some semblance of small goverment to their real platform. I'm sure non-libertarian conservatives wouldn't have too much of a problem with that anyways.

You can call it a "protest vote" if you want, but it's not simply a vote to make a statement. It's a vote to effect change, and there's nothing wrong with using your vote that way.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 16:51
That "only thing" probably means a lot to the losing party. Enough to change their platform to bring in those missed votes next time around? Only if the voters aren't bullied into voting mainstream next time around. If the voters steadfastly refuse to vote mainstream until the mainstream party accommodates them in some way, the mainstream party will have to do just that. I'm not talking about the Republican party going all out libertarian to get those votes, just return some semblance of small goverment to their real platform. I'm sure non-libertarian conservatives wouldn't have too much of a problem with that anyways.

You can call it a "protest vote" if you want, but it's not simply a vote to make a statement. It's a vote to effect change, and there's nothing wrong with using your vote that way.

Change your State Reps, change your Governor, Change your Congressional reps. Did George Wallace's campaign change either party? did Ralph Nader's campaign change either party? did Ross Perot's campaign change either party?.

Just because YOU are involved doesn't mean the laws of politics have changed anymore than your weight on the planet affects gravity. It is still the same thing.

The path to changing a party is to USE the votes you get in the primary to change the platform, to help support VIABLE candidates that represent, at least some of the views of your constituents. If you throw away the opportunity to do that by refusing to admit defeat you have wasted your supporters votes.

Gundude
10-06-2012, 17:00
Change your State Reps, change your Governor, Change your Congressional reps.Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense.
did Ralph Nader's campaign change either party? did Ross Perot's campaign change either party?.Yeah, they did. If they didn't, you wouldn't be hearing so much "Remember Ross Perot?" these days. The acknowledgement of the effect of the third party is a start. What's important is follow through. A demonstration that Perot wasn't a fluke, and that the party will lose every time it strays so far from its stated principles.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 17:11
Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense.
Yeah, they did. If they didn't, you wouldn't be hearing so much "Remember Ross Perot?" these days. The acknowledgement of the effect of the third party is a start. What's important is follow through. A demonstration that Perot wasn't a fluke, and that the party will lose every time it strays so far from its stated principles.

Did Ross Perot acheive what you claim as yn excuse for pimping a throw away vote? Did he change the party or did he giveu Democrats? and which is your goal again?

Even if you managed, (and you know it;s impossible, everyone older than 12 knows it) to get a "3rd" in the White House what could he do without the support from the States and a caucus on the Hill? You are floating an asnine notion.

Once again you fail to explain why, when he had an early victory and support ron Paul didn't accomplish diddly. and now you wnt people to accomplish more diddly themselves by throwing their votes away to get Obama reelected.

SO where is Ron Paul's accomplishment exactly?

fortyofforty
10-06-2012, 17:17
And maybe send up a better candidate than Ronnie Earmarks next time. How about someone who lives up to the ideals he loudly espouses? Someone with executive branch experience, perhaps. That would be a switch.

fortyofforty
10-06-2012, 17:21
After living through eight years of "Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" and Janet "Torch 'em" Reno" and Al "The plahnet has a feeever" Gore, the protest votes for Ross Perot did nothing to help the country. I suspect many of Paul's supporters (and Johnson's too) were not politically active or aware during the 1990s. Bill Clinton is just a guy they read about in Social Studies class. For many of us, though, he is part of our own painful political memories. Experience teaches many lessons.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 17:23
And maybe send up a better candidate than Ronnie Earmarks next time. How about someone who lives up to the ideals he loudly espouses? Someone with executive branch experience, perhaps. That would be a switch.

Aw c'mon. It obvious now. When he said this,

"Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense".

it showed up.

"Pooh-pooh" the idea of change at other levels that would provide a foundation for larger change.

Try to make a deal out of either wasting a vote to "prove a point':upeyes: or to get one of the people he says he hates reelected.

Dismiss the idea of actually make effective changes within the party.

All of those positions actually work against the change he claims to want.

He doesn't really want "change" he just wants attention for being "different"

Gundude
10-06-2012, 17:28
Did Ross Perot acheive what you claim as yn excuse for pimping a throw away vote? Did he change the party or did he giveu Democrats? and which is your goal again?My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.

countrygun
10-06-2012, 17:52
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.

So your answer is for a minority to control the direction of the Country?

Oh that has worked so well in history.

It is the Country that needs changing as a whole. I am very fearful of people who place so much emphasis on the top position especially a small percentage of the voters.

So answer me this question.

If you are part of such a small group that you can't make a blip on the radar of the major parties in their primaries how do you expect to change the whole Country?

fortyofforty
10-06-2012, 17:55
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.

:rofl: OK, so four more years of Odumbo gets us smaller government how, exactly? You've got Obamacare in place, upheld by the Supreme Court. Like it? Think Obama will help repeal it? How do you feel about all those massive social programs that have been in place for decades, now? Think Odumbo will reduce any of them? Think Odumbo will expand them and ensure more people qualify? What has he done so far?

This is called spite. Pure spite. Paul lost, and for good reasons (his actions belied his shallow convictions about lower spending and smaller government, for one thing). Get over it. Get over yourselves. Sheesh. :upeyes:

You Paulistas, like Paul himself, revel in your own self-importance. "Look at me! Look at me! My vote really matters! And I will wield my vote like a toddler swinging a plastic 'He Man' sword." For me I'm done playing your game. Do whatever you want. You will do that anyway and logic or history or common sense will not convince you otherwise. You will have to learn the lesson yourself, since your parents and teachers succeeded in boosting your self-esteem to grandiose levels and each of you thinks you're the smartest guy in the room.

Dukeboy01
10-06-2012, 18:27
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.

Guess what? The GOP is becoming that party. Compare the socially and (relatively) fiscally liberal Northeastern dominated "Country club" GOP of the first half of the 20th century to the Libertarian infused GOP of the 60's (Goldwater) through the tax- cut, supply side 80's (Reagan) and the (slowly) willing to tackle entitlement reform GOP of today (Tea Party). You're just upset that it hasn't happened according to what you think the time table should have been.

Real, permanent change takes time.

Cavalry Doc
10-07-2012, 06:58
Gary Johnson believes in a strong military and protecting America's foreign interests. He does not however believe in wasting money on nation building.

Nice try.

http://www.ontheissues.org/gary_johnson.htm

Says there he's calling for a 43% cut in defense spending.
Iran is not a problem for him either.

I don't agree with him. I'd cut military spending by 20%, food stamps by 95%, replaced with soup kitchens, and return unemployment back to 9 weeks total. Welfare would be cut to sustenance only levels. Review boards for the ambulatory disabled too. There would be a lot of jobs when you start jailing the employers of illegals and cutting off all education benefits to illegal kids, and I mean all benefits K through grad school


If you find that candidate, let me know. Maybe even I'd vote third party if there were anyone worth looking at running in them.

dcc12
10-07-2012, 14:20
While every fiber of my body would like to vote for Johnson I voted for H. Ross Perot many years ago. Never again. I will be holding my nose and voting Romney. Because regardless of what others say. If you vote for Obama you will vote for Obama. If you Vote for Romney it is a vote for Romney. But if you vote for anyone other than Romney it is a vote for Obama because none of the other guys have a chance, NONE. In fact if and your State may vary but in Texas if the person is not a Declared candidate, or a declared write in candidate the vote is not counted at all it hits the garbage. So thinking you are being cute and voting for Paul, Sponge Bob, or your pet cat does nothing except 4 more years of socialism.