Didn't vote for Romney OR Obama? Check in here! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Didn't vote for Romney OR Obama? Check in here!


robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:28
Got my early-voting done on Saturday - one more for Gary Johnson - in a swing state, no less :tongueout:

Want to criticize us or our votes? Go hangout in this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448161

This thread is a celebration of those voters that found the two established parties' candidates seriously wanting, and went elsewhere to fulfill their democratic duty of voting.

aircarver
10-29-2012, 13:32
How many votes he got now ? 5 ? 7 ? ... :upeyes:

.

eb07
10-29-2012, 13:36
Unfortunately unelectable but good for you.

TheExplorer
10-29-2012, 13:39
At least you voted. It still better than the people who complain but never actually vote.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:39
How many votes he got now ? 5 ? 7 ? ... :upeyes:

.

Just did a little extrapolation between Youtube views of the main party presidential debates and the third party presidential debates, along with the online voting associated with the 3rd party presidential debate. I'll be surprised if Gary doesn't break a million votes considering the amount of dissatisfaction with the two main parties evident in the online viewing audience for the third party debate.

eb07
10-29-2012, 13:41
So by your data. Obama gets four more. Thanks.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:45
Unfortunately unelectable but good for you.

Yes, it is unfortunate. Not just that the man is a blip on the radar, but in addition that the conversation between the two main contenders ignores some of the facets of governance that he pays attention to (particularly civil rights and foreign policy).

countrygun
10-29-2012, 13:46
Just did a little extrapolation between Youtube views of the main party presidential debates and the third party presidential debates, along with the online voting associated with the 3rd party presidential debate. I'll be surprised if Gary doesn't break a million votes considering the amount of dissatisfaction with the two main parties evident in the online viewing audience for the third party debate.

Great news. If Romney doesn't win the Libertarians can become the scapegoat. They can feel all special while everyone hates them for four years.

People will just be lining up to join in 2016.

sheriff733
10-29-2012, 13:48
Sweet!

I voted today and was going to vote Gary Johnson, but for some reason it said "(i.e. Barack Obama)" next to his name so I opted for Mitt Romney instead.

Good for you though. You show that mean ol' GOP.


Sent with Probably Cause and Irrisputable Proof.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:49
So by your data. Obama gets four more. Thanks.

Don't look at me - I was supporting him through the Republican primaries, just refused to fall in line behind Romney. No idea how that guy got to hold the mantle of Republican candidate for the Presidency.

Regardless, you're thankful to me for giving you Obama, I may be thankful to you for giving me Romney. You keep assuming he's a sucking noise from Romney, when the inverse is true for a swing state like Colorado (where Gary's speaking today, actually).

jlavallee
10-29-2012, 13:50
Good for you. Nevada is a swing state too and I wouldn't support either gun grabbing, big government ******.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:51
Great news. If Romney doesn't win the Libertarians can become the scapegoat. They can feel all special while everyone hates them for four years.

People will just be lining up to join in 2016.

No, the people that voted for Romney in the primaries can be the scapegoat. If they wanted to beat Obama (and who knows, maybe Romney will win), they had to have chosen a candidate that was unequivocally better than Obama, so that voters could actually vote FOR a candidate, instead of against Obama.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:53
Sweet!

I voted today and was going to vote Gary Johnson, but for some reason it said "(i.e. Barack Obama)" next to his name so I opted for Mitt Romney instead.

Good for you though. You show that mean ol' GOP.


Sent with Probably Cause and Irrisputable Proof.

:whistling: - don't kid around, you know you just pushed the straight party button and some dude named Mitt popped up for President!

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:54
Good for you. Nevada is a swing state too and I wouldn't support either gun grabbing, big government ******.

Finally, the point of this thread! :yourock:

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 13:56
I bet everyone here feels real good about helping Obama.

What fools.

I'm so proud of doing a dumb thing! Wasted my vote instead of helping fire a marxist thug, I'm so patriotic!

:upeyes:

robrides85
10-29-2012, 13:58
I bet everyone here feels real good about helping Obama.

What fools.

I'm so proud of doing a dumb thing! Wasted my vote instead of helping fire a marxist thug, I'm so patriotic!

:upeyes:

See, same problem, different spin as previous comment. "...so that voters could actually vote FOR a candidate, instead of against Obama."

countrygun
10-29-2012, 13:58
No, the people that voted for Romney in the primaries can be the scapegoat. If they wanted to beat Obama (and who knows, maybe Romney will win), they had to have chosen a candidate that was unequivocally better than Obama, so that voters could actually vote FOR a candidate, instead of against Obama.

You mean the LARGE percentage of Republicans who gave the Libertarians the butthurt?

Mybe you should look at yourselves and ask why YOU didn't have an electable candidate. After all you are a "real Party (in your dreams) aren't you? whats your excuse?

You aren't too good with this whole "democracy" thing are you?

If Romney wins it proves the Libertarians irrelevant, if Obama wins Libertarians take the blame for not helping him out the door. Either way it's a win for the Republicans and a loss for the Libertarians.

xcaliburelite
10-29-2012, 14:04
No, the people that voted for Romney in the primaries can be the scapegoat. If they wanted to beat Obama (and who knows, maybe Romney will win), they had to have chosen a candidate that was unequivocally better than Obama, so that voters could actually vote FOR a candidate, instead of against Obama.

I agree with this 100%. How Romney appeared to be the beat Republican candidate in the primaries is beyond me. I said the same thing about McCain in '08. Romney's actually doing better against Obama than I thought he would, but I'll be surprised if he wins.

IvanVic
10-29-2012, 14:04
So by your data. Obama gets four more. Thanks.

No.

If Romney had 10 votes and Obama had 10 votes, and the thread starter votes for G Johnson, Obama still has 10 votes, not 11.

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 14:09
See, same problem, different spin as previous comment. "...so that voters could actually vote FOR a candidate, instead of against Obama."

Well you just enjoy that meaningless little tidbit. Especially if Obama wins by a hair and we all end up butt raped by our new healthcare plan. I'm sure youll be real proud of that and your new higher taxes.

:upeyes:

countrygun
10-29-2012, 14:12
Finally, the point of this thread! :yourock:

So you are proud of not getting a man out of the White House who has said he is for another assault weapons ban?

Brilliant thinking.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 14:17
You mean the LARGE percentage of Republicans who gave the Libertarians the butthurt?

Mybe you should look at yourselves and ask why YOU didn't have an electable candidate. After all you are a "real Party (in your dreams) aren't you? whats your excuse?

You aren't too good with this whole "democracy" thing are you?

If Romney wins it proves the Libertarians irrelevant, if Obama wins Libertarians take the blame for not helping him out the door. Either way it's a win for the Republicans and a loss for the Libertarians.

No, I'm not a Libertarian - no context in my mind for this butthurt that you're talking about. I have some libertarian views, don't you? I've got no exposure to the Libertarian Party apart from the fact that my favorite candidate, my voice, was given a stage by them, not by the party that I'm actually registered as, a Republican.

Never have voted third party before, but this is an appropriate time for me to do so. Don't really care whether you find the Libertarian Party irrelevant or not. Like I said, I voted for the man and his viewpoints, viewpoints ignored by the two main candidates. You have your perspective on what a third party vote means (useless, wasted, giving the country to the enemy, fear for the future, TEOTWAWKI), and it doesn't include my perspective that luckily enough gets to combine a vote of "no confidence" WITH a vote for a candidate that I also agree with on a large number of issues.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 14:21
Well you just enjoy that meaningless little tidbit. Especially if Obama wins by a hair and we all end up butt raped by our new healthcare plan. I'm sure youll be real proud of that and your new higher taxes.

:upeyes:

Hey, gotta pay for that $2 trillion military expansion somehow, right? Love me a big spender in the House!

G29Reload
10-29-2012, 14:29
Hey, gotta pay for that $2 trillion military expansion somehow, right? Love me a big spender in the House!


Neither Obama nor Romney are proposing that or anything like it. Romney will prevent the .mil from vaporizing to pay for food stamps and welfare and Obama is just negligent in his dereliction of duty.

If you're hellbent on a big spender in the white house, Obama's your guy all right. The one thing he is good at.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 14:31
So you are proud of not getting a man out of the White House who has said he is for another assault weapons ban?

Brilliant thinking.

You've got me there, but I'm not voting on a single issue. I assume you're (assumedly) voting for a candidate whose word you can trust/believe in? In one of the ~13-14 swing states where your Presidential vote actually means something?

Romney has shown (even in the last 9 months) how mercurial his rhetoric can be. He is not a trustworthy candidate, and he does not have a good record of governance. What's the likelihood that he will enact common sense gun regulations with bipartisan support, the same as he did as governor of Massachusetts? If you truly are a single issue voter (gun rights), wouldn't it be easier to get Republican congressmen into office, as opposed to settling for a RINO chief executive that may or may not turn on you regarding this issue in the future, anyway?

Kablam
10-29-2012, 14:32
I'm curioius as to what you Gary voters think he would (or would not) do if he was elected President. He was my gov for two terms, and I liked him, voted for him, but there was no earth shattering libertarian policies pushed by his admin. In factr, something as fundamental as CCW in NM had to wait for a democrat (Richardson), although that was a political play with the liberal state legislature. We still had taxes (no change in eight years, the following dem actually cut taxes), plenty of government, received huge federal dollars in his state, lots of laws, pot was still illegal. He said no to alot of spending proposals, to his credit, by a liberal legislature, but that's much easier on the state level than federal. Do you think he would cut 43% of the federal budget if he was elected? Nah, probably not. He'd never get a budget passed, and we'd be on CRs with $1.2 trillion deficits like the rube we have now. And don't give me the "shut down the government" jive. That is show boating and seldom lasts more than a few days, although it is a good tactic to move the congress a little, but that is NOT what the new libertarians want. They want all or nothing. Remember that Gary is a politician, and he was a republican politician when he started this race.

Good that you voted and voted your conscience though. I commend you, although bragging about it doesn't seem to make alot of sense.

eb07
10-29-2012, 14:41
No.

If Romney had 10 votes and Obama had 10 votes, and the thread starter votes for G Johnson, Obama still has 10 votes, not 11.


Let's do math logically instead of in fantasy land....

Democratic candidate gets 43% of the vote and wins the swing states and election

Republican candidate gets 37.5% of the vote

Fantasy land candidate gets 18.9% of the fantasyland vote who should have voted for the Republican president

Our country gets:

The failure to arrest Bin Laden twice peacefully
Red Tape between the CIA and FBI ( which led to the 9/11 intel debacle)
Ignorance of the build up of Al Queda
Empowering of Radicals in Somalia
Telecom Act of 96
The Debacle in Kosovo
Bent over to Iraq instead of dealing with them

and the worst things....

