Who thinks the Third Party could ruin it [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Who thinks the Third Party could ruin it


Hailstorm
10-17-2012, 07:44
I'm sorry. As much as I would like a third party to win. It will not be happening any time soon.

But, voting that way could ruin our only chance to get the Big O out.

It sucks. But, it rings true to me.

sheriff733
10-17-2012, 07:53
I'm sorry. As much as I would like a third party to win. It will not be happening any time soon.

But, voting that way could ruin our only chance to get the Big O out.

It sucks. But, it rings true to me.

I totally believe it. Don't think it will keep romney from winning, but a vote for Obama or 3rd party is still a vote for Obama no matter how you cut it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

686Owner
10-17-2012, 07:54
Romney will win my state anyway. I'm unsure of my vote.

KalashniKEV
10-17-2012, 07:55
I'm sorry. As much as I would like a third party to win. It will not be happening any time soon.

But, voting that way could ruin our only chance to get the Big O out.

It sucks. But, it rings true to me.

There have been numerous threads on this as of late.

The take away is:

1) The Republican Party's platform on social issues is alienating a lot of potential voters.

2) Obama's failure has lost him a lot of the supporters he had last time, but they are not ready to go Republican on him.

3) The Third Party vote will likely be stronger in this election than ever before.

4) The total # of third party votes will likely exceed the margin between the candidates- this is going to be a close race (I think).

5) Can you say all those votes would go one way or the other? (Nope.)

hamster
10-17-2012, 07:58
I'm sorry. As much as I would like a third party to win. It will not be happening any time soon.

But, voting that way could ruin our only chance to get the Big O out.

It sucks. But, it rings true to me.

With the exception of Ross Perot, no third party candidates have had a significant percentage of the vote in recent history.

If the GOP can't muster a candidate who can withstand "losing" the .01% of the vote to a 3rd party then it isn't the fault of the 3rd party.

If Romney loses, the blame rests squarely on the GOP, their platform and their candidate.

686Owner
10-17-2012, 08:04
There have been numerous threads on this as of late.

The take away is:

1) The Republican Party's platform on social issues is alienating a lot of potential voters.

2) Obama's failure has lost him a lot of the supporters he had last time, but they are not ready to go Republican on him.

3) The Third Party vote will likely be stronger in this election than ever before.

4) The total # of third party votes will likely exceed the margin between the candidates- this is going to be a close race (I think).

5) Can you say all those votes would go one way or the other? (Nope.)

No way will Ross Perot be beat this year.

686Owner
10-17-2012, 08:05
Why is it assumed anyone voting for a 3rd party candidate would be voting republican anyway?

Little Joe
10-17-2012, 08:12
I don't see anywhere near the same ground swell there was with Ross Perot.

Diesel McBadass
10-17-2012, 08:23
If third parties got good candidates they may get votes, but they usually suck.

KalashniKEV
10-17-2012, 08:31
I don't see anywhere near the same ground swell there was with Ross Perot.

That's true, I just slapped myself.

Hailstorm
10-17-2012, 08:34
Well, at least I am not alone in my thinking. I have voted third party before. Twice. But, after seeing the numbers. All I can think is. I wasted my vote on someone who has no chance.

As much as I would like to think, at least it made a statement. The people charge couldn't care less about the statement made.

686Owner
10-17-2012, 08:55
If third parties got good candidates they may get votes, but they usually suck.

So do the candidates of the two major parties usually, but they still get plenty of votes.

Eurodriver
10-17-2012, 09:01
I don't see anywhere near the same ground swell there was with Ross Perot.

Even still - it wouldn't matter.

Dole wouldn't have won in 96 even if he got every single vote that was given to Ross Perot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

Little Joe
10-17-2012, 09:11
Even still - it wouldn't matter.

Dole wouldn't have won in 96 even if he got every single vote that was given to Ross Perot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

1992 was the year Perot split the vote and gave us Clinton. It did matter then. That is what most people are referencing when they talk about Perot splitting the vote.

eruby
10-17-2012, 09:19
Even still - it wouldn't matter.

Dole wouldn't have won in 96 even if he got every single vote that was given to Ross Perot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

1992 was the year Perot split the vote and gave us Clinton. It did matter then. That is what most people are referencing when they talk about Perot splitting the vote.Little Joe is exactly right.

Hopefully we won't be saying "Ron Paul (or Johnson, etc) gave us Obama II" like we said "Perot gave us Clinton".

Eurodriver
10-17-2012, 09:20
1992 was the year Perot split the vote and gave us Clinton. It did matter then. That is what most people are referencing when they talk about Perot splitting the vote.

Ahh, yes. My mistake.

But what I really don't understand is why everyone thinks that Ross Perot voters would automatically be Republicans?

captainstormy
10-17-2012, 09:29
I'm with ya OP. I certainly don't like Romney, but I like Obama less. I was going to vote third party, but I know I may as well not even show up if I do that.

I wouldn't describe myself as a republician I. The first place really. I agree with them finacially speaking, but find myself disagreeing with alot of their social stances.

I Gotta say I never really understood how people could be undecided for so long into an election season, but I didn't make up my mind to vote for Romney instead of a third party until last night.

The AWB conversation changed my mind. Althou I don't trust Romney, Hopefully he dosent flip flop on that a few years down the road.

If I lived in a state that was going to go to Romney anyway I would vote third party. I think it would be good for our nation to take third parties seriously. Which wont happen until their poll numbers get up there. Since I live in Ohio though, this isn't the year to make a statement.

amazon
10-17-2012, 09:30
I hope that's not the case. I see a lot of folks say they just assume have the country fall off the cliff, so they'll vote 3rd party. I guess I haven't given up and am not ready to speed things up.

Could we have a better candidate? absolutely. But I still only see TWO choices, not three. But for many, there's either not voting, or voting their conscience. I don't hold it against them. I just hope we don't have Obama for 4 more years as a result.

hamster
10-17-2012, 09:33
I'm with you. Despite the fact that I abhor voting for the guy who personally signed the AWB and invented Obamacare, I will have to after the comments Obama made re: AWB. I guess I'll need to take the risk that for once in his life Romney won't flip/flip.

Had Obama kept his mouth shut re: AWB I'd probably have voted Libertarian again as I always do. But this time it is just too close and I like my AWs to much.


I'm with ya OP. I certainly don't like Romney, but I like Obama less. I was going to vote third party, but I know I may as well not even show up if I do that.

I wouldn't describe myself as a republician I. The first place really. I agree with them finacially speaking, but find myself disagreeing with alot of their social stances.

I Gotta say I never really understood how people could be undecided for so long into an election season, but I didn't make up my mind to vote for Romney instead of a third party until last night.

The AWB conversation changed my mind. Althou I don't trust Romney, Hopefully he dosent flip flop on that a few years down the road.

If I lived in a state that was going to go to Romney anyway I would vote third party. I think it would be good for our nation to take third parties seriously. Which wont happen until their poll numbers get up there. Since I live in Ohio though, this isn't the year to make a statement.

Hailstorm
10-17-2012, 09:37
1992, I voted for Ross. I'm all ears.

hpracing007
10-17-2012, 09:43
I think ya'll should be more worried about the people who don't show up who might "ruin it".

Hailstorm
10-17-2012, 10:22
Oh, you mean the dead ones. Gotcha:faint:

NIB
10-17-2012, 10:36
I think ya'll should be more worried about the people who don't show up who might "ruin it".

I shake my head at the "Republicans" who don't vote because they think the candidate is not Conservative enough for them.

W420Hunter
10-17-2012, 11:07
With the exception of Ross Perot, no third party candidates have had a significant percentage of the vote in recent history.

If the GOP can't muster a candidate who can withstand "loosing" the .01% of the vote to a 3rd party then it isn't the fault of the 3rd party.

If Romney loses, the blame rests squarely on the GOP, their platform and their candidate.

And Ross Perot has tossed his hat in for Romney.

Glock30Eric
10-17-2012, 11:32
I do and I am hoping that will happen. I am sick of people saying that we HAVE to vote D or R or the world is over (like most of you guys did to me with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson).

We need to put the mentality of D or R to an end, so the third, fourth, fifth parties could rise to bring a better America.

Slug71
10-17-2012, 11:53
Romney placed NO WHERE in the run for 2008 candidate. Why on earth did the Republicans vote for a guy that came no where before??
The Republican voters screwed up. Voted in a completely incompetent candidate and now want to blame all the third party voters that saw what was happening.

What a joke. :rolleyes:

427
10-17-2012, 13:01
Third parties:

They don't win elections.