The gutting of the 4th Amendment
The Brady Bill
Secret Technology sold to China
NAFTA
The beginning of Sub Prime Mortgages to high credit risks (although I will admit Baby Bush did nothing to stop this)



So cheers to all of you fantasy land voters out there willing throw away your vote repeat history... by helping the worst President in American history get re-elected..... because it is only going to get worse. Hope you all have your jobs and homes when it is all said and done :wavey:

robrides85
10-29-2012, 14:43
Neither Obama nor Romney are proposing that or anything like it. Romney will prevent the .mil from vaporizing to pay for food stamps and welfare and Obama is just negligent in his dereliction of duty.

If you're hellbent on a big spender in the white house, Obama's your guy all right. The one thing he is good at.

Re: Romney and $2 trillion more to the military go here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/24/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/

Re: Obama being a big spender... Republicans were in charge of Medicare Part D, big democracy-spreading, nation-building wars, but Obamacare is the target of your rant? Granted it's adding to the burden... but to lay "big spender" at a single person's feet is disingenuous.

countrygun
10-29-2012, 14:44
You've got me there, but I'm not voting on a single issue. I assume you're (assumedly) voting for a candidate whose word you can trust/believe in? In one of the ~13-14 swing states where your Presidential vote actually means something?

Romney has shown (even in the last 9 months) how mercurial his rhetoric can be. He is not a trustworthy candidate, and he does not have a good record of governance. What's the likelihood that he will enact common sense gun regulations with bipartisan support, the same as he did as governor of Massachusetts? If you truly are a single issue voter (gun rights), wouldn't it be easier to get Republican congressmen into office, as opposed to settling for a RINO chief executive that may or may not turn on you regarding this issue in the future, anyway?

This "absolutest" attitude is amazing.

Why did Romney work on the Health Care Bill in Mass?
Because the electorate wanted it. He has shown he will listen to the people and represent their wishes and he will set aside his personal beliefs to represent the people and their wishes and there are complaints about a politician doing this. Simply amazing. everyone wants to elect the "perfect person" who represents exactly their values. Have we become a nation of spoiled children who must get their own way or they won't play with the others?

The whole issue of gun control in his Governorship has been well handled here by one of our members who has his finger on the pulse of that issue and given that Romney way faced with a "veto proof majority" (Do you understand what that means?) he did the best he could and managed to get some positive changes made to remove some of the more distasteful portions.

I do not see this big "flip flop" everyone has whipped up out of thin air.

What I do see is a few people trying to justify their attemots to leave a socialist/marxist in the White House because they prefer that to a capitalist businessman. That is very obvious and no ther explanation is needed.

jbailey8
10-29-2012, 15:05
Let's do math logically instead of in fantasy land....

Democratic candidate gets 43% of the vote and wins the swing states and election

Republican candidate gets 37.5% of the vote

Fantasy land candidate gets 18.9% of the fantasyland vote who should have voted for the Republican president

Our country gets:

The failure to arrest Bin Laden twice peacefully
Red Tape between the CIA and FBI ( which led to the 9/11 intel debacle)
Ignorance of the build up of Al Queda
Empowering of Radicals in Somalia
Telecom Act of 96
The Debacle in Kosovo
Bent over to Iraq instead of dealing with them

and the worst things....

The gutting of the 4th Amendment
The Brady Bill
Secret Technology sold to China
NAFTA
The beginning of Sub Prime Mortgages to high credit risks (although I will admit Baby Bush did nothing to stop this)



So cheers to all of you fantasy land voters out there willing throw away your vote repeat history... by helping the worst President in American history get re-elected..... because it is only going to get worse. Hope you all have your jobs and homes when it is all said and done :wavey:



If my vote for Johnson doesn't count and Romney loses, then it looks like neither one of our votes counted. Seems like we're both in fantasyland.

eb07
10-29-2012, 15:06
If my vote for Johnson doesn't count and Romney loses, then it looks like neither one of our votes counted. Seems like we're both in fantasyland.


Seriously.. it is almost comical to watch the fantasyland crowd try to justify it :wavey:

robrides85
10-29-2012, 15:10
I'm curioius as to what you Gary voters think he would (or would not) do if he was elected President. He was my gov for two terms, and I liked him, voted for him, but there was no earth shattering libertarian policies pushed by his admin. In factr, something as fundamental as CCW in NM had to wait for a democrat (Richardson), although that was a political play with the liberal state legislature. We still had taxes (no change in eight years, the following dem actually cut taxes), plenty of government, received huge federal dollars in his state, lots of laws, pot was still illegal. He said no to alot of spending proposals, to his credit, by a liberal legislature, but that's much easier on the state level than federal. Do you think he would cut 43% of the federal budget if he was elected? Nah, probably not. He'd never get a budget passed, and we'd be on CRs with $1.2 trillion deficits like the rube we have now. And don't give me the "shut down the government" jive. That is show boating and seldom lasts more than a few days, although it is a good tactic to move the congress a little, but that is NOT what the new libertarians want. They want all or nothing. Remember that Gary is a politician, and he was a republican politician when he started this race.

Good that you voted and voted your conscience though. I commend you, although bragging about it doesn't seem to make alot of sense.

In this fictional world where GJ wins in 2012, I fantasize a world where a majority of the population is willing to sacrifice federal intervention for decreased debt that no longer weighs down the economy. A population of citizens that is aware of their limits regarding policing the world, providing "free" healthcare for all citizens, and the likelihood of paying into a pension/safety net that won't be there when they reach retirement age. A Congress that looks in the mirror and sees a shift in their "mandate", seeing it transferred to someone that wants their power to be shrunk, not expanded. Troops come home pronto, lots of vetoes, and executive orders from a President with a unique perspective of government, that it usually costs more than it's worth. In a more realistic world (but still improbable), Gary gets 5% and doesn't have to spend any time fighting in the courts to get on the ballots in 2016, the economy is still in a fragile, stuttering growth phase, no one who voted either Democrat or Republican is happier about much of anything, and more people flee the parties that didn't do anything in return for a party-line vote except waste more money than was in the treasury.

Re bragging about it here: I want to make sure that no one feels alone voting for a third party. Even though (~1 million) will do the same, what do you see here and every news source? pro/anti-Romney, pro/anti-Obama, and not a hint that anyone else is on the ballot. This thread is a support system for anyone else that's contemplating doing the same thing. A "no, I don't think you're stupid, I agree with you" thread of kumbaya.

Chronos
10-29-2012, 15:27
Sort of cute how this is supposed to be a thread specifically for a certain class of voters, but a different class of poster can't resist vomiting their personal justifications for "voting for evil" once again (as if it might be important to the election to sway one person here). At some point it becomes obvious that they are really arguing with themselves.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 15:28
This "absolutest" attitude is amazing.

Why did Romney work on the Health Care Bill in Mass?
Because the electorate wanted it. He has shown he will listen to the people and represent their wishes and he will set aside his personal beliefs to represent the people and their wishes and there are complaints about a politician doing this. Simply amazing. everyone wants to elect the "perfect person" who represents exactly their values. Have we become a nation of spoiled children who must get their own way or they won't play with the others?

The whole issue of gun control in his Governorship has been well handled here by one of our members who has his finger on the pulse of that issue and given that Romney way faced with a "veto proof majority" (Do you understand what that means?) he did the best he could and managed to get some positive changes made to remove some of the more distasteful portions.

I do not see this big "flip flop" everyone has whipped up out of thin air.

What I do see is a few people trying to justify their attemots to leave a socialist/marxist in the White House because they prefer that to a capitalist businessman. That is very obvious and no ther explanation is needed.

You can't have it both ways. If Romney actually has an ideology, I can't identify it to find out if I agree with it. If he's purely selling himself to the largest swath of the electorate that he believes will get him elected, his rhetoric hasn't bought my vote. The latter seems more likely, and because he make a decision to represent certain viewpoints, excluding mine, how in the world can you justify him deserving my vote? Not to mention, you're voting for someone whose positions will evolve as much Obama's did regarding gay marriage. The man you vote into office will not be the man running the country should he like to appeal to a different swath of the electorate for a second term.


Regarding you being unaware of Romney's "evolution", I don't know where you're looking. You could use Google, if you don't want to glance at these mocking websites:

http://mittromneysflipflops.com/
http://roboromney.com/

robrides85
10-29-2012, 15:31
Because the electorate wanted it. He (Romney) has shown he will listen to the people and represent their wishes and he will set aside his personal beliefs to represent the people and their wishes and there are complaints about a politician doing this.

Quoted for posterity. If he gets the position, I'm sure he'll be a bucket full of surprises. What'll be a larger number after one term if Romney wins - the % that voted for Obama for his first term and later regretted it, or the % that voted Romney into office for his first term and later regretted it?

hogfish
10-29-2012, 15:33
It has often been posted that "libertarians are trully just a bunch of liberals". That 'reasoning' would lead one to believe that a vote for Johnson is one vote less for Obama and, therefor, a vote for Romney.

:yawn:

FLIPPER 348
10-29-2012, 15:59
Seriously.. it is almost comical to watch the fantasyland crowd try to justify it :wavey:



It's good to see people stand up for their beliefs, not just vote like a flock of sheep for a lesser of two evils.

gilfo
10-29-2012, 16:00
Congratulations you and your buddies stuck it to the GOP. Now if Obama wins you stuck it to us all. Mitt might not have been the best choice but he is sure better than a second term of Obama.
Thanks again.

eb07
10-29-2012, 16:00
It's good to see people stand up for their beliefs, not just vote like a flock of sheep for a lesser of two evils.


I am voting to get the current evil out of office, at all costs..... that is my stand and I do not understand why it is not every taxpaying American's stand... unless of course you don't pay taxes. Then carry on.

427
10-29-2012, 16:01
In this fictional world where GJ wins in 2012, I fantasize a world where a majority of the population is willing to sacrifice federal intervention for decreased debt that no longer weighs down the economy. A population of citizens that is aware of their limits regarding policing the world, providing "free" healthcare for all citizens, and the likelihood of paying into a pension/safety net that won't be there when they reach retirement age. A Congress that looks in the mirror and sees a shift in their "mandate", seeing it transferred to someone that wants their power to be shrunk, not expanded. Troops come home pronto, lots of vetoes, and executive orders from a President with a unique perspective of government, that it usually costs more than it's worth. In a more realistic world (but still improbable), Gary gets 5% and doesn't have to spend any time fighting in the courts to get on the ballots in 2016, the economy is still in a fragile, stuttering growth phase, no one who voted either Democrat or Republican is happier about much of anything, and more people flee the parties that didn't do anything in return for a party-line vote except waste more money than was in the treasury.

Re bragging about it here: I want to make sure that no one feels alone voting for a third party. Even though (~1 million) will do the same, what do you see here and every news source? pro/anti-Romney, pro/anti-Obama, and not a hint that anyone else is on the ballot. This thread is a support system for anyone else that's contemplating doing the same thing. A "no, I don't think you're stupid, I agree with you" thread of kumbaya.

That's cute. Worried about feelings! OMG! :rofl:

robrides85
10-29-2012, 16:03
Congratulations you and your buddies stuck it to the GOP. Now if Obama wins you stuck it to us all. Mitt might not have been the best choice but he is sure better than a second term of Obama.
Thanks again.

Again, you stuck it to us when Romney became "the guy". And the "sure is better than a second term of Obama" is debatable when Romney is such an uncertainty, and rhetoric only slightly better than Obama's.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 16:05
That's cute. Worried about feelings! OMG! :rofl:

Hey, if they don't need this thread, they'll let me know. I saw a need for some hoo-rah pep rally stuff, same as every other candidate gets (search political issue for Romney, have fun). So far, all I've heard is from Romney supporters letting me know they don't need this thread! Anything I can do to support another vote leaving the two main parties!

robrides85
10-29-2012, 16:08
I am voting to get the current evil out of office, at all costs..... that is my stand and I do not understand why it is not every taxpaying American's stand... unless of course you don't pay taxes. Then carry on.

Also quoted for posterity. We can compare increases in national debt during Obama's term to Romney's potential term at a later date. Or some variation thereof, if you want to calculate debt due to the previous office holder's policies carrying over or not. Don't think you'll have much of anything to crow about, even if Romney does win.

eb07
10-29-2012, 16:12
Budget is a congressional problem not presidential problem. I fear for this country. Nobody knows how government works.

Kablam
10-29-2012, 16:41
In this fictional world where GJ wins in 2012, I fantasize a world where a majority of the population is willing to sacrifice federal intervention for decreased debt that no longer weighs down the economy. A population of citizens that is aware of their limits regarding policing the world, providing "free" healthcare for all citizens, and the likelihood of paying into a pension/safety net that won't be there when they reach retirement age. A Congress that looks in the mirror and sees a shift in their "mandate", seeing it transferred to someone that wants their power to be shrunk, not expanded. Troops come home pronto, lots of vetoes, and executive orders from a President with a unique perspective of government, that it usually costs more than it's worth. In a more realistic world (but still improbable), Gary gets 5% and doesn't have to spend any time fighting in the courts to get on the ballots in 2016, the economy is still in a fragile, stuttering growth phase, no one who voted either Democrat or Republican is happier about much of anything, and more people flee the parties that didn't do anything in return for a party-line vote except waste more money than was in the treasury.

Re bragging about it here: I want to make sure that no one feels alone voting for a third party. Even though (~1 million) will do the same, what do you see here and every news source? pro/anti-Romney, pro/anti-Obama, and not a hint that anyone else is on the ballot. This thread is a support system for anyone else that's contemplating doing the same thing. A "no, I don't think you're stupid, I agree with you" thread of kumbaya.

Okay...thanks. That's your fairy tale with absoulutely no chance of becoming reality even if Gary won. I'm still not sure how the GOP can stick Romney on you. That's the guy that got the GOP nomination (unfortunately) from within the GOP. How can the GOP railroad their own party? Now you choose, which you have.

And to set the record straight (not saying you said any different here)...I DON'T think you're stupid, but I DON'T agree with you either. It's your vote after all. There in lies a fundamental difference between pragmatists and the new line self described socially superior libertarians with their all or nothing view (much like OWS by the way).

robrides85
10-29-2012, 16:46
Budget is a congressional problem not presidential problem. I fear for this country. Nobody knows how government works.

Both Romney and Obama disagree with you, otherwise why would they be touting their own budgets and spending proposals?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility

427
10-29-2012, 16:49
Okay...thanks. That's your fairy tale with absoulutely no chance of becoming reality even if Gary won. I'm still not sure how the GOP can stick Romney on you. That's the guy that got the GOP nomination (unfortunately) from within the GOP. How can the GOP railroad their own party? Now you choose, which you have.

And to set the record straight (not saying you said any different here)...I DON'T think you're stupid, but I DON'T agree with you either. It's your vote after all. There in lies a fundamental difference between pragmatists and the new line self described socially superior libertarians with their all or nothing view (much like OWS by the way).

You mean morally superior.

BTW I lived in NM when Johnson was Gov. The thing I remember from his adim was when the LEOs resigned when he came out for the legalization of drugs.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm saying that's the one thing that I remember.

427
10-29-2012, 16:51
Both Romney and Obama disagree with you, otherwise why would they be touting their own budgets and spending proposals?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility
Obama submitted a budget earlier this year and not one member of congress voted for it. Not one.

eb07
10-29-2012, 16:53
Both Romney and Obama disagree with you, otherwise why would they be touting their own budgets and spending proposals?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/fiscal-responsibility

Well let me give you a quick civics lesson seeing you did not pay attention in class....

The President submits a budget to Congress every year. The CBO then drafts a budget resolution. Then it goes to the House and Senate for vote. If the House and Senate reject it, it is not valid. If they pass it, it does not require Presidential signature because it is not a law and it becomes binding. But what do I know. I just paid attention in class.

callihan_44
10-29-2012, 16:55
Got my early-voting done on Saturday - one more for Gary Johnson - in a swing state, no less :tongueout:

Want to criticize us or our votes? Go hangout in this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448161

This thread is a celebration of those voters that found the two established parties' candidates seriously wanting, and went elsewhere to fulfill their democratic duty of voting.

well atleast you voted I guess, if you really really want someone like ron or gary to succeed in office first you need enough support to win, second you need a house and senate to get anything done... good luck with that

robrides85
10-29-2012, 17:03
Okay...thanks. That's your fairy tale with absoulutely no chance of becoming reality even if Gary won. I'm still not sure how the GOP can stick Romney on you. That's the guy that got the GOP nomination (unfortunately) from within the GOP. How can the GOP railroad their own party? Now you choose, which you have.

And to set the record straight (not saying you said any different here)...I DON'T think you're stupid, but I DON'T agree with you either. It's your vote after all. There in lies a fundamental difference between pragmatists and the new line self described socially superior libertarians with their all or nothing view (much like OWS by the way).

Like I said, fiction and fantasy. You never know what could happen if Gary won though, because the circumstances of that win would truly be a national shift of perspective, such that so many more impossible story lines could become true. Why bother discussing fairy tales though? I'd be at least somewhat satisfied if some of Gary's rhetoric bled through into the more vacuous discussion of issues that they called the Presidential debates. But of course that wouldn't be allowed by the Obama-Romney debate contract. Ugh.

Yeah, I don't know where my recent inability to settle (this much) came from. I've settled before. I'm sure I'll settle again. Maybe my "go along to get along" mentality eroded this term when my faith in government reached an all time low, and then mixed with disenfranchisement on issues that matter to me the most. Just a stream of consciousness. Not a sociologist, don't know the sources of others' third party votes, just know that there are a lot of people unhappy with the Obama-Romney choice.

Kablam
10-29-2012, 17:09
Your choice, your vote. Like I said, I don't think it's stupid (not that my opinion matters).

427
10-29-2012, 17:10
Like I said, fiction and fantasy. You never know what could happen if Gary won though, because the circumstances of that win would truly be a national shift of perspective, such that so many more impossible story lines could become true. Why bother discussing fairy tales though? I'd be at least somewhat satisfied if some of Gary's rhetoric bled through into the more vacuous discussion of issues that they called the Presidential debates. But of course that wouldn't be allowed by the Obama-Romney debate contract. Ugh.

Yeah, I don't know where my recent inability to settle (this much) came from. I've settled before. I'm sure I'll settle again. Maybe my "go along to get along" mentality eroded this term when my faith in government reached an all time low, and then mixed with disenfranchisement on issues that matter to me the most. Just a stream of consciousness. Not a sociologist, don't know the sources of others' third party votes, just know that there are a lot of people unhappy with the Obama-Romney choice.
For all intents and purposes, Johnson will be a footnote after the election, just like Nader, Perot, and a bunch of others I don't care enough to look up.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 17:18
Well let me give you a quick civics lesson seeing you did not pay attention in class....

The President submits a budget to Congress every year. The CBO then drafts a budget resolution. Then it goes to the House and Senate for vote. If the House and Senate reject it, it is not valid. If they pass it, it does not require Presidential signature because it is not a law and it becomes binding. But what do I know. I just paid attention in class.

I don't understand what we're arguing about. You claim that the president has no part in the budgeting process? Then I put something up about the budgets/budget concepts that Obama/Romney would offer up. Then you add something about the President being unnecessary in the process? Did you purposefully leave out the part where Congress has to either get the President's signature or override his veto in order to actually distribute money? And gee, I wonder what Governor Gary "Veto" Johnson excels at doing...

robrides85
10-29-2012, 17:23
For all intents and purposes, Johnson will be a footnote after the election, just like Nader, Perot, and a bunch of others I don't care enough to look up.

There's one path where this isn't true. Through some miracle, he gets 5% of the vote. Then he's automatically on the ballot in every state come 2016, has four years to tear the incumbent's policies apart, and can do some serious damage in the next election (and dare I say, perhaps even win?) Nah, won't set my expectations that high. Just hurt the two main parties enough that they move their platforms to keep voters from fleeing to him, accomplishing similar gains that I want for the country.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 17:26
Great news. If Romney doesn't win the Libertarians can become the scapegoat. They can feel all special while everyone hates them for four years.

People will just be lining up to join in 2016.

If Romney doesn't win then it is the fault of the RNC for pushing Romney and the fault of those that chose such a poor candidate in the primary. This election should have been a cakewalk for the GOP. This election should have been a blowout that even the LSM couldn't close the gap on. It is what it is but if Romney loses place your blame where it should lie and that is not with people that have chosen to vote third party.

ModGlock17
10-29-2012, 17:28
Who's most likely to vote for Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan ??? They are on the ballot for P/VP.

427
10-29-2012, 17:29
There's one path where this isn't true. Through some miracle, he gets 5% of the vote. Then he's automatically on the ballot in every state come 2016, has four years to tear the incumbent's policies apart, and can do some serious damage in the next election (and dare I say, perhaps even win?) Nah, won't set my expectations that high. Just hurt the two main parties enough that they move their platforms to keep voters from fleeing to him, accomplishing similar gains that I want for the country.
Yeah lots lots of 'ifs".

robrides85
10-29-2012, 17:37
Yeah lots lots of 'ifs".

Yup! Regardless, every vote that voted mainstream last election, and then abandoned mainstream for an election to vote third party, is a tiny indicator, gathered together times a million, that shifts in platform/policy have an audience ready and waiting to support them. How else do I get a (better) voice, if I don't show those politicians that I'm waiting for them to represent me?

This too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

The Machinist
10-29-2012, 17:40
I'm not voting for Romney or Obama, since I don't believe in the tenets of liberalism.