Both sides know they are spoilers. Remember the Dems trying to keep Nader out of the race? Nader had to sue.

Third parties, if elected, will caucus with one if the two major parties.

dwhite53
10-17-2012, 18:47
I vote Libertarian whenever there is a candidate represented. I believe in their message. Barbara Howe is running for Governor here this year and she's getting my vote.

I know I'm not going to win but, it makes a point I believe when every year a few more people see the light and vote Libertarian.

This year however I'll vote Romney. The "O" must go. If I voted Libertarian and the "O" won I would never forgive myself.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326

What else will he be "more flexible" on?


All the Best,
D. White

Bren
10-17-2012, 19:14
I predict an insignificant third party vote, because they have no candidates. The only chance is conservative people trying to "send a message" to the republicans by helping Obama win. I'm more worried about [potential Republicans staying home - the effect is the same whether they stay home or vote third party.

dango
10-17-2012, 19:37
Nothing from nothing is nothing................!

TOUS and DINKY.......2012......!! :supergrin:

tantrix
10-17-2012, 19:52
I do and I am hoping that will happen. I am sick of people saying that we HAVE to vote D or R or the world is over (like most of you guys did to me with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson).

We need to put the mentality of D or R to an end, so the third, fourth, fifth parties could rise to bring a better America.

Same.



I am voting Gary Johnson.

I am almost positive that Obama will get a 2nd term.

I will still sleep well at night.



I am sick and tired of the perpetual pissing match between the Republicans and the Democrats, because it's stupid. They are practically the same party now.

gjk5
10-17-2012, 20:05
I do and I am hoping that will happen. I am sick of people saying that we HAVE to vote D or R or the world is over (like most of you guys did to me with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson).

We need to put the mentality of D or R to an end, so the third, fourth, fifth parties could rise to bring a better America.

unless Dr. Paul is running as an R though right?:upeyes:

That's what irks me the most, you can't have it both ways.

robrides85
10-17-2012, 21:22
There have been numerous threads on this as of late.

The take away is:

1) The Republican Party's platform on social issues is alienating a lot of potential voters.

2) Obama's failure has lost him a lot of the supporters he had last time, but they are not ready to go Republican on him.

3) The Third Party vote will likely be stronger in this election than ever before.

4) The total # of third party votes will likely exceed the margin between the candidates- this is going to be a close race (I think).

5) Can you say all those votes would go one way or the other? (Nope.)

Good post, and good thread.

Fiery Red XIII
10-17-2012, 21:33
unless Dr. Paul is running as an R though right?:upeyes:

That's what irks me the most, you can't have it both ways.

Agreed. When I say Paul is a sellout for running as an R then changing when he loses, the Paul supporters say he has to run as an R to get himself recognized.

Red

frank4570
10-17-2012, 21:39
1) The Republican Party's platform on social issues is alienating a lot of potential voters.



The republican party has become the party of religious zealots. I came very close to voting against republicans after I read their actual platform.

"The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage."
Religious freaks. :puking:

gjk5
10-17-2012, 22:24
The republican party has become the party of religious zealots. I came very close to voting against republicans after I read their actual platform.

"The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage."
Religious freaks. :puking:

Rationally stating their opinion without one mention of religion makes you want to puke?

frank4570
10-17-2012, 22:38
Rationally stating their opinion without one mention of religion makes you want to puke?

Institution of marriage??? Seriously????? That IS CHRISTIANITY.

Govt. should stat the **** out of peoples private lives. If I want to sleep with 5 wives or 3 guys is not the concern of the U.S. govt. They can stay the **** out of my moral decisions.

Travclem
10-18-2012, 10:36
I believe the third party is the reason we got Obummer in the first place.

tantrix
10-18-2012, 11:02
Agreed. When I say Paul is a sellout for running as an R then changing when he loses, the Paul supporters say he has to run as an R to get himself recognized.

Red


Paul was running as a Republican because most voters are idiots and usually vote the party line.

frank4570
10-18-2012, 11:14
I totally believe it. Don't think it will keep romney from winning, but a vote for Obama or 3rd party is still a vote for Obama no matter how you cut it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Yep. When you hit the enter button on the voting machine it takes your third party vote and moves it over to the obama category.

tantrix
10-18-2012, 11:18
Yep. When you hit the enter button on the voting machine it takes your third party vote and moves it over to the obama category.

Of course, you didn't know that??

:rofl:

shnifty
10-18-2012, 11:19
Paul was running as a Republican because most voters are idiots and usually vote the party line.

This exactly. Even people who claim to be politically inteligent usually end up just being a good soldier for their party who doesn't even have interest in facts about the issues.

Hailstorm
10-18-2012, 11:21
At this point. I am voting for Mitt. I don't care if he is Morman or Satanist. At least he is not a socialist.

Otherwise, we are gonna have the Oboma youth coming around to gather us up. You know, because we are trouble makers and terrorists. ( In Their Eyes)

tantrix
10-18-2012, 11:26
This exactly. Even people who claim to be politically inteligent usually end up just being a good soldier for their party who doesn't even have interest in facts about the issues.

Usually. And that's also exactly how we ended up with Obama in office. First McCain, then Romney?? :rofl:

GOP = fail.

stevelyn
10-18-2012, 11:36
Little Joe is exactly right.

Hopefully we won't be saying "Ron Paul (or Johnson, etc) gave us Obama II" like we said "Perot gave us Clinton".


I doubt that will happen in any election, now or in the foreseeable future.

In 1992 the two-party candidates sucked and a charismatic Perot was basically drafted into the presidential campaign by popular sentiment.

The problem is that the election was Perot's to win or lose, but he didn't really want the office. He just enjoyed the attention he was getting and kinda played around the edges. Had he campaigned harder and took it seriously he would have won.

IMO, he basically pissed away the trust and faith that so many of us had in him and handed the election to that PoS Klintoon whom it's apparent no one from either party really wanted when you add up the votes between Perot and Bush I.

frank4570
10-18-2012, 11:37
Usually. And that's also exactly how we ended up with Obama in office. First McCain, then Romney?? :rofl:

GOP = fail.

Maybe I'll just vote against christian morality laws, and against the morality war on drugs. I might also vote against the unconstitutional Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind which actually is destroying our education system.

stevelyn
10-18-2012, 13:18
The republican party has become the party of religious zealots. I came very close to voting against republicans after I read their actual platform.




I agree. I've said for quite awhile now that the republican party became infected with the "Falwell Virus" back in the late 70s and early 80s and needs to be purged.

SVTNate
10-18-2012, 13:25
I already voted via mail-in, and I didn't vote for Romney or Obama.

If the Republicans would run a fiscally conservative, pro-gun candidate who would actually spend less money and lower taxes, while decreasing military and financial support worldwide, and leave God off the platform, I'd consider that person.

The way I see it, Republicans and Democrats are largely the same. Big government, pro state, pro war, give Israel anything it wants, bomb the brown people, overtax, overspend. From my point of view, my life doesn't get any better whether Obama or Romney wins the election - so there is nothing to "ruin" by voting for a 3rd party.

Nobody should apologize for voting for the candidate they think is the best person for the job, rather than voting for the person they hate less than the other popular idiot. I know I won't!

Bren
10-18-2012, 13:26
Maybe I'll just vote against christian morality laws, and against the morality war on drugs. I might also vote against the unconstitutional Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind which actually is destroying our education system.

And you are going to do that in a presidential election, rather than a congressional election?:rofl: Good plan.

tantrix
10-18-2012, 14:05
I already voted via mail-in, and I didn't vote for Romney or Obama.

Smart man. :thumbsup:


If the Republicans would run a fiscally conservative, pro-gun candidate who would actually spend less money and lower taxes, while decreasing military and financial support worldwide, and leave God off the platform, I'd consider that person.

You'd have better luck seeing the Republicans put up a unicorn as a candidate. :rofl:


The way I see it, Republicans and Democrats are largely the same. Big government, pro state, pro war, give Israel anything it wants, bomb the brown people, overtax, overspend. From my point of view, my life doesn't get any better whether Obama or Romney wins the election - so there is nothing to "ruin" by voting for a 3rd party.

That's exactly what Romney is...the other side of the same coin. I'm sick of the GOP making me look stupid for voting for them. The Republican party will be lucky if they ever see another vote from me.



Nobody should apologize for voting for the candidate they think is the best person for the job, rather than voting for the person they hate less than the other popular idiot. I know I won't!