427
10-29-2012, 17:41
Yup! Regardless, every vote that voted mainstream last election, and then abandoned mainstream for an election to vote third party, is a tiny indicator, gathered together times a million, that shifts in platform/policy have an audience ready and waiting to support them. How else do I get a (better) voice, if I don't show those politicians that I'm waiting for them to represent me?

This too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Doesn't matter, third parties don't win elections.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 17:50
Doesn't matter, third parties don't win elections.

You think my vote doesn't matter, because my candidate can't win this election. I think my vote does matter, because it'll affect/adjust the conversation that a businessman like Romney has with his advisors, prior to coming up with his platform for reelection, to pull in the most votes possible.

I think your vote doesn't matter, because as soon as you vote for Romney, he ignores you, because you've already approved of whatever he espouses (which is fine, if you're already happy with him as a candidate). I'm not.

Same argument goes for civil rights and Obama's conversation with his advisors. If there isn't a group of people ready and excited to support a politician on a "fringe" perspective of an issue, it'll always remain fringe. If I had voted for one of the two current options, I would have been supporting policies that I'm already unhappy with.

Have you seen a box on the ballot where you get to vote for Romney, and then check off the boxes of sub-categories that you agree with him on? Same goes for Obama. I wasn't able to check off enough of those sub-categories to justify throwing an all or nothing vote behind either of the candidates.

eb07
10-29-2012, 17:57
Gary Johnson because our first choice didn't make it. Lol

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:00
Gary Johnson because our first choice didn't make it. Lol

Did your first choice make it?

countrygun
10-29-2012, 18:21
Did your first choice make it?

Mine didn't, but I am not throwing a hissy fit about it.

Gunnut 45/454
10-29-2012, 18:29
Wow by your data Garry Johnson will get less then 1% of the vote! Ron Paul will be proud! As he will still be the top vote getter for the Liberterians!:rofl: So we can officially call the liberterian party DEAD!:supergrin:

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 18:31
Mine didn't, but I am not throwing a hissy fit about it.

No, but you do go into a conniption fit over anyone voting for a third party.

Cavalry Doc
10-29-2012, 18:33
Now, come on. Libertarian's aren't all that bad.


I early voted today. Romney for prez. Ted Cruz for senate.

Don't really like my Congressman, so voted libertarian. Then thought, what the hell. There were about 9 judicial races. In every one of them (which was most) that did not have an opposing dem, I voted libertarian. Where there was an opposing dem, I voted for the republican, just to keep the Dem unemployed.

I'm sure that I voted for over half a dozen libertarians today.


But I'm pragmatic.

NMGlocker
10-29-2012, 18:36
Gary Johnson
The ironic part is Johnson may be the spoiler in New Mexico that gives our 5 EC votes to Romney.


Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

IvanVic
10-29-2012, 18:36
I am voting to get the current evil out of office, at all costs..... that is my stand and I do not understand why it is not every taxpaying American's stand... unless of course you don't pay taxes. Then carry on.

I think you are missing the point that the GJ and RP supporters are trying to make. While I do not agree with them, their point is that our fiscal situation is our biggest threat. They feel that neither Romney or Obama will reduce the size of the federal government in any meaningful way, nor will they cut the debt. According to them, "getting Obama out of office at all costs" might have some effect in terms of social issues or supreme court appointments, etc., however, it will not address our biggest threat, our fiscal situation. Consequently, this "getting him out no matter who we have to vote for" becomes pointless, and they see your vote as having little effect in terms of fixing our crucial problems. Their position is that as long as Republicans are happy voting for the lesser of two evils, the government will continue to grow until we implode.

Again, I don't think they are right, but I'm at least willing to hear and understand their argument. I sincerely hope that Romney will reduce the size of our government, but it's far from a guarantee.

427
10-29-2012, 18:37
You think my vote doesn't matter, because my candidate can't win this election. I think my vote does matter, because it'll affect/adjust the conversation that a businessman like Romney has with his advisors, prior to coming up with his platform for reelection, to pull in the most votes possible.

I think your vote doesn't matter, because as soon as you vote for Romney, he ignores you, because you've already approved of whatever he espouses (which is fine, if you're already happy with him as a candidate). I'm not.

Same argument goes for civil rights and Obama's conversation with his advisors. If there isn't a group of people ready and excited to support a politician on a "fringe" perspective of an issue, it'll always remain fringe. If I had voted for one of the two current options, I would have been supporting policies that I'm already unhappy with.

Have you seen a box on the ballot where you get to vote for Romney, and then check off the boxes of sub-categories that you agree with him on? Same goes for Obama. I wasn't able to check off enough of those sub-categories to justify throwing an all or nothing vote behind either of the candidates.
Where in my statement about third parties not winning elections did I say your vote doesn't/didn't matter? Where? I'm stating a fact. Third party election numbers/results don't lie.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 18:45
Wow by your data Garry Johnson will get less then 1% of the vote! Ron Paul will be proud! As he will still be the top vote getter for the Liberterians!:rofl: So we can officially call the liberterian party DEAD!:supergrin:

What're you all giggly about? The face of the Republican Party this year: Mitt Romney. No sadness in that, just glee at the misfortune of some other candidate? Odd.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 18:47
Where in my statement about third parties not winning elections did I say your vote doesn't/didn't matter? Where? I'm stating a fact. Third party election numbers/results don't lie.

Ah true. Must've gotten my hackles up a bit - carry on!

countrygun
10-29-2012, 18:47
No, but you do go into a conniption fit over anyone voting for a third party.

Unlike some, when my first choice LOST repeat LOST the Republican primary I didn't take part in trying to corrupt the Republican Convention, nor did I continue to vote for a loser.

I accepted that more voters in the Prty voted for someone else, and that someone else was the nominee.

I actually don't have much against people who voted for Johnson in the primary and are sticking with him (dumb as I think it is, I will still pat them on the head and buy them ice cream) but the people who voted in the REPUBLICAN primary, didn't like the results and continued to pimp for RP are, IMO D-bags.


I still don't grasp what self-gratification there is for the third party folks. If you like Obama's first term so much, why not just vote for him? If you don't like it why not vote for someone who actually can replace him?

I made my prediction and stand by it. This will be a very low turn out total for candidates other than The D or R nominees. The "Thirds" have literally done nothing positive in this election. They are skinned down to a halloween skeleton and everyone else finds them repulsive. a lot of work went in to trying to give the Libertarian Party some credibility over the years. Republican conservatives are not going to forget the party not pitching in to get rid of Obama.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 18:48
Gary Johnson
The ironic part is Johnson may be the spoiler in New Mexico that gives our 5 EC votes to Romney.


Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

Shh - no possibilities may be aired that support an alternate worldview where GJ appeals to someone other than a backslidin' big tent Republican!

NMGlocker
10-29-2012, 18:57
I never abandoned the GOP... because I've never identified myself as a Republican.
It's true that the majority of the time I choose the Republican candidate but I have voted Libertarian and even Democrat in the past and will in the future.
The biggest fools of all are those voting against instead of for a candidate.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

AtlantaR6
10-29-2012, 19:07
Registered Republican and voted Gary Johnson. I'm in a red State, just trying to make a stand.

Ruble Noon
10-29-2012, 19:08
Unlike some, when my first choice LOST repeat LOST the Republican primary I didn't take part in trying to corrupt the Republican Convention, nor did I continue to vote for a loser.

I accepted that more voters in the Prty voted for someone else, and that someone else was the nominee.

I actually don't have much against people who voted for Johnson in the primary and are sticking with him (dumb as I think it is, I will still pat them on the head and buy them ice cream) but the people who voted in the REPUBLICAN primary, didn't like the results and continued to pimp for RP are, IMO D-bags.


I still don't grasp what self-gratification there is for the third party folks. If you like Obama's first term so much, why not just vote for him? If you don't like it why not vote for someone who actually can replace him?

I made my prediction and stand by it. This will be a very low turn out total for candidates other than The D or R nominees. The "Thirds" have literally done nothing positive in this election. They are skinned down to a halloween skeleton and everyone else finds them repulsive. a lot of work went in to trying to give the Libertarian Party some credibility over the years. Republican conservatives are not going to forget the party not pitching in to get rid of Obama.

Your party did.

Republican conservatives are not going to forget the party not pitching in to get rid of Obama.


Conservatives are not going to forget how the republicans treated the TEA party.
Conservatives are not going to forget the shenanigans that the republicans pulled at the convention against one of their own.

jbailey8
10-29-2012, 19:15
I am voting to get the current evil out of office, at all costs..... that is my stand and I do not understand why it is not every taxpaying American's stand... unless of course you don't pay taxes. Then carry on.


Neither Obama nor Romney have any interest in reversing the NDAA or the provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. Also, both said they would sign an assault weapons ban.

Those are just two of the issues that are important to me, but they are both lacking on any of the qualities that we need as a leader of our nation.

robrides85
10-29-2012, 20:15
Registered Republican and voted Gary Johnson. I'm in a red State, just trying to make a stand.

:banana:

countrygun
10-29-2012, 20:35
Your party did.



Conservatives are not going to forget how the republicans treated the TEA party.
Conservatives are not going to forget the shenanigans that the republicans pulled at the convention against one of their own.

Oh Gawd are you hillarious:rofl:

"Conservatives" my eye, a bunch of wannabe liberals at heart who tried to split the Republican party to grease the rails for Obama:rofl:

Yup all those folks are sure showing their anger with their General Election votes, yup. It is going to be the smallest turnout for the libertarian party in 4 elections. yup that'll show the Republicans:rofl:

NMGlocker
10-29-2012, 21:11
Im not trying to show the Republicans anything.
I dont give a rats rear end about any political party.
I vote based on principle not party.

427
10-29-2012, 21:28
Im not trying to show the Republicans anything.
I dont give a rats rear end about any political party.
I vote based on principle not party.

A principled vote vs a pragmatic vote does what, exactly?

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 05:25
A principled vote vs a pragmatic vote does what, exactly?
It sends a message that the voter is not OK with more socialism.

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 05:52
A principled vote vs a pragmatic vote does what, exactly?
I sleep well at night I am my own man.
I don't compromise my principles to go along with the crowd.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

engineer151515
10-30-2012, 06:04
Congratulations.

And on Nov 7th, when the results are in, do not count yourselves among the voters that stopped Obama and the Democrats from continuing their fiscal destruction, weakened overseas diplomacy and socialist takeover of the country.

IvanVic
10-30-2012, 06:40
Congratulations.

And on Nov 7th, when the results are in, do not count yourselves among the voters that stopped Obama and the Democrats from continuing their fiscal destruction, weakened overseas diplomacy and socialist takeover of the country.