Herd mentality is still alive and well. If people aren't voting R or D, they feel like they don't 'belong'.

hamster
10-18-2012, 14:20
Before Obama, George Bush outspent every other president in the history of this nation. I have no illusions that Romney will be any different. The two parties are agreed on taking as much of your money by force and spending it all.

What they disagree on is which group of cronies to spend it on, and if they prefer taking your money via taxation (democrats) or inflation (republicans).

gjk5
10-18-2012, 14:25
Maybe I'll just vote against christian morality laws, and against the morality war on drugs. I might also vote against the unconstitutional Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind which actually is destroying our education system.

or just save yourself some time and mental gymnastics and vote for Obama.

frank4570
10-18-2012, 14:28
And you are going to do that in a presidential election, rather than a congressional election?:rofl: Good plan.

Nah, I'm just making a point. I'll be voting to get rid of obama. But the republicans have moved so far away from my conservative beliefs that I am very, very close to seeing them as just as bad as democrats.
In another 20 years the republicans will also be pushing gun control. In addition to taxing us to enforce morality laws.

tantrix
10-18-2012, 14:41
or just save yourself some time and mental gymnastics and vote for Obama.

Or, save yourself the trouble and vote Romney.


http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/528/a3b/4e3/resized/creepy-willy-wonka-meme-generator-tell-me-again-how-voting-for-romney-or-obama-will-change-anything-at-all-6180ab.jpg#fascist%20romney%20510x507

RonS
10-18-2012, 15:54
We don't need a third party. We need two new first parties.

DoubleWide
10-18-2012, 16:53
Voting Republican or Democrat got you these candidates.

Acujeff
10-18-2012, 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 several months now. Do we vote for the man or the party?

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 pro-2A platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.

tantrix
10-19-2012, 00:52
As Gov of NM for 8 years, Johnson achieved absolutely no pro-2A progress.

Stop right there.

Now, tell us what "pro-2A progress" Romney achieved. :whistling:

HerrGlock
10-19-2012, 04:53
Perot isn't the only spoiler.

Had even most of the votes for Ralph Nader gone for the Dems, Gore would have been president in 2000.

kenpoprofessor
10-19-2012, 06:00
Same.



I am voting Gary Johnson.

I am almost positive that Obama will get a 2nd term.

I will still sleep well at night.



I am sick and tired of the perpetual pissing match between the Republicans and the Democrats, because it's stupid. They are practically the same party now.

Double Ditto

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

686Owner
10-19-2012, 06:23
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 several months now. Do we vote for the man or the party?

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 pro-2A platform and record are much more preferable to gun owners, and our kids, than the "let's let Obama send the USA to hell to teach Republicans a lesson" platform of the GT Libertarian strategists.

Libertarians don't necessarily care more about the 2nd amendment than any other issue.

Acujeff
10-19-2012, 08:37
Stop right there.

Now, tell us what "pro-2A progress" Romney achieved. :whistling:

Romney has already been politically tested on the RKBA while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.

Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a 85% Democratic anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/10/02/g...#ixzz28AyBR021

Now, tell us Tantrix, what "pro-2A progress" has Johnson achieved?

686Owner
10-19-2012, 08:45
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm

tantrix
10-19-2012, 09:26
Romney has already been politically tested on the RKBA while he was Gov. of MA 2002-2006.

Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a 85% Democratic anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

Romney‘s entire record:
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
http://www.ammoland.com/2012/10/02/g...#ixzz28AyBR021

Now, tell us Tantrix, what "pro-2A progress" has Johnson achieved?



There's one thing you're right about...Romney has definitely been "tested". :upeyes:


1994: backed 5-day waiting period on gun sales. (Jan 2012)
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups. (Jan 2012)
2002: I will not chip away at MA's tough gun laws. (Nov 2011)
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
2002: My positions won't make me the hero of the NRA. (Nov 2008)
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)

Acujeff
10-19-2012, 09:55
There's one thing you're right about...Romney has definitely been "tested". :upeyes:


1994: backed 5-day waiting period on gun sales. (Jan 2012)
Find common ground with pro-gun & anti-gun groups. (Jan 2012)
2002: I will not chip away at MA's tough gun laws. (Nov 2011)
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints". (Jan 2010)
2002: My positions won't make me the hero of the NRA. (Nov 2008)
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”. (Feb 2008)
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ban. (Jan 2008)
I support the work of the NRA, but disagree sometimes. (Dec 2007)
Ok to ban lethal weapons that threaten police. (Dec 2007)
Compromise MA gun bills were net gain for gun owner. (Aug 2007)
Supports Second Amendment rights but also assault weapon ban. (May 2007)
Will support assault weapons bill and Brady Bill. (Aug 1994)


The same statements the Obama supporters keep replaying would be a concern if Romney actually banned guns, signed anti-2A bills into law, increased gun control or just even left the same amount of gun control in effect while Gov of MA. It was certainly politically expedient for Romney to be anti-2A but all his actions, bills and laws show the opposite.

Tantrix, did you even read the documentation I posted. Did you research the laws and bills Romney signed?

Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a veto-proof majority anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

The GOAL record also discusses Romney's statements that pandered to the gun control crowd and it is reasonable to ask - Why did he make them? What purpose did it serve?

It was the only way to get the MA legislature (85% strictly anti-2A) to actually politically cooperate with Romney and GOAL's pro-2A agenda. His pro-2A position had to be "under the radar".

So did Romney say one thing and do another? To protect the RKBA - absolutely. That's politics in MA. Would he do the same thing as President? If he was facing a majority anti-2A congress - absolutely. Would he reveal his strategy to the gun control crowd? - absolutely not. What if he was facing a pro-2A congress or minority anti-2A congress? - he wouldn't have to use this strategy - he would just be straight out pro-2A.

How do we know all this for certain? By his record. What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done.

Bush made the same kind of statements and achieved similar pro-2A success. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with a majority of obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

Tantrix understands "under the radar" because that's been Obama's anti-2A agenda. Obama makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A. Tantrix has made it abudently clear - on all the threads he has posted - he's OK with Obama's attacks on the RKBA. He's only "outraged" at Romney's pro-2A record. So we know Tantrix is a hypocrite and not looking out for the interests of gun owners.

If you analyze Obama's record, positions and platform - it's all anti-2A. When it comes to the RKBA - Democrats are the problem. The solution is to get rid of them. We can't in MA but we can in the US congress and presidency in 2012.

Notice Tantrix has still not answered the original question - what "pro-2A progress" has Johnson achieved?

My point is Johnson did nothing for the RKBA as Gov of NM and it demonstrates that gun owners cannot expect from him any relief from oppressive gun control or any 2A progress. How do we know? From his record.

How is voting for Johnson good for gun owners?

tantrix
10-19-2012, 11:12
So we know Tantrix is a hypocrite and not looking out for the interests of gun owners.


Ok, looks like you've got me all figured out. You're saying I'm not looking out for the interests of gun owners, but you think Romney is pro-2A?? :rofl:



Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a veto-proof majority anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.


Well, if you seriously believe all that then there's no hope for you because you've clearly already bought everything he's selling. Good luck with your gun-loving boy Romney.

holesinpaper
10-19-2012, 11:41
How do you ruin something that has already been ruined?

Acujeff
10-19-2012, 12:08
Ok, looks like you've got me all figured out. You're saying I'm not looking out for the interests of gun owners, but you think Romney is pro-2A?? :rofl:


I've already provided links to all the documentation that Romney's record, platform and positions are completely pro-2A. You have not shown any documentation that proves otherwise. Statements don't amount to a position, a record does.

As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. You are reinforcing that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that Obama is the only real threat to gun owners.

Diesel McBadass
10-19-2012, 12:31
We need to get a republican to go under cover as a left wing green type to siphon democratic voters, get obamas numbers down farther, then after romney wins announce he was the greatest political troll ever :)

tantrix
10-19-2012, 15:07
As far as I am concerned you are desperately and purposely trying to scam gun owners to give Obama a 2nd term. You are reinforcing that covering up Obama's awful record and misrepresenting Romney's record is the only strategy of the Obama campaign, that you cannot defend Obama anti-2A record and that Obama is the only real threat to gun owners.

I don't care how far concerned you are, the fact is...Obama is going to get his 2nd term, because the GOP put up a lousy-ass candidate. It doesn't matter if you feel for his BS or not, that doesn't make him any more than what he was when he LOST the 1st time.

But it doesn't matter, you have the right to vote for anybody you want...it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Acujeff
10-19-2012, 18:46
I don't care how far concerned you are, the fact is...Obama is going to get his 2nd term, because the GOP put up a lousy-ass candidate. It doesn't matter if you feel for his BS or not, that doesn't make him any more than what he was when he LOST the 1st time.

But it doesn't matter, you have the right to vote for anybody you want...it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

Obama and the Democrats are the only party campaigning for more gun control.

Here is Obama in his own words from the second Presidential Debate Tuesday night:

... weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

So there it is. Obama has at long last told you his plans for a second term. And not only is the President saying this, the Democratic Platform says clearly that they want more gun control:

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements - like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole - so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

If you weren't sure before, you are now. An Obama win will provide 4 years of more oppressive gun control. Even without legislation and congressional authority Obama has shown he freely uses executive orders and regulations to institute his agenda. It won’t be just rifles and large cap magazines but he’ll also target handguns - that just about covers it all.

That means more regulations and executive orders governing every aspect of gun and ammo ownership and commerce, lots more proposed gun control legislation and anti-gun judges and up to four more anti-gun Supreme Court justices. One more gives the anti-2A Justices a majority and we‘ll never see a pro-2A decision again in our lifetime and previous decisions can be overruled or reversed. Obama and the Democrats are not only campaigning on making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, but also making guns “childproof”, banning private gun transfers and sales, and regulating ammo purchases.

If that’s OK with you vote for Obama. Or split your vote for a third party which improves the chances Obama will be re-elected. But if it’s not OK - vote for Romney/Ryan and Republican legislators and let’s get rid of the democrats.

tantrix
10-19-2012, 19:03
If that’s OK with you vote for Obama. Or split your vote for a third party which improves the chances Obama will be re-elected. But if it’s not OK - vote for Romney/Ryan and Republican legislators and let’s get rid of the democrats.


If Obama gets re-elected, so be it. Maybe in 2016 the GOP will put somebody worth a damn. In the meantime, I'm not going to be strong-armed into voting for a RINO when there's better men for the job.

jeager
10-19-2012, 19:13
Perot isn't the only spoiler.

Had even most of the votes for Ralph Nader gone for the Dems, Gore would have been president in 2000.

Ralph ruined it for Gore

Remember the interview when Obama was declared winner?

"Will he be an:
Uncle Sam for the People
... or ...
Uncle Tom to the Corporations"

that was the last time we heard from Nader.

Little Joe
10-19-2012, 19:19
If Obama gets re-elected, so be it. Maybe in 2016 the GOP will put somebody worth a damn. In the meantime, I'm not going to be strong-armed into voting for a RINO when there's better men for the job.

Does who gets to pick the Supreme Court vacancies for the next 4 years matter to you?

Bilbo Bagins
10-19-2012, 19:52
The same statements the Obama supporters keep replaying would be a concern if Romney actually banned guns, signed anti-2A bills into law, increased gun control or just even left the same amount of gun control in effect while Gov of MA. It was certainly politically expedient for Romney to be anti-2A but all his actions, bills and laws show the opposite.

Tantrix, did you even read the documentation I posted. Did you research the laws and bills Romney signed?

Romney's record clearly shows, in the face of a veto-proof majority anti-2A congress, he only reduced gun control, removed gun control from bills or signed pro-2A bills.

The GOAL record also discusses Romney's statements that pandered to the gun control crowd and it is reasonable to ask - Why did he make them? What purpose did it serve?

It was the only way to get the MA legislature (85% strictly anti-2A) to actually politically cooperate with Romney and GOAL's pro-2A agenda. His pro-2A position had to be "under the radar".

So did Romney say one thing and do another? To protect the RKBA - absolutely. That's politics in MA. Would he do the same thing as President? If he was facing a majority anti-2A congress - absolutely. Would he reveal his strategy to the gun control crowd? - absolutely not. What if he was facing a pro-2A congress or minority anti-2A congress? - he wouldn't have to use this strategy - he would just be straight out pro-2A.

How do we know all this for certain? By his record. What politicians do is more important, and revealing, than what they need to say to get it done.

Bush made the same kind of statements and achieved similar pro-2A success. It's the only pro-2A strategy that works when dealing with a majority of obstructionist anti-2A legislators.

Tantrix understands "under the radar" because that's been Obama's anti-2A agenda. Obama makes pro-2A statements but all his actions are anti-2A. Tantrix has made it abudently clear - on all the threads he has posted - he's OK with Obama's attacks on the RKBA. He's only "outraged" at Romney's pro-2A record. So we know Tantrix is a hypocrite and not looking out for the interests of gun owners.

If you analyze Obama's record, positions and platform - it's all anti-2A. When it comes to the RKBA - Democrats are the problem. The solution is to get rid of them. We can't in MA but we can in the US congress and presidency in 2012.

Notice Tantrix has still not answered the original question - what "pro-2A progress" has Johnson achieved?

My point is Johnson did nothing for the RKBA as Gov of NM and it demonstrates that gun owners cannot expect from him any relief from oppressive gun control or any 2A progress. How do we know? From his record.

How is voting for Johnson good for gun owners?

+1 I'm a registered libertarian, and Gary Johnson SUCKS.

Ohh I'm not voting Democrat or Republican I'm going to vote 3rd Party ..... because I'm Smart :rofl:

So your choices is Libertarian
Gray Johnson, who was a Republican governor for 8 years and ran as a Republican presidential candidate in 2011, but after getting snubbed, he jumped ship and became a Libertarian. The Libertarian presidential candidate has been a libertarian one whole year.

The libertarian party is like a ugly fat chick that is horny, she will take any warm body that wants in.

Waboom!!
10-20-2012, 13:35
I'm sorry. As much as I would like a third party to win. It will not be happening any time soon.

But, voting that way could ruin our only chance to get the Big O out.

It sucks. But, it rings true to me.^ ^ ^ Speaks the truth

Snaps
10-20-2012, 13:53
Don't believe either of the two are a good choice for president. There is a 3rd party though I believe would be exactly what America needs.

tslex
10-20-2012, 15:02
Voting for a third party candidate is not about this election. No 3d party candidate thinks they are going to win. No one voting for them thinks they are going to win.

The idea(s) is/are:

1. Voting for the lesser of two evils "this time" means never impacting the two-party system in a way that gets you beyond having to do that every election. And/or

2. You consider voting a matter of conscience and are unwilling to sell out your conscience.

#garyjohnson

thetoastmaster
10-20-2012, 15:58
Republicans keep telling me that this election is the "most important". Maybe it is, until the next election. They keep spewing off that if we don't all back Romney, we're screwed. Except I think we're screwed with Romney, too.

Sure, no third party candidate has a hope of winning. It just doesn't matter to me. See, I am against many of the points upon which the two other candidates agree, things like deficit spending and raising the debt ceiling, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the so-called war on drugs. I can't support that is good conscience.

The GOP can taunt me all they want; but it doesn't matter. I already voted.

Kevin108
10-20-2012, 16:29
Just to play devil's advocate, if you're voting for Romney, why aren't you voting 3rd party instead? Except for the religious right or those big R Republicans, most likely the Libertarian or Constitutional candidate is more in line with your views.

Same for the Democrats. Don't you think the Green party or Communist party is more you?

thetoastmaster
10-20-2012, 16:39
That's how I feel about it.

One, I am not a Republican, anyway. I am not a member of the party; and it doesn't own my vote. Two, the GOP can't assume that I would vote for Romney, if there was no LP or CP candidate. Likely I would leave that spot on the ballot blank (as I have in local races with only a GOP and Democrat candidate). Three, my political views are more in line with the LP than the GOP.

So, if I voted for Jill Stein, would that take a vote away from Obama?

It's an absurd argument. Vote for who you like, not against another candidate.

tantrix
10-20-2012, 21:02
Two, the GOP can't assume that I would vote for Romney

Stay on GT long enough, and you'll see that the GOP thinks exactly that.

Little Joe
10-20-2012, 21:10
Stay on GT long enough, and you'll see that the GOP thinks exactly that.

Does who gets to pick the Supreme Court vacancies for the next 4 years matter to you?

zoyter2
10-20-2012, 21:25
I do and I am hoping that will happen. I am sick of people saying that we HAVE to vote D or R or the world is over (like most of you guys did to me with Ron Paul or Gary Johnson).

We need to put the mentality of D or R to an end, so the third, fourth, fifth parties could rise to bring a better America.

NO. YOU'RE WRONG. We must continue to accept the pitiful candidates that win the approval of the political brothel we call Dems/Repubs.

Just look at the wonderful candidates these two groups of professional prostitutes have given us. Like Romney...the guy who was a liberal last election, an enemy of the 2nd amendment, too much of a RINO to be useful. Four years later, he is the great hope of conservatives everywhere.