I think you are missing the point that the GJ and RP supporters are trying to make. While I do not agree with them, their point is that our fiscal situation is our biggest threat. They feel that neither Romney or Obama will reduce the size of the federal government in any meaningful way, nor will they cut the debt. According to them, "getting Obama out of office at all costs" might have some effect in terms of social issues or supreme court appointments, etc., however, it will not address our biggest threat, our fiscal situation. Consequently, this "getting him out no matter who we have to vote for" becomes pointless, and they see your vote as having little effect in terms of fixing our crucial problems. Their position is that as long as Republicans are happy voting for the lesser of two evils, the government will continue to grow until we implode.

Again, I don't think they are right, but I'm at least willing to hear and understand their argument. I sincerely hope that Romney will reduce the size of our government, but it's far from a guarantee.

Why is this so hard for people here to understand?

walt cowan
10-30-2012, 06:52
Got my early-voting done on Saturday - one more for Gary Johnson - in a swing state, no less :tongueout:

Want to criticize us or our votes? Go hangout in this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448161

This thread is a celebration of those voters that found the two established parties' candidates seriously wanting, and went elsewhere to fulfill their democratic duty of voting.

about two weeks ago for johnson. i wish to thank the rnc and team mittens for helping me and others to make that choice. oh ye fools...keep burning those bridges.:wavey::rofl:

robrides85
10-30-2012, 09:31
Congratulations.

And on Nov 7th, when the results are in, do not count yourselves among the voters that stopped Obama and the Democrats from continuing their fiscal destruction, weakened overseas diplomacy and socialist takeover of the country.

Same goes for you - I'm going to have to see the budget deficit and the national debt after four years before I can put you up on that glorious platform and praise you. And where you see "weakened overseas diplomacy", I just took that to mean we're likely to get into another war under a Romney administration. Socialist takeover? Romney is fine with some of Obamacare. Do you know which portions he's interested in leaving/removing? I don't. Whoopee!

robrides85
10-30-2012, 09:32
about two weeks ago for johnson. i wish to thank the rnc and team mittens for helping me and others to make that choice. oh ye fools...keep burning those bridges.:wavey::rofl:

:wavey:

ricklee4570
10-30-2012, 09:49
Neither Obama nor Romney have any interest in reversing the NDAA or the provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. Also, both said they would sign an assault weapons ban.

Those are just two of the issues that are important to me, but they are both lacking on any of the qualities that we need as a leader of our nation.


You must only pay attention to what Romney said years and years ago. He is strong with the NRA, he has said over and over and over again that he would NOT sign an assault weapons ban. He even argued with President Obama about that in the second debate.

If gun rights are important to you vote Romney. If you want Romney appointing the Supreme Court Justices instead of Obama (look at the two Obama appointed in his first 4 years) vote Romney.

wjv
10-30-2012, 10:02
Again, you stuck it to us when Romney became "the guy". And the "sure is better than a second term of Obama" is debatable when Romney is such an uncertainty, and rhetoric only slightly better than Obama's.

You really don't understand how democracy and the electoral process works. . .

It's the will of THE PEOPLE. . not the WILL OF ONE PERSON.

But because you didn't get YOUR way, (neither did I BTW), your going to have a juvenile hissy fit.

And now that we have actually been able t listen to Romney without the MSM filtering his comments, we are all learning that he isn't as bad as the press/media and libertarians have painted him to be.

What pisses me off is that all of you libertarians act like your God's gift to conservatism, and that you are the only true conservatives. Well maybe we actually can see the big picture and realize how ****ing dangerous Obama is to this country's survival.

But you libertarians don't seem to give one damn about all the continued damage that Obama will do to this country. All you care about is that you didn't get your way so you're going to have your hissy fit, instead of trying to actually save this country.

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 10:09
But you libertarians don't seem to give one damn about all the continued damage that Obama will do to this country.
Turnabout is fair play, is it not? After all, you don't give a damn about the damage Romney will do to this country with increased spending, support for the NDAA, and his affinity for government-mandated healthcare. You have no room to lecture libertarians on anything conservative. You sold out.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 10:17
You must only pay attention to what Romney said years and years ago.

:faint: lol

wjv
10-30-2012, 10:22
Turnabout is fair play, is it not? After all, you don't give a damn about the damage Romney will do to this country with increased spending, support for the NDAA, and his affinity for government-mandated healthcare. You have no room to lecture libertarians on anything conservative. You sold out.

What a moronic statement.

And you have no factual context to determine what Romney will/will-not do as president. Obama on the other hand is a KNOWN entity. We have 4 years of his actual record as president to determine what he will/will-not do.

But I guess you have to keep telling yourself the crap you're spewing so you can sleep at night.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 10:24
You really don't understand how democracy and the electoral process works. . .

blow my mind.

It's the will of THE PEOPLE. . not the WILL OF ONE PERSON.

I'm not going to alone. Those voting for Obama aren't going to be alone. What's your point? That you're in the wrong, and if 49% vote for Obama, you're being selfish, going against the will of the people by voting for Romney? Next.

But because you didn't get YOUR way, (neither did I BTW), your going to have a juvenile hissy fit.

No, just tired of settling. Maybe I'll go along to get along next term.

And now that we have actually been able t listen to Romney without the MSM filtering his comments, we are all learning that he isn't as bad as the press/media and libertarians have painted him to be.

An empty paragraph. You may be more excited. I'm not. I've been following him and the race since the beginning of the primary debates. Got a pretty idea where he stands (at the moment, but he's kind of like Schrodinger's cat).

What pisses me off is that all of you libertarians act like your God's gift to conservatism, and that you are the only true conservatives. Well maybe we actually can see the big picture and realize how ****ing dangerous Obama is to this country's survival.

You see danger, you just don't see any from Romney?

But you libertarians don't seem to give one damn about all the continued damage that Obama will do to this country. All you care about is that you didn't get your way so you're going to have your hissy fit, instead of trying to actually save this country.

Incorrect. I see continued damage from both Obama and Romney.

See stream of consciousness in bold.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 10:25
What a moronic statement.

And you have no factual context to determine what Romney will/will-not do as president. Obama on the other hand is a KNOWN entity. We have 4 years of his actual record as president to determine what he will/will-not do.

But I guess you have to keep telling yourself the crap you're spewing so you can sleep at night.

lol Obama's evolving too, remember gay marriage? And why are you voting for Romney if you don't know what he will or won'g do?

RC-RAMIE
10-30-2012, 10:54
lol Obama's evolving too, remember gay marriage? And why are you voting for Romney if you don't know what he will or won'g do?

We have to pass it to see what's in it.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 10:59
We have to pass it to see what's in it.

Is there a smilie that laughs and then starts crying? That one goes here.

walt cowan
10-30-2012, 11:20
Oh Gawd are you hillarious:rofl:

"Conservatives" my eye, a bunch of wannabe liberals at heart who tried to split the Republican party to grease the rails for Obama:rofl:

Yup all those folks are sure showing their anger with their General Election votes, yup. It is going to be the smallest turnout for the libertarian party in 4 elections. yup that'll show the Republicans:rofl:

so...you chose party over the republic? sad.

SCmasterblaster
10-30-2012, 11:24
I voted for the pro-gun Romney.

427
10-30-2012, 11:37
It sends a message that the voter is not OK with more socialism.Who receives that message? People on internet forums?

I sleep well at night
I sleep well every night.
I am my own man.
What does manliness have to do with anything?

I don't compromise my principles to go along with the crowd.

Going along with the crowd!? My vote is to get Obama out of office. Mittens happens to be the best chance. Had it been Paul or Johnson, ect. they would've had it. That's not compromising principles, that's an effective message.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 11:39
so...you chose party over the republic? sad.

I chose the good of the Country, getting rid of Obama, instead of accomplishing nothing and feeding my super-ego driven self-image.

There's nothing "sad" about getting Obama out.

Several members here have long histories of voting Libertarian and for other third-party or longshot candidates but their experience (this is my 8th Presidential election as a voter) has taught them what a danger Obama is.

I have rarely if ever voted for the final Republican candidate in the primary (actually rarely for the Republican if there was a viable 3rd paty) and I didn't vote for Romney in the primary this time, but I can see the danger of Obama,and I have never made a decision (even with Clinton) to vote based on my feelings about the incumbent being "a Danger".

No, I have never bought the "Most important election of your life" shibboleth in 32 years, but this time, it's true. He is that dangerous.

I will put my thisrd party/Libertarian experience up against yours anyday of the week, but this election IS actually too important to make a useless futile gesture.

Don't talk to me about chosing "Party over the Republic", when you are willing to help a Marxist who rules by executive order, stay in power.


YOU are the one who is so "dedicated" to a Party that you can't be flexible enough to put Country before self-gratifying idealism. That is a great danger in and of itself

G29Reload
10-30-2012, 11:49
Turnabout is fair play, is it not? After all, you don't give a damn about the damage Romney will do to this country with increased spending, support for the NDAA, and his affinity for government-mandated healthcare. You have no room to lecture libertarians on anything conservative. You sold out.

You have absolutely no idea what he will do. Everything you said is nothing more than speculation.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 11:51
No, I have never bought the "Most important election of your life" shibboleth in 32 years, but this time, it's true. He is that dangerous.


You understand how this sounds, right? What if this was just a moment of weakness for you, augmented with more of the same fear-mongering rhetoric?

robrides85
10-30-2012, 11:54
YOU are the one who is so "dedicated" to a Party that you can't be flexible enough to put Country before self-gratifying idealism. That is a great danger in and of itself

I owe nothing to the Libertarian Party beyond appreciation for giving Gary a platform to continue spreading the MESSAGE that I want amplified on behalf of my own voice. If they can push more candidates similar to him, those candidates will earn my support, not blind trust just because they came from a party.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 11:58
You have absolutely no idea what he will do. Everything you said is nothing more than speculation.

So you do know what Romney will do? What's his 100-day plan? What will Obama do? Who's not speculating? Does Romney's rhetoric have some continuity or certainty behind it that I'm missing, that gives you more faith than me in his potential presidency? Not to mention, both Romney's and Obama's rhetoric don't represent all perspectives that some citizens care about.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 11:59
You understand how this sounds, right? What if this was just a moment of weakness for you, augmented with more of the same fear-mongering rhetoric?


Common sense, my major was Political Science and, as I said, many elections and watching several men oaacupy the White House.

You, on the other hand, impress me as a teenager with his first morning wood.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 12:05
Common sense, my major was Political Science and, as I said, many elections and watching several men oaacupy the White House.

You, on the other hand, impress me as a teenager with his first morning wood.

Get your mind out of the gutter, you ephebophile.

Here, someone did my writing for me:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/the-libertarian-case-for-gary-johnson
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/26/the-libertarian-case-for-voting-for-obam
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/30/the-libertarian-case-for-voting-for-romn

countrygun
10-30-2012, 12:26
Here, someone did my writing for me:



That's no surprise.

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 12:36
Once again, it must be explained to the neocons that the only way the US can continue to operate, is by accruing more debt. That is the damage Romney will have a willing hand in if he becomes president.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 12:45
Once again, it must be explained to the neocons that the only way the US can continue to operate, is by accruing more debt. That is the damage Romney will have a willing hand in if he becomes president.

It once again must be pointed out that the term "neocon" is merely an attempt by the more liberal "Libertarians" to rebrand conservatism, obfuscate the principles with a more liberal agenda, so they can claim to be the real conservatives.

I have the basic same political position as my Father and my Grandfather, there isn't much "Neo" to it.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 12:48
That's no surprise.

I'm not worthy of your consideration, oh great one - thou were so correct in abusing the messenger instead of the message!

Anyone else that actually wants to read something, those three links would be a nice place to start - libertarian reasons for voting for Johnson, Romney, or Obama.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 12:54
It once again must be pointed out that the term "neocon" is merely an attempt by the more liberal "Libertarians" to rebrand conservatism, obfuscate the principles with a more liberal agenda, so they can claim to be the real conservatives.

I have the basic same political position as my Father and my Grandfather, there isn't much "Neo" to it.

You're right, name-calling is inappropriate. Still, didn't get to the root of the problem. Romney's full of empty rhetoric when it actually comes to making a significant decrease in spending. Hence why we had the pleasure of him attacking PBS for a measly $400 million. He's not shown any willingness in his speech to make cuts that would actually affect our future debt-to-GDP ratio in a meaningful way.

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 12:58
"Most important election in history."
That's a ridiculous statement and shows a fundamental ignorance of history.
Romney isn't going to change course in any significant way. We'll still be trillions in debt, still be stuck in the Middle East with no resolutions, and none of Obama's signature legislation will be repealed.
Romney will enact his own signature legislation (that will expand gov of course) and 2016 will be touted as the most important election ever... and 2020, 2024, 2028.
Ad nauseum.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 13:01
It once again must be pointed out that the term "neocon" is merely an attempt by the more liberal "Libertarians" to rebrand conservatism, obfuscate the principles with a more liberal agenda, so they can claim to be the real conservatives.

I have the basic same political position as my Father and my Grandfather, there isn't much "Neo" to it.
Romney is a shining example of pure conservativism on all fronts...

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

countrygun
10-30-2012, 13:04
"Most important election in history."
That's a ridiculous statement and shows a fundamental ignorance of history.
Romney isn't going to change course in any significant way. We'll still be trillions in debt, still be stuck in the Middle East with no resolutions, and none of Obama's signature legislation will be repealed.
Romney will enact his own signature legislation (that will expand gov of course) and 2016 will be touted as the most important election ever... and 2020, 2024, 2028.
Ad nauseum.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2


I have had nothing but distain for that phrase for over 30 years, but in this case it comes as close to being true as I have seen. Obama's record alone is close to complete validation. Where is our budget?, how long did it take him to double the national debt? How many executive orders have been issued? What is the truth to "F&F" and who is taking responsibility? Benghazi? Why aren't Black on White crimes being investigated as "hate crimes"?

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 13:17
Was the 2008 election the most important in history?
Because your gripes about Obama sound just like the Dems gripes about Bush in '04 and '08.
Looking at it as a nonpartisan dispassionate observer, Obama was just Bush's third term with some Clinton thrown in.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

countrygun
10-30-2012, 13:30
Was the 2008 election the most important in history?
Because your gripes about Obama sound just like the Dems gripes about Bush in '04 and '08.
Looking at it as a nonpartisan dispassionate observer, Obama was just Bush's third term with some Clinton thrown in.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

Well, since I am not a Dem it is pretty silly to try and blame me for what the Dems said in '04 and '08 now isn't it?

wjv
10-30-2012, 13:56
Once again, it must be explained to the neocons that the only way the US can continue to operate, is by accruing more debt. That is the damage Romney will have a willing hand in if he becomes president.

So you want the destruction of the USA?

If (as you stated) the ONLY WAY the US can continue to operate is by accruing more debt.

AND

You think that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would stop accumulating debt.

Then the Libertarian President would help foster the destruction of the USA.

That's what you want? :steamed:

FFR Spyder GT
10-30-2012, 13:58
Jill Stein (Green Party)

countrygun
10-30-2012, 14:12
Jill Stein (Green Party)

well, by your math, in a "Plus or Minus 4.5% margin of error poll" Jill Stein is starting with 9% so why not?

walt cowan
10-30-2012, 14:16
I chose the good of the Country, getting rid of Obama, instead of accomplishing nothing and feeding my super-ego driven self-image.

There's nothing "sad" about getting Obama out.

Several members here have long histories of voting Libertarian and for other third-party or longshot candidates but their experience (this is my 8th Presidential election as a voter) has taught them what a danger Obama is.

I have rarely if ever voted for the final Republican candidate in the primary (actually rarely for the Republican if there was a viable 3rd paty) and I didn't vote for Romney in the primary this time, but I can see the danger of Obama,and I have never made a decision (even with Clinton) to vote based on my feelings about the incumbent being "a Danger".

No, I have never bought the "Most important election of your life" shibboleth in 32 years, but this time, it's true. He is that dangerous.

I will put my thisrd party/Libertarian experience up against yours anyday of the week, but this election IS actually too important to make a useless futile gesture.

Don't talk to me about chosing "Party over the Republic", when you are willing to help a Marxist who rules by executive order, stay in power.


YOU are the one who is so "dedicated" to a Party that you can't be flexible enough to put Country before self-gratifying idealism. That is a great danger in and of itself

so the simple answer is party. i'll forgive you and others of the same mind but, will the country and republic?

CigarandScotch
10-30-2012, 14:37
Pure stupidity.

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 15:07
So you want the destruction of the USA?

If (as you stated) the ONLY WAY the US can continue to operate is by accruing more debt.

AND

You think that the Libertarian candidate, if elected, would stop accumulating debt.

Then the Libertarian President would help foster the destruction of the USA.

That's what you want? :steamed:
Jesus Christ, do I really need to dumb it down for you this much? The only way the federal government can exist in its current form, is to borrow and spend. This is the path Romney will keep us on, since he has no desire to extricate us from the Federal Reserve, or cut the big three entitlement programs. If you had watched any of the debates, or listened to any of Romney's speeches, you would have figured this out by now.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 15:07
so the simple answer is party. i'll forgive you and others of the same mind but, will the country and republic?

The simple answer is doing something to put someone better than Obama in the White House, not passively accepting him there and going out and voting to selfishly make yourself feel good.

Captain Steinbrenner
10-30-2012, 15:13
I agree with this 100%. How Romney appeared to be the beat Republican candidate in the primaries is beyond me. I said the same thing about McCain in '08. Romney's actually doing better against Obama than I thought he would, but I'll be surprised if he wins.

It's not beyond you bud, is right in front of you and is called "taken for granted" that's why the R's keep giving us ****ty candidates...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Goaltender66
10-30-2012, 15:14
well, by your math, in a "Plus or Minus 4.5% margin of error poll" Jill Stein is starting with 9% so why not?

:supergrin: :rofl:

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 15:23
Well, since I am not a Dem it is pretty silly to try and blame me for what the Dems said in '04 and '08 now isn't it?
If you're backing Romney then you're pretty much a moderate "Blue Dog" Democrat.

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 15:29
The simple answer is doing something to put someone better than Obama in the White House, not passively accepting him there and going out and voting to selfishly make yourself feel good.
With Obama we're headed for the cliff at 100mph.
Romney will apply the brakes so we only run off it at 98mph.

No matter which one of them wins it'll be Bush's 4th term.

:wavey:

countrygun
10-30-2012, 15:34
With Obama we're headed for the cliff at 100mph.
Romney will apply the brakes so we only run off it at 98mph.

No matter which one of them wins it'll be Bush's 4th term.

:wavey:

One of them is going to win. I have more faith in Romney (hard to have any less faith than I have in Obama)

Not pretty, but anything else is just self-pleasuring in public.

engineer151515
10-30-2012, 15:37
Same goes for you - I'm going to have to see the budget deficit and the national debt after four years before I can put you up on that glorious platform and praise you. And where you see "weakened overseas diplomacy", I just took that to mean we're likely to get into another war under a Romney administration. Socialist takeover? Romney is fine with some of Obamacare. Do you know which portions he's interested in leaving/removing? I don't. Whoopee!

If you can't see the differences, then nothing I can say will help.

Again, congratulations. You did nothing to stop Obama.

engineer151515
10-30-2012, 15:42
Jesus Christ, do I really need to dumb it down for you this much? The only way the federal government can exist in its current form, is to borrow and spend. This is the path Romney will keep us on, since he has no desire to extricate us from the Federal Reserve, or cut the big three entitlement programs. If you had watched any of the debates, or listened to any of Romney's speeches, you would have figured this out by now.

Maybe

But at least keep the President in check with the need for re-election. Reduces their "flexibility" to the Russians, if nothing else.

If Libertarians can't see that simple value, you will contribute much toward the political debate and nothing to the political outcome.

BTW - Republican Ron Paul needs a successor to the Libertarian cause.

ChuteTheMall
10-30-2012, 15:56
BTW - Republican Ron Paul needs a successor to the Libertarian cause.

:tinfoil:
http://www.firesigntheatre.com/papoon/
:crazy:

NSLPP

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/papoon/img/bumper.gif

wjv
10-30-2012, 15:56
Jesus Christ, do I really need to dumb it down for you this much? The only way the federal government can exist in its current form, is to borrow and spend. This is the path Romney will keep us on, since he has no desire to extricate us from the Federal Reserve, or cut the big three entitlement programs. If you had watched any of the debates, or listened to any of Romney's speeches, you would have figured this out by now.

Do I have to dumb it down for you?

The only way the federal government can exist in its current form, is to borrow and spend.

And you want someone who will stop the borrowing. .

So what happens to the US government.

You think you can just walk in and say, "Cut the budget 40% Today!!"

We are in a situation where you CAN'T just slam on the brakes. The economy is so fragile that a action like that would dump us into a mega recession.

What IS needed is:

Cut the REGULATION and crap like O-care so businesses can start being business and generating money and job, which will generate tax revenue.

SLOWLY throttle back on government through hiring freezes and targeted cuts.

Reform welfare and such back to what it was under Clinton (at minimum)

Then start moving responsibility for some programs like Education, back to the States so that the Dept of Ed can be reduced over time to 10% of their current size.

Same goes for other departments.

Pulling back from the fiscal cliff could be a decade long process.

So sadly, YES we WILL have to keep borrowing for a while, until things are fixed. If we don't the whole government will come crashing down.

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 16:31
"You did nothing to stop Obama!"
:crying:

I have news for you.
I don't vote against anyone.
My vote wasn't cast to "stop" anyone.
I vote FOR the person who's platform aligns with mine the closest.