And Obama! HOPE and CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics take otherwise wise and discriminating Americans and turn them into blithering, blind sheep who mindless toe whichever party line best suits their ideas, fully knowing the all politicians are liars and ALL political parties care only for the power votes bring and not one damn bit for the humans pulling the levers.

Yeah, that's me. Stupid, cynical, unhealthy and just a little weird. :rofl::rofl:

KYJoe
10-20-2012, 21:25
Same.



I am voting Gary Johnson.

I am almost positive that Obama will get a 2nd term.

I will still sleep well at night.



I am sick and tired of the perpetual pissing match between the Republicans and the Democrats, because it's stupid. They are practically the same party now.
Amen. Why cannot more people see this?

KYJoe
10-20-2012, 21:29
If the Republicans would run a fiscally conservative, pro-gun candidate who would actually spend less money and lower taxes, while decreasing military and financial support worldwide, and leave God off the platform, I'd consider that person.

The way I see it, Republicans and Democrats are largely the same. Big government, pro state, pro war, give Israel anything it wants, bomb the brown people, overtax, overspend. From my point of view, my life doesn't get any better whether Obama or Romney wins the election - so there is nothing to "ruin" by voting for a 3rd party.

Nobody should apologize for voting for the candidate they think is the best person for the job, rather than voting for the person they hate less than the other popular idiot. I know I won't!

Speak on it!

tantrix
10-20-2012, 22:05
Does who gets to pick the Supreme Court vacancies for the next 4 years matter to you?

If you think Romney is the savior when it comes to SCOTUS...

:rofl:

zoyter2
10-21-2012, 10:19
If you think Romney is the savior when it comes to SCOTUS...

:rofl:

Awesome. Only one correction. When I see how the conservative voters flock to back this "Republican" that they fought so hard to defeat in the primaries last election, I realize that we are full of "walking dead" voters.

I would change from :rofl: to :crying:

Little Joe
10-21-2012, 10:28
If you think Romney is the savior when it comes to SCOTUS...

:rofl:

I never said he was the savior of the SCOTUS. We've already seen what Obama gave us in the wise latina Sotomayor and Kagan. I would rather give Romney a chance at it. It's only going to be one of those two who are going to impact the SCOTUS and our liberties.

I wonder if 3rd partiers are hoping for a crash and burn reset.

zoyter2
10-21-2012, 10:37
.............
I wonder if 3rd partiers are hoping for a crash and burn reset.

Can you see another option that is REALISTICALLY going to change the political problems of our two party system?

God almighty knows, if there is a viable option for change, it will have NOTHING to do with either group of professional vote whores promoting someone with AMERICA'S interests in mind.

I don't want a crash and burn, but I am not retarded enough to think Romney/Repubs or Obama/Dems are going to be anything more than two different ways to continue the destruction of the US.

Little Joe
10-21-2012, 11:07
Can you see another option that is REALISTICALLY going to change the political problems of our two party system?

God almighty knows, if there is a viable option for change, it will have NOTHING to do with either group of professional vote whores promoting someone with AMERICA'S interests in mind.

I don't want a crash and burn, but I am not retarded enough to think Romney/Repubs or Obama/Dems are going to be anything more than two different ways to continue the destruction of the US.

Yes I can. A Republican filibuster proof majority. That is the only path away from the Democrats version of nanny state socialism.

thetoastmaster
10-21-2012, 11:51
Yes I can. A Republican filibuster proof majority. That is the only path away from the Democrats version of nanny state socialism.

Will said filibuster-proof legislature stop itself from further raising the debt ceiling and glutting itself on borrowed money right into that hard reset we so wish to avoid?

If past behavior is indicative of future performance, I would say no. Republicans have no problem with profligate spending when they are in control, and have a GOP president.

Little Joe
10-21-2012, 12:02
Will said filibuster-proof legislature stop itself from further raising the debt ceiling and glutting itself on borrowed money right into that hard reset we so wish to avoid?

If past behavior is indicative of future performance, I would say no. Republicans have no problem with profligate spending when they are in control, and have a GOP president.

Yes, but the conditions are different, and they now see the catastrophe on the horizon. Growth averts that catastrophe and Romney is the only candidate who will get government off the back of business who makes that growth happen. We need to give that a shot.

A filibuster proof majority can at least let something other than gridlock happen.

Little Joe
10-21-2012, 12:10
Maybe a reset can be averted with shared sacrifice. Romney has more balls to do what needs being done in that regard than Obama. Give the man a chance. Obama has been a dismal failure. Not surprise since he had no experience coming in. It only get worse with Obama. The choice is clear and we have to deal with the here and now. There is no 3rd viable option now.

robrides85
10-25-2012, 15:34
Again, no reason for me to vote for anyone other than Gary Johnson. The filibuster-proof congress takes any possible worries re: SCOTUS! :rofl:

frank4570
10-25-2012, 17:39
Maybe a reset can be averted with shared sacrifice. Romney has more balls to do what needs being done in that regard than Obama. Give the man a chance. Obama has been a dismal failure. Not surprise since he had no experience coming in. It only get worse with Obama. The choice is clear and we have to deal with the here and now. There is no 3rd viable option now.

I actually think there is good reason to believe romney could actually make things worse. It's hard to say what he actually wants or believes since he lies most of the time.

geofri
10-25-2012, 17:39
Same.



I am voting Gary Johnson.

I am almost positive that Obama will get a 2nd term.

I will still sleep well at night.



I am sick and tired of the perpetual pissing match between the Republicans and the Democrats, because it's stupid. They are practically the same party now.

I already thought you were cool before this, but :cheers:

Exactly where I'm at.

geofri
10-25-2012, 17:40
It really is hard to not fall for the "anyone but Obama thing".. but enough is enough.

tantrix
10-25-2012, 17:42
Again, no reason for me to vote for anyone other than Gary Johnson. The filibuster-proof congress takes any possible worries re: SCOTUS! :rofl:

Damn straight.

I'm not selling out to the GOP this time, I did it for years and it got us absolutely nowhere. I'm done with them, the rest of you can do whatever you want.

Glock30Eric
10-25-2012, 18:50
Damn straight.

I'm not selling out to the GOP this time, I did it for years and it got us absolutely nowhere. I'm done with them, the rest of you can do whatever you want.

Same, going to vote Gary Johnson on this Monday.

Travclem
10-25-2012, 18:59
Damn straight.

I'm not selling out to the GOP this time, I did it for years and it got us absolutely nowhere. I'm done with them, the rest of you can do whatever you want.
Guess where that's going to get you.

tantrix
10-25-2012, 19:03
Guess where that's going to get you.

The same place McCain got us in '08?

Oh wait nevermind, that was a wasted vote too...

Travclem
10-25-2012, 19:32
The same place McCain got us in '08?

Oh wait nevermind, that was a wasted vote too...

Do you honestly think Johnson can win? Paul is the reason McCain lost in 08. Voting Johnson will do the same thing in '12.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

tantrix
10-25-2012, 19:56
Do you honestly think Johnson can win? Paul is the reason McCain lost in 08. Voting Johnson will do the same thing in '12.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Paul was the reason McCain lost in '08??? :rofl:

Bob Barr was the Libertarian in '08, and got only .040% of the total..which was more votes than Paul got. Paul wasn't the reason McCain didn't get elected, McCain was the reason he didn't get elected...just like Romney will be the reason Obama gets his 2nd term.

Maybe you shouldn't be voting at all...

thetoastmaster
10-25-2012, 19:58
Do you honestly think Johnson can win? Paul is the reason McCain lost in 08. Voting Johnson will do the same thing in '12.

Ron Paul is most definitely not the reason McCain lost in 2008. John McCain is the reason McCain lost in 2008. Ron Paul wasn't even on the ballot in 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#2008_presidential_campaign

As for spoilers, I find it telling that Reince Priebus called Gary Johnson a "nonfactor". Then the GOP moved to deny the LP ballot access in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Iowa. What is the GOP afraid of that they deny another party ballot access? It smacks of desperation.

To me it's simple. A party that uses force to promote its ideas over another, instead of allowing the ideas to stand on their merits, is not a party with whom I would choose to affiliate myself.

dan1488
10-25-2012, 20:21
Gary Johnson got all the votes in my house (3) of them. Can't stand the R's and D's anymore, and no the third party is not gonna ruin it Mitt is gonna ruin it and yes we will sleep good no matter the outcome cause we voted who we thought was the best candidate.

frank4570
10-25-2012, 21:25
Why can't you people understand that democrats want socialism and republicans want christian socialism??

robrides85
10-25-2012, 22:47
Guess where that's going to get you.