If more people voted FOR someone instead of AGAINST the other guy we'd be far better off.
In case you dummies haven't noticed, the Dems keep moving the goal post further left and the GOP just keeps accepting the new (further left) "middle ground". As long as their guy isn't as far left as the Dems, you party line voters will go along with it.
Both parties are progressive, socialist big government and you guys go along for the ride because "he's not as bad as the other guy".
:faint:

countrygun
10-30-2012, 16:44
"You did nothing to stop Obama!"
:crying:

I have news for you.
I don't vote against anyone.
My vote wasn't cast to "stop" anyone.
I vote FOR the person who's platform aligns with mine the closest.



How many elections has that worked for you in?

If we all "stick to our guns" and there is no room for compromise, then we can have a President elected by a 10% plurality, won't that be fun?

You miss the point of primaries, don't you?

Ruble Noon
10-30-2012, 16:52
It once again must be pointed out that the term "neocon" is merely an attempt by the more liberal "Libertarians" to rebrand conservatism, obfuscate the principles with a more liberal agenda, so they can claim to be the real conservatives.

I have the basic same political position as my Father and my Grandfather, there isn't much "Neo" to it.

No, the term Neocon was coined by liberal republicans to describe themselves and separate themselves from conservatives with their military interventionism and their social ideology. Neocon's have been around since the 1930's and I have no doubt that you come from a long line of them.

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 17:05
Pulling back from the fiscal cliff could be a decade long process.

So sadly, YES we WILL have to keep borrowing for a while, until things are fixed. If we don't the whole government will come crashing down.
Romney has no plan to pull us back from the fiscal cliff. None, whatsoever. Voting for him is voting for more of the same failed policies that have chipped away at us for nearly a century.

427
10-30-2012, 18:12
"You did nothing to stop Obama!"
:crying:

I have news for you.
I don't vote against anyone.
My vote wasn't cast to "stop" anyone.
I vote FOR the person who's platform aligns with mine the closest.

If more people voted FOR someone instead of AGAINST the other guy we'd be far better off.
In case you dummies haven't noticed, the Dems keep moving the goal post further left and the GOP just keeps accepting the new (further left) "middle ground". As long as their guy isn't as far left as the Dems, you party line voters will go along with it.
Both parties are progressive, socialist big government and you guys go along for the ride because "he's not as bad as the other guy".
:faint:
Dummies? So, we're calling names, now?

So, voting for Johnson, who's not winning anything sends a message to whom about what?

Even if, by some miracle, Johnson wins, then what? Who will support him in getting his agenda? Or will he be a lame duck from day one?

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 18:25
Even if, by some miracle, Johnson wins, then what? Who will support him in getting his agenda? Or will he be a lame duck from day one?
A gridlocked government is far preferable to one in which the Executive and Legislative branches work closely with one another, as history shows they only make our lives worse when that happens.

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 18:34
You miss the point of primaries, don't you?
Primaries are where the party bosses select the nominee while pretending to give a crap what the people say.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 18:34
A gridlocked government is far preferable to one in which the Executive and Legislative branches work closely with one another, as history shows they only make our lives worse when that happens.

So, in your last post you said that Romney wouldn't stop us from going over the cliff, and you now say Gridlock where nothing is done is the solution?


Uhmmm yah, right, sure:upeyes:

NMGlocker
10-30-2012, 18:35
"I hope he fails..."

countrygun
10-30-2012, 18:48
Primaries are where the party bosses select the nominee while pretending to give a crap what the people say.

Well, judging from the voting numbers there must be several million "party bosses". They weeded out the RINO Ron Paul at the polls.

The Machinist
10-30-2012, 18:54
So, in your last post you said that Romney wouldn't stop us from going over the cliff, and you now say Gridlock where nothing is done is the solution?
No, I didn't say it was the solution. Try reading it again.

Cavalry Doc
10-30-2012, 18:57
Hey, I voted Libertarian around 8 times this election. Early voted. IIRC, there were about 10 judicial elections open, in every one where the republican was not opposed by a dem, I voted for the libertarian candidate. That was about 8 out of the 10.

I still voted for Romney & Ted Cruz, I'm not willing to abandon pragmatism that much. Sometimes, you have to be realistic.

RC-RAMIE
10-30-2012, 19:12
So, in your last post you said that Romney wouldn't stop us from going over the cliff, and you now say Gridlock where nothing is done is the solution?


Uhmmm yah, right, sure:upeyes:

Gridlock is better than increased spending.


....

countrygun
10-30-2012, 19:14
Gridlock is better than increased spending.


....

Gee we have a Government that can't pass a budget, and I sure have noticed the spending drop off:upeyes:

byaah_19
10-30-2012, 21:53
Thanks for helping out OBAMA.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 22:00
Well, judging from the voting numbers there must be several million "party bosses". They weeded out the RINO Ron Paul at the polls.

You missed the rigging of the delegate rules at the RNC, didn't you? That holy primary, where the will of the people is made flesh.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/27/floor-fight-grass-roots-activists-battle-attempt-to-rig-gop-convention-delegate-rules/

if she's too partisan for you, Google can find you more neutral sources regarding the squashing of delegates' voices at the Republican National Convention.

robrides85
10-30-2012, 22:02
Thanks for helping out OBAMA.

Congratulations on associating yourself with Romney.

countrygun
10-30-2012, 22:26
You missed the rigging of the delegate rules at the RNC, didn't you? That holy primary, where the will of the people is made flesh.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/08/27/floor-fight-grass-roots-activists-battle-attempt-to-rig-gop-convention-delegate-rules/

if she's too partisan for you, Google can find you more neutral sources regarding the squashing of delegates' voices at the Republican National Convention.

Yup, silly me I was looking at the laughably low number of actual votes RP got. I forgot that his base was saying "But we really, really want him"

robrides85
10-30-2012, 22:50
Yup, silly me I was looking at the laughably low number of actual votes RP got. I forgot that his base was saying "But we really, really want him"

Yup, 2,000,000 people is hilarious. So Romney's 10,000,000 is merely pitiful? I don't know what 5X of hilarious is. Probably a lot, because whoever wins the presidential election is going to be bragging abou the mandate given to them by the extra 1% of the population that carried them over the top. I guess you're working off a different scale than I am? If you could put aside the d*** measuring contest for one moment, you could read some more, watch a video, and at least contemplate "hmm, that doesn't seem quite right." But that wouldn't fit your worldview, so carry on soldier. Yours is obviously bigger.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/boehner-booed-at-convention-as-chaos-erupts-on-convention-floor-over-ron-paul-delegates/
RNC 2012 FRAUD: Teleprompter reads results of the floor vote is BEFORE votes are actually cast. - YouTube

wjv
10-30-2012, 22:51
Romney has no plan to pull us back from the fiscal cliff. None, whatsoever. Voting for him is voting for more of the same failed policies that have chipped away at us for nearly a century.


And you learned this how?

1-800-PSYCHIC?

robrides85
10-30-2012, 22:52
And you learned this how?

1-800-PSYCHIC?

Same place you gained faith in the value of a pragmatic vote for Romney.

ricklee4570
10-31-2012, 02:55
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that the Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Ralph Nader was to the Democratic Party. Basically the Obama team is very thankful to all the Libertarians as they will only pull votes from Romney, not Obama.

The Machinist
10-31-2012, 05:23
And you learned this how?
By reading Romney's campaign website, and listening to him during debates. Why don't you even do a modicum of research on your own candidate? You're just standing in line to check the box for the R, no matter how liberal he is. You're no conservative.

Ruble Noon
10-31-2012, 05:27
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that the Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Ralph Nader was to the Democratic Party. Basically the Obama team is very thankful to all the Libertarians as they will only pull votes from Romney, not Obama.

If Debbie What's her man said it, it must be true..

walt cowan
10-31-2012, 06:39
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that the Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Ralph Nader was to the Democratic Party. Basically the Obama team is very thankful to all the Libertarians as they will only pull votes from Romney, not Obama.

you take anything this ho says at face value? :dunno:

robrides85
10-31-2012, 09:30
Debbie Wasserman Schultz said that the Libertarian party is to the Republican party what Ralph Nader was to the Democratic Party. Basically the Obama team is very thankful to all the Libertarians as they will only pull votes from Romney, not Obama.

Don't let polling statistics stand in your way; you're on a roll!

NMGlocker
10-31-2012, 14:59
Any vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote.
My vote for Johnson in 2012 is no more wasted than my vote for McCain in 2008.
Winner takes all.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2

wjv
10-31-2012, 15:56
You're no conservative.

Bleep U. . . . .

Apparently I actually managed to listen to Romney and read about Romney without the: "HE'S A SOCIALIST" libertarian bias.

I am so sick of the libertarians here thinking that they are the only true conservatives on planet earth.

All i see are a bunch of narrow minded, self centered, people with a superiority complex. . .

countrygun
10-31-2012, 16:02
Bleep U. . . . .

Apparently I actually managed to listen to Romney and read about Romney without the: "HE'S A SOCIALIST" libertarian bias.

I am so sick of the libertarians here thinking that they are the only true conservatives on planet earth.

All i see are a bunch of narrow minded, self centered, people with a superiority complex. . .

That's about it. I am turning my back on that mess, and I voted Libertarian when some of these folks were still making yellow poo in their Pampers. They have spun into an egotistical self serving circle-grope that has lost concern for the Country and all they can talk about are their self-images.

I will be turning my efforts to trying to make changes in the Republican party and leave them to their Mutual Admiration Society activities.

The Machinist
10-31-2012, 19:01
Bleep U. . . . .

Apparently I actually managed to listen to Romney and read about Romney without the: "HE'S A SOCIALIST" libertarian bias.

I am so sick of the libertarians here thinking that they are the only true conservatives on planet earth.

All i see are a bunch of narrow minded, self centered, people with a superiority complex. . .
All I see is a guy pissed off that he's being called out for voting for a liberal. Government healthcare, gun control, abortion, NDAA, entitlement spending, more spending, and more debt. That's the guy you're voting for. Seriously, why don't you just vote for Obama and be done with it?

NMGlocker
10-31-2012, 20:48
I'm going to get some "Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson" t-shirts made up.
I figure they'll be appropriate no matter who wins.

robrides85
10-31-2012, 23:17
That's about it. I am turning my back on that mess, and I voted Libertarian when some of these folks were still making yellow poo in their Pampers. They have spun into an egotistical self serving circle-grope that has lost concern for the Country and all they can talk about are their self-images.

I will be turning my efforts to trying to make changes in the Republican party and leave them to their Mutual Admiration Society activities.

It was apparent from the opening post that this was supposed to be a circle grope, only to provide some parallels with such amazing circlejerk-titled threads as "You know... you really have to hand it to Romney", "Leadership: Romney uses campaign bus to deliver hurricane relief", and every variation of "so and so newspaper endorses Romney."

Good luck changing the Republican party. They're not into grassroots movements as of Boehner's fraudulent voice vote at the RNC; hope you've got some power.