Still ruined by the two main parties. So leave me and my third party vote alone if you won't incorporate what I consider to be some great ideas into the main parties' platforms. Was I planning on voting third party this year? No, I got forced into it because I couldn't trust either of the leading candidates. I had too much hope for Obama, grabbing onto tenuous sound bites that told me what I wanted to hear. I've heard too many of Romney's past sound bites to be able to trust anything he says as well. Gary Johnson gets my vote; perhaps one of the main parties' presidential candidates can earn it back in the future, but it's lost this term.

robrides85
10-25-2012, 22:47
Gary Johnson got all the votes in my house (3) of them. Can't stand the R's and D's anymore, and no the third party is not gonna ruin it Mitt is gonna ruin it and yes we will sleep good no matter the outcome cause we voted who we thought was the best candidate.

2 in my house.:wavey:

Magnus2131
10-26-2012, 00:41
They are all so cute at that libertarian age. Like a 17 year old girl, they want you to think they are wiser than the rest of us.

sheriff733
10-26-2012, 06:19
They are all so cute at that libertarian age. Like a 17 year old girl, they want you to think they are wiser than the rest of us.

I'm not knocking anyone's vote, but it seems that many of the Johnson supporters are mad that they "wasted" their vote for McCain, so now they are going to voluntarily waste it on Johnson?

Like somehow voting for the losing team before has made them bitter so they are going to drive to the polls and stand line to vote just to piss in the wind on purpose. Almost sore loser-ish. But don't worry, that'll sure show those darn republicans. Besides, why vote for someone who has a good chance of getting Obama out of office? You'll take 4 more years of Obama just to prove a point. Nice.

Again, it's your right to vote for whoever, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Good luck, though.

:wavey:


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

eracer
10-26-2012, 06:24
A vote for the third party is a vote for the third party. It is neither a vote for or against Rmoney, nor a vote for or against Obummer.

To believe otherwise is simply retarded.

Still, every vote for Rmoney is a vote against Obummer, and is how this libertarian will vote.

I'll save my stubbornness for the 2016 primaries.

Travclem
10-26-2012, 06:49
Still, every vote for Rmoney is a vote against Obummer, and is how this libertarian will vote.

I'll save my stubbornness for the 2016 primaries.
Good call.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

frank4570
10-26-2012, 07:14
I think the point is that voting for the repub instead of the libertarian was supposed to be a stop gap till the republican party could improve. But the result of those efforts have been that the republican party is getting worse. And Mccain lots to Obama in spite of the libertarians who voted for him.
I voted for mccain and it didn't do any good of any kind, I did indeed waste my vote.

I'm not knocking anyone's vote, but it seems that many of the Johnson supporters are mad that they "wasted" their vote for McCain, so now they are going to voluntarily waste it on Johnson?

Like somehow voting for the losing team before has made them bitter so they are going to drive to the polls and stand line to vote just to piss in the wind on purpose. Almost sore loser-ish. But don't worry, that'll sure show those darn republicans. Besides, why vote for someone who has a good chance of getting Obama out of office? You'll take 4 more years of Obama just to prove a point. Nice.

Again, it's your right to vote for whoever, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

Good luck, though.

:wavey:


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Magnus2131
10-26-2012, 09:57
I thought everyone would learned their lesson after Ross Perot but I guess some still don't get it.

geofri
10-26-2012, 10:14
They are all so cute at that libertarian age. Like a 17 year old girl, they want you to think they are wiser than the rest of us.

Oh come on magnus..

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 10:15
They are all so cute at that libertarian age. Like a 17 year old girl, they want you to think they are wiser than the rest of us.

Age is no indication of wisdom. Just you at you DemoReps ruining the country for decades now.

Little Joe
10-26-2012, 10:31
The 3rd Partiers are just another obstacle to overcome, much like the Democrats. Part and parcel.

robrides85
10-26-2012, 10:47
The 3rd Partiers are just another obstacle to overcome, much like the Democrats. Part and parcel.

Yup. If the third parties swell, it's because the two big parties' tents aren't big enough. Goes for the Dems as well as the Repubs.

Booker
10-26-2012, 11:27
This is what I want: The most personal freedom with the least amount of government possible. Which party represents me?

robrides85
10-26-2012, 11:29
This is what I want: The most personal freedom with the least amount of government possible. Which party represents me?

Not really familiar with the Libertarian Party, but you want the most libertarian candidate possible. This year, that'd be Gary Johnson.

tantrix
10-26-2012, 11:36
This is what I want: The most personal freedom with the least amount of government possible. Which party represents me?

Romney, of course... :rofl:

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 11:54
The 3rd Partiers are just another obstacle to overcome, much like the Democrats. Part and parcel.

The DemoPub is just one big obstacle that we have to overcome. That's OK, we libertarians are like the little engine that could. We'll save America one vote at a time. Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither is the rebuilding of America.

tantrix
10-26-2012, 12:03
The DemoPub is just one big obstacle that we have to overcome. That's OK, we libertarians are like the little engine that could. We'll save America one vote at a time. Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither is the rebuilding of America.


Exactly right.

What probably aggravates me the most is when the GOP blames 3rd party voters for their loss. Yeah, sure it was us...couldn't be the fact that the Republican candidate sucks ass. :upeyes:

randrew379
10-26-2012, 13:49
I made this point in another thread: an article that studied poll data in various states found that Johnson drew voters from both parties; in some states he took more votes from Romney, in others, from Obama. As for the comment about waiting for the GOP to get better, I've been waiting for over fifty years.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:07
Here is a post I made to some very liberal friends... I think it applies here as well.

A bit of irony, people rail against the corporate machine, yet they vote for the puppets controlled by said machine. The third party candidates are marginalized by the corporate machine because they do not control the candidates. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II, Obama... the list goes on. For the last 30+ years you have been told who to vote for and if you do your diligence you will find that it didn't matter which of the two you voted for they were both bought and paid for by big companies.

And this is why we are in the death spiral we see today. Because you the people have been lied to and blinded by bling which has allowed the corporations you rail against to continue to succeed in their endeavors to create the Corporatist States of America. YOU are all to blame because you FAILED to step up and do you due diligence and seek the real truth. YOU listened to sugar coated lies and allowed your FEAR to drive your decision.

Those of us that toe the third party line do so because we see the emperor has no cloths and the man behind the curtain is Corporate America dictating our leaders, how we think, how we feel and what we believe for over 30 years. We see the truth in the candidates we are TOLD have our best interests at heart, we see where their money comes from. When you look at the third party you will find they are driven by justice, honor and the Constitution. The two main parties are driven by lust of power, greed and deceit.

The movie, the Matrix, it has a very powerful message that it contains. If you watch the movie and see the sub-text of the inference then you will understand that you are in the "Matrix" itself and it's not a machine but a way of life, a method of control. It is enslavement. So make your choices but understand that we are all accountable for what we choose in life and the actions we take. Be smart, don't let the corporate teat entice you any longer. Break free of your bondage and see the truth of BOTH candidates and understand that you do have another choice. Anyone that tells you differently is lying to you and part of the scheme to keep you in line with the rest of the sheep.

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:11
Johnson/Paul... the lesser of two evils has only made things worse. To believe that either of the two primary candidates offer any real hope or any real solution is an illusion. Obama has had 4 years to get things under control and he as failed miserably. Poverty is on the rise still, corporate abuse is still happening and the welfare state is growing topped with an unemployment rate that is closer to 12-15% than the reported 8%.

Neither Romney or Obama are good choices for the nation. Gary Johnson has a proven track record and the argument about the rich and the poor is a red herring whose only purpose is to create the class warfare we are seeing today. On the note of class warfare we are also seeing racial tensions at the highest level since the riots in the 1960's.

To top it off Obama and his administration have FAILED to provide a budget! And just about every major promise he made has been broken. The man is a poor choice to lead a nation as is Romney.

So until we break this cycle of "voting for the lesser of two evils" and break the stranglehold the two party system has over our government, we will only continue on the road to despotism. And those nations that have "safety nets" in place... they are all with one exception, Germany, on the verge of complete and total collapse of their system.

While it looks good on paper it just doesn't work. Greece is still in turmoil as they try to figure out how the hell they are going to pay for all the social programs they have in place. They are out of money... and we are heading on the same track.

A real solution to the "wealth" gap is this, a flat across the board 10-15% tax and a use 7-12% tax on non-food or health care items. THAT creates a "fair share" and with PROPER spending cuts and budgetary constraints will get our budget back under control and start to pay down some of this debt... which has skyrocketed out of control under the Obama administration and it's policies.

frank4570
10-26-2012, 14:12
I know democrats who say they would vote for ron paul, but they are afraid of what would happen if they hand the country over to the christian republicans.


I made this point in another thread: an article that studied poll data in various states found that Johnson drew voters from both parties; in some states he took more votes from Romney, in others, from Obama. As for the comment about waiting for the GOP to get better, I've been waiting for over fifty years.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

robrides85
10-26-2012, 14:14
I know democrats who say they would vote for ron paul, but they are afraid of what would happen if they hand the country over to the christian republicans.

Tell them not to worry. Romney's not a republican, and he's not a christian. :tongueout:

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:14
We don't need a third party. We need two new first parties.

One of which can be comprised of a third and fourth party. The democrats and republicans are no different. They are all on the corporate payroll and they both answer to the master that holds their purse strings. This is no longer the United States, we are the Corporate States and how we vote, what we wear, what we think.. it's all dictated to us from the corporations in fiscal control via the biased media.

mac66
10-26-2012, 14:15
Well, at least I am not alone in my thinking. I have voted third party before. Twice. But, after seeing the numbers. All I can think is. I wasted my vote on someone who has no chance.

As much as I would like to think, at least it made a statement. The people charge couldn't care less about the statement made.

Michigan is so close this year that third party voters could decide which way it goes. Michigan could then decide which way the whole thing goes. If Michigan goes for Romney he will win. If not he could lose. I live in Michigan and I voted third party in the past. We have a chance to unseat the affirmative action president this year. That's reason enough to vote for Romney IMO.

thetoastmaster
10-26-2012, 14:20
Michigan is so close this year that third party voters could decide which way it goes. Michigan could then decide which way the whole thing goes. If Michigan goes for Romney he will win. If not he could lose. I live in Michigan and I voted third party in the past. We have a chance to unseat the affirmative action president this year. That's reason enough to vote for Romney IMO.

That's the one reason I wish I could live in a "battleground" state this year, so my vote for Johnson would really count.

I did vote libertarian in the Utah Forth Congressional district race (Jim Matheson's district, with Mia Love as the "R"). I keep telling the telephone pollesters that I am not supporting their candidates; but they keep calling anyway.

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 14:20
Here is a post I made to some very liberal friends... I think it applies here as well.

A bit of irony, people rail against the corporate machine, yet they vote for the puppets controlled by said machine. The third party candidates are marginalized by the corporate machine because they do not control the candidates. Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush I and II, Obama... the list goes on. For the last 30+ years you have been told who to vote for and if you do your diligence you will find that it didn't matter which of the two you voted for they were both bought and paid for by big companies.

It is hilarious when the idiots; oops I mean the American public, would actually believe the politicians when they say that they'd wage wars on the rich to make sure that the rich would pay their shares.

Who the hell do they think coming to these $15K/plate fund raising money for Obama and Romney? The freakin' poor?

And the politicians expect me to believe that they will wage war against the hands that feed them?

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 14:21
Tell them not to worry. Romney's not a republican, and he's not a christian. :tongueout:

Well, neither is Obama and the country seems to be OK. Another cultist POTUS can't hurt.

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:21
This is what I want: The most personal freedom with the least amount of government possible. Which party represents me?

Why Libertarian!~

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:22
The DemoPub is just one big obstacle that we have to overcome. That's OK, we libertarians are like the little engine that could. We'll save America one vote at a time. Rome wasn't built in one day, and neither is the rebuilding of America.

Hear, hear!

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 14:30
It is hilarious when the idiots; oops I mean the American public, would actually believe the politicians when they say that they'd wage wars on the rich to make sure that the rich would pay their shares.

Who the hell do they think coming to these $15K/plate fund raising money for Obama and Romney? The freakin' poor?

And the politicians expect me to believe that they will wage war against the hands that feed them?

There is a word for that, I cannot remember the word at the moment, but when faced with the truth that contradicts ones beliefs they will fabricate all sorts of justifications for the contradiction so as not to accept they are actually wrong and change their opinion/position.

mac66
10-26-2012, 14:56
If you look closely you see that libertarians are mostly conservative. There really isn't enough difference between them and Republicans to support another party.

Glock20 makes some good points. The GOP and Democrats have huge organizations and huge amounts of money which is the only way one can get elected these days. Until a third party can develop a financial infrastructure to support a viable candidate they will always be marginalized. That is why most candidates align with one or the other, it is the only way they can get elected.

National office was never meant to be a full time, forever job. It was meant to be a civic duty. The system has been corrupted by career politicians for their own benefit which is why it is the way it is.

I believe that one way to level the playing field is to impose term limits on national office. I know, elections are term limiting but we all know that doesn't work. Term limits work at the state level and it works for president's level. There is no reason it can't work at the national (senate & house) level.

I have a high school friend who got into politics because he saw problems in the local school board. That led to county commissioner which led to state senate. When Michigan imposed term limits he was mad. He had gotten addicted to the attention, money and perks of public office. He never did go back and get a real job. He got appointed by some other non-term limited politician to get paid to sit on different boards and committees.

So take away some of the power, influence and money and maybe these guys will figure out why they are elected to serve in the first place.

thetoastmaster
10-26-2012, 15:11
If you look closely you see that libertarians are mostly conservative. There really isn't enough difference between them and Republicans to support another party.

Except that's not true. Libertarians are not "mostly conservative". Libertarians are a lot of different things; but get into real differences with the GOP when it comes to involvement in foreign wars, corporate welfare and subsidies, the "war" on drugs, and other spending issues. The GOP is addicted to spending, as much as the Democrats. To say they're not is simply not true.

Similarly, the GOP is much too involved with social conservatism. Libertarians want nothing to do with that, for the most part. The GOP and LP are really worlds apart; and libertarians (small or large "l") are not just disgruntled Republicans, despite the GOP's whining to the contrary.

427
10-26-2012, 15:30
Except that's not true. Libertarians are not "mostly conservative". Libertarians are a lot of different things; but get into real differences with the GOP when it comes to involvement in foreign wars, corporate welfare and subsidies, the "war" on drugs, and other spending issues. The GOP is addicted to spending, as much as the Democrats. To say they're not is simply not true.

Similarly, the GOP is much too involved with social conservatism. Libertarians want nothing to do with that, for the most part. The GOP and LP are really worlds apart; and libertarians (small or large "l") are not just disgruntled Republicans, despite the GOP's whining to the contrary.

Libertarians will more than likely caucus with the GOP than the Dems.

tantrix
10-26-2012, 15:41
Libertarians will more than likely caucus with the GOP than the Dems.

That might have been the case years ago, but these days the GOP just needs to go ahead and merge with the Dems and get it over with.

427
10-26-2012, 16:04
That might have been the case years ago, but these days the GOP just needs to go ahead and merge with the Dems and get it over with.

If third parties somehow manage to get elected, they will have to caucus with one of the two major parties in order to get anything done. Independent Bernie Sanders and Former Dem, Joe Lieberman, caucus with the dems.

You'll note that Johnson was a former Republican. Paul is/was an on again off again Republican. I guess that the two parties were so much alike that Paul chose to return to the republican party. Or maybe Paul realized that the Republican Party gave him his best chances at being elected.

tantrix
10-26-2012, 16:08
Or maybe Paul realized that the Republican Party gave him his best chances at being elected.

That's pretty much it...people vote party lines (exactly why we're in the shape we're in now).

thetoastmaster
10-26-2012, 16:59
That might have been the case years ago, but these days the GOP just needs to go ahead and merge with the Dems and get it over with.

Agreed. And besides, "caucus with" does not mean "pander to". The GOP would have to grant concessions to those Libertarian politicians, and not expect a rubber-stamp of their bills.

427
10-26-2012, 17:09
Agreed. And besides, "caucus with" does not mean "pander to". The GOP would have to grant concessions to those Libertarian politicians, and not expect a rubber-stamp of their bills.

Why would the GOP or the Dems have to grant concession ANY third party?

There are two, two independents out of 435 in the house, who do you think gets the concessions? The independents?

BTW, there aren't any Libertarians in congress to get the concessions anyway.

thetoastmaster
10-26-2012, 17:34
Why would the GOP or the Dems have to grant concession ANY third party?

There are two, two independents out of 435 in the house, who do you think gets the concessions? The independents?

BTW, there aren't any Libertarians in congress to get the concessions anyway.

And you were the one that said any hypothetical libertarian would caucus with the GOP, not me. You brought up the point.

When push comes to shove, and legislation has to pass, compromise means all parties must make concessions. When it's two parties, it's easier to buffalo things through. Add a third or fourth party, and all must work to build coalitions, as in parliamentary government.

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 17:47
Why would the GOP or the Dems have to grant concession ANY third party?

There are two, two independents out of 435 in the house, who do you think gets the concessions? The independents?

BTW, there aren't any Libertarians in congress to get the concessions anyway.

Then maybe we need to start getting the two party choke hold broken of the house and senate as well.

427
10-26-2012, 17:57
And you were the one that said any hypothetical libertarian would caucus with the GOP, not me. You brought up the point. Right now, the two independents in congress caucus with a major party, the Dems, so they can get committee assignments. It doesn't matter if the person elected is a for example a Libertarian or a Communist they would have to caucus with a major party if they want to get anything accomplished.

When push comes to shove, and legislation has to pass, compromise means all parties must make concessions. When it's two parties, it's easier to buffalo things through. Add a third or fourth party, and all must work to build coalitions, as in parliamentary government.

Who has more influence, able to get their agenda through, the party with a handful of numbers, basically insignificant, or the party that has 20x that number? That's the point.

427
10-26-2012, 18:02
Then maybe we need to start getting the two party choke hold broken of the house and senate as well.

What would be easier? A third party, or working within a major party?

How many Tea Party candidates were elected in the midterms?

Glock20 10mm
10-26-2012, 18:31
What would be easier? A third party, or working within a major party?

How many Tea Party candidates were elected in the midterms?

First corporations need to be removed from the political picture completely.

Second the two party system is an abysmal failure now. When you look at either one you see very little difference.

Third term limits across the board.

Fourth eliminate all the "perks", this is a civic duty and to be an HONOR to serve, not a gateway to a posh and lavish lifestyle.

Fifth they have the same health care options all the rest of us do.

Sixth they have to pay into the same retirement plans many of us have available.

Seventh wage limits, they cannot vote themselves a pay raise. If they fail to balance the budget then they don't get paid until they do.

Eighth special interest groups, they cause more damage to the nation than they do assisting it. If a cause does not provide a legitimate benefit to all within the nation it's not to be funded by federal money.

Ninth any politician that proposes a bill that cannot pass the Constitutionality test is to be removed from office and banned from ever holding a political office ever again.

Tenth ALL citizens have equal access and rights to run for ALL offices in our government. No more ivy league lawyers, look at the ****ing mess they have made already.

These are just some of the ideas I have for getting this nation back on course.

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 18:39
Second the two party system is an abysmal failure now. When you look at either one you see very little difference.


The American political system was never about bipartisan. Somehow the American people forgot about this little thing and had allowed the Dems and Reps to convince them that there are only two political parties.

thetoastmaster
10-27-2012, 12:13
"A vote for libertarian is a wasted vote."
"Why is that?"
"They can't win."
"Why can't they?"
"No one votes for them?"
"Why not?"
"It's a wasted vote."

Hailstorm
10-27-2012, 16:02
As much as I agree with your post Toast. I just can't take a chance.

I was driving today. Out going to a Cider Mill. Normally, I don't see to many signs either way. But, more Oboma signs in town. I saw one for Oboma and ten for Mitt. Kinda gave me a little bit of hope for the country.

Some think that either way we are going down a dark path. This may be so. But, one is a highway and the other is a dirt road.

frank4570
10-27-2012, 17:56
As much as I agree with your post Toast. I just can't take a chance.

I was driving today. Out going to a Cider Mill. Normally, I don't see to many signs either way. But, more Oboma signs in town. I saw one for Oboma and ten for Mitt. Kinda gave me a little bit of hope for the country.

Some think that either way we are going down a dark path. This may be so. But, one is a highway and the other is a dirt road.

That is my thinking also. But the problem is that by voting for the republicans we are agreeing to keep going in the wrong direction, just more slowly. If we don't get a significant percentage of the voting population to vote differently, we are screwed either way. So I think we are definitely screwed.

thetoastmaster
10-27-2012, 20:36
If nothing else, I have to ensure ballot access for the LP. If they can swing enough voted to get federal campaign contributions and maybe even a debate invitation, so much the better. This is a war of ideas. The GOP and DNC both play dirty pool in using force to suppress dissenting ideas. IF their ideas were so great they would stand on their own merits. They don't, so the GOP resorts to suing the LP to keep them from participating. It's difficult to use money to publicize campaigns when you have to use it in court to continue to put your name on the ballot.

Folks say that this is the election that matters, that it's the most important election ever. I only half agree. It's the most important election, until the next election, when the GOP will polish that same old chestnut: "We can't afford to split the vote. This is the most important election ever!

Well, I see through that nonsense. I have not voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 1996, and haven't voted for a GOP rep since 2000. I am simply no longer a Republican. Why should I vote against my own interests and party?

frank4570
10-27-2012, 21:34
Folks say that this is the election that matters, that it's the most important election ever. I only half agree. It's the most important election, until the next election, when the GOP will polish that same old chestnut: "We can't afford to split the vote. This is the most important election ever!

Well, I see through that nonsense. I have not voted for a GOP presidential candidate since 1996, and haven't voted for a GOP rep since 2000. I am simply no longer a Republican. Why should I vote against my own interests and party?

I have no argument against that.

random southpaw
10-28-2012, 14:45
NOT THIS YEAR!!

I have never seen Republicans as united as they are right now.

The number one issue is to dump Obama.

thetoastmaster
10-28-2012, 14:59
NOT THIS YEAR!!

I have never seen Republicans as united as they are right now.

The number one issue is to dump Obama.

That's fair. Republicans should probably vote GOP. There are a lot of unaffiliated voters out there, though, as well as a handful of registered LP.

427
10-28-2012, 15:23
If nothing else, I have to ensure ballot access for the LP.

How are you, personally, going to ensure ballot access of the LP?

NMGlocker
10-28-2012, 16:11
I held my nose and voted for McCain in '08 even after it became obvious he was throwing the election to Obama.
Not this year.
Yanked the lever for Gary Johnson without a second thought.
Johnson may even be a spoiler in New Mexico this year.

thetoastmaster
10-28-2012, 16:21
How are you, personally, going to ensure ballot access of the LP?

By contributing to the number of votes required for continued ballot access. In the state of Utah, a third party needs "2,000 signatures Or participated in the last general election and polled a total vote for any of its candidates equal to 2% or more of the total votes cast for all candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives [20A-8-101(1)]"

http://www.americasthirdparty.com/utah

So, by voting Libertarian, I continue ballot access for the party in a very real way.

NMGlocker
10-28-2012, 16:30
An added benefit of my vote for Johnson is when President Romney (and I do think he's going to win) backstabs everyone on here by supporting "common sense" gun laws and doubling down on Obamacare I can say "I didn't vote for him."
;)

tantrix
10-28-2012, 16:55
An added benefit of my vote for Johnson is when President Romney (and I do think he's going to win) backstabs everyone on here by supporting "common sense" gun laws and doubling down on Obamacare I can say "I didn't vote for him."
;)

And you'll get the chance most likely. Just like everyone here claims Obama will pass gun control measures in his 2nd term, I think Romney would in his 2nd term as well. "Common sense" gun laws, of course. :upeyes:

Little Joe
10-28-2012, 16:55
I don't think our country is doomed as many here do. I think the nation can turn it around under Romney. When we do we can say "You didn't help build that."

Little Joe
10-28-2012, 17:00
You know what would be cool. Is if Romney did what was right for the country even if it cost him a second term. Entitlement reform, tax code reform, regulatory reform, Education reform, Energy policy reform. It really would be nice to see a politician that put the country first as the expense of their own career.

Not likely, but who knows. I think it would go down in the history books as a noble, extraordinary thing. A true turnaround story.

geofri
10-28-2012, 17:38
Not only common sense in those gun laws, but ones where "both parties will come together" and work to find!:wiggle::supergrin:

robrides85
10-29-2012, 22:09
You know what would be cool. Is if Romney did what was right for the country even if it cost him a second term. Entitlement reform, tax code reform, regulatory reform, Education reform, Energy policy reform. It really would be nice to see a politician that put the country first as the expense of their own career.

Not likely, but who knows. I think it would go down in the history books as a noble, extraordinary thing. A true turnaround story.

Like you said, unlikely. Similar to me fantasizing about Gary Johnson being our next president. Romney's already shown himself willing to say whatever is necessary to get the job. His career comes first.