Lastly, it's kind of ridiculous for you to expect a random reader to believe that an online forum thread caused you to change your intended target of political effort. If true, that makes you one of the most sensitive people ever to frequent a forum like this - I'm surprised you've made it through 7,000 posts without heart trouble.

jbailey8
10-31-2012, 23:17
I'm going to get some "Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson" t-shirts made up.
I figure they'll be appropriate no matter who wins.


Haha. Count me in. I'll wear one.

hogfish
11-01-2012, 04:29
I'm going to get some "Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson" t-shirts made up.
I figure they'll be appropriate no matter who wins.

"...no matter who wins." Good one, also. Maybe as a his & hers to go along with 'Same boat'. :upeyes:

jbailey8
11-06-2012, 09:46
I convinced 3 people this week to vote for Gary Johnson.

robrides85
11-06-2012, 10:31
I convinced 3 people this week to vote for Gary Johnson.

Sweet!

Between one and two hundred thousand people used Google to search for Gary Johnson last night subsequent to the third party presidential debate between him and Jill Stein!

Bren
11-06-2012, 10:40
Got my early-voting done on Saturday - one more for Gary Johnson - in a swing state, no less :tongueout:

Want to criticize us or our votes? Go hangout in this thread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1448161

This thread is a celebration of those voters that found the two established parties' candidates seriously wanting, and went elsewhere to fulfill their democratic duty of voting.

I think I'll criticize here. For a guy who objects to both major parties, you just did your part to help one of them. Congratulations, by picking neither, you made sure your vote helped the one you like the least.

Sweet!

Between one and two hundred thousand people used Google to search for Gary Johnson last night subsequent to the third party presidential debate between him and Jill Stein!

Great! You're happy that 200,000 people didn't know who he was, right before the election? Maybe he'll get a couple of million votes - maybe 5 million. All that will do when the election is history, is let the media claim Americans still love Barack Obama.

ChuteTheMall
11-06-2012, 10:43
http://images.plus613.net/images/10000/www_plus613_com_papoon.jpg

ChuteTheMall
11-06-2012, 10:46
http://i48.tinypic.com/oh94g.jpg

ChuteTheMall
11-06-2012, 10:50
http://i45.tinypic.com/261duh0.jpg

robrides85
11-06-2012, 11:16
I think I'll criticize here. For a guy who objects to both major parties, you just did your part to help one of them. Congratulations, by picking neither, you made sure your vote helped the one you like the least.

Great! You're happy that 200,000 people didn't know who he was, right before the election? Maybe he'll get a couple of million votes - maybe 5 million. All that will do when the election is history, is let the media claim Americans still love Barack Obama.

Way to show up on the wrong thread (don't worry, no one else listens either), days after your arguments have already been picked apart after being offered by countless others. To catch you up:

a) Most GJ supporters don't object to both major parties. But the candidates this year are particularly unpalatable to those that do support GJ. There are LP faithful, but a lot are just disenchanted/disenfranchised independents (blue as well as red).

b) You're really misguiding (purposefully or not) the average reader with this nonsense: "Congratulations, by picking neither, you made sure your vote helped the one you like the least."

Unless you're one of those 10,000,000 that actually voted for Romney in the primary, you're probably not too excited about voting for him in the actual Presidential race. If you're not one of those 10,000,000, and you live in a blue state, you haven't hurt Romney in the slightest by voting for Gary - Romney wasn't going to get the electoral college votes anyway, so why tacitly approve of a less than ideal candidate by throwing away a vote that won't win him the election? One could make a similar case if you live in a hard red state as well - Romney will get those electoral votes with or without your vote, so the question remains: do you approve of him or not? Are you one of those 10,000,000?

Replace Romney with Obama, change the colors and redo.

c) A couple million, five million, or even more, it all means something. If Johnson pulls 5% of the total, he doesn't have to spend all of the contribution money and man hours to not only get on the ballot in all the states but fight an army of lawyers to stay on the ballot next time around. Federal election financing on top of that in addition. If Gary doesn't get 5%, a vote for Johnson in a swing state disproportionately amplifies that voter's voice, because future platforms will try to attract that voter in the future. Though a vote for Gary won't have as much effect in a hard red or blue state, you'll still be doing your small part to move the Overton window to include issues previously ignored.

jbailey8
11-06-2012, 11:19
Btw, the 5 people, that I've convinced now, as well as myself are all in Virginia. A swing state. :)

jbailey8
11-06-2012, 11:23
I'm just hoping that enough people would turn out for Johnson and the electoral college would vote for him and ignore the popular vote.

robrides85
11-06-2012, 11:25
I'm just hoping that enough people would turn out for Johnson and the electoral college would vote for him and ignore the popular vote.

If only :) Nope, going to be some long hours to put in over the next four years, but he's going in the right direction.

ricklee4570
01-17-2013, 06:09
I hope all of you that did not vote for Romney because Obama didnt do anything against guns his first 4 years are happy now.

The Machinist
01-17-2013, 06:21
I hope all of you that did not vote for Romney because Obama didnt do anything against guns his first 4 years are happy now.
I didn't vote for Romney, because I don't compromise with, vote for, or in anyway support liberals and their destructive agenda.

FLIPPER 348
01-17-2013, 08:08
I hope all of you that did not vote for Romney because Obama didnt do anything against guns his first 4 years are happy now.


“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Governor Romney

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2013, 08:19
Flipper, a liberal in his first term acts a lot different than a socialist in his second.

Barry has long been for very restrictive gun laws, just look at his history. He didn't take any action in his first term, not even after a member of congress was shot.

Deny it all you want, but you voted for this to happen.

FLIPPER 348
01-17-2013, 08:33
Deny it all you want, but you voted for this to happen.

Yea, I voted for Obama so he could attempt an AWB. I knew you Cav boys were a bit dim but this takes the cake!

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2013, 12:31
Yea, I voted for Obama so he could attempt an AWB. I knew you Cav boys were a bit dim but this takes the cake!

It was explained many times to you before. Barry was a package deal, not a la carte. Whether you realized it at the time or not, it wasn't from a lack of hearing it.

certifiedfunds
01-17-2013, 12:36
Yea, I voted for Obama so he could attempt an AWB. I knew you Cav boys were a bit dim but this takes the cake!

Well he told us all he planned to. We're you ignorant of this fact or did you think he was lying?

Or, as it is starting to appear, are you in favor of an AWB?

hooligan74
01-17-2013, 12:48
I bet everyone here feels real good about helping Obama.

What fools.

I'm so proud of doing a dumb thing! Wasted my vote instead of helping fire a marxist thug, I'm so patriotic!

:upeyes:


What on Earth could be considered more patriotic than voting for the man that you want to become President?

:dunno:

I swear, some **** on this site makes zero sense.

sugarcreek
01-17-2013, 13:18
“Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
Governor Romney
It is kind of like New York to me. I decry a State limiting my weapon choice, instituting and AWB or Registration, but I grant lee way to the folks in that State get the representation they wish. EQUATING Romney, as a Governor, and Obama as a President is lacking. Romney would not be Obama as a PRESIDENT of the US. To equate the two is just dumb bumperstickerism. I would of not supported Romney's action in Mass, had I lived there, but I sure would of voted for him over his Democrat challenger.

jakebrake
01-17-2013, 16:31
At least you voted. It still better than the people who complain but never actually vote.

oh, amen!

Gundude
01-17-2013, 16:42
It is kind of like New York to me. I decry a State limiting my weapon choice, instituting and AWB or Registration, but I grant lee way to the folks in that State get the representation they wish. EQUATING Romney, as a Governor, and Obama as a President is lacking. Romney would not be Obama as a PRESIDENT of the US. To equate the two is just dumb bumperstickerism. I would of not supported Romney's action in Mass, had I lived there, but I sure would of voted for him over his Democrat challenger.So if Cuomo switched parties and ran for President, you'd vote for him? You think a person actually has to be President before you can decide what kind of President he'll be? After all, Cuomo is only governor, it doesn't mean he'd hate guns as President, too. Give him a chance.

jakebrake
01-17-2013, 16:47
So if Cuomo switched parties and ran for President, you'd vote for him? You think a person actually has to be President before you can decide what kind of President he'll be?

sort of like, passing a bill to see what's in it?

ChuteTheMall
01-17-2013, 17:11
Yea, I voted for Obama so he could attempt an AWB.

You voted for Obama because you are anti-gun.
There is no excuse for ignorance on this topic.

:deadhorse:

ChuteTheMall
01-17-2013, 17:13
I'm just hoping that enough people would turn out for Johnson and the electoral college would vote for him and ignore the popular vote.

What were you smoking to come up with that pipedream?
:hippie:

walt cowan
01-17-2013, 18:11
the simple truth is...ron paul would have prevented this.

jbailey8
01-17-2013, 22:01
What were you smoking to come up with that pipedream?
:hippie: I don't remember... Must've been some good stuff. Lol



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

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2013, 22:04
the simple truth is...ron paul would have prevented this.

The simple truth is..... No, really, he couldn't. That has been shown to be true.

Slug71
01-20-2013, 21:26
the simple truth is...ron paul would have prevented this.

Agreed.

Cannot believe the idiots here thinking things now would be any different under Romney! WTFU!! :steamed:



Rand Paul 2016

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 08:01
Agreed.

Cannot believe the idiots here thinking things now would be any different under Romney! WTFU!! :steamed:



Rand Paul 2016

Is the ignorance feigned, or real? It's hard to tell.

You can imagine that it would have been the same, but that does require you to imagine. Kind of like imagining that Ron Paul was anything better than a 10% candidate, an "also ran".

Do you have a magic mirror where you can see into alternate realities? If you do, what kind of brownies have you been eating lately?

Gary W Trott
01-21-2013, 10:30
I hope all of you that did not vote for Romney because Obama didnt do anything against guns his first 4 years are happy now.
If all of the people who did not vote for either Romney or Obama had voted for Romney...Romney would have still lost by a landslide. I don't expect you to believe me so you can check out the State By State Results (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/) here and just look at the percentages of the vote.

And those of us in that group are definitely not happy right now and that is the reason why we voted for neither Obama or Romney.

Gary W Trott
01-21-2013, 10:35
The simple truth is..... No, really, he couldn't. That has been shown to be true.
What walt cowan said was, "the simple truth is...ron paul would have prevented this." and that is true. He would not be issuing orders that federal departments begin cracking down on firearms. His record of introducing legislation to rescind gun laws is proof of that, and those orders from the president is the only thing at the moment which has changed in the way of gun control.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 10:37
Correction, somewhere just north of 40% of the eligible voters didn't vote at all. Add those people into the mix and all sorts of things are possible.

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 10:38
the simple truth is...ron paul would have prevented this.
The simple truth is..... No, really, he couldn't. That has been shown to be true.

Are you saying any gun control that might be upcoming will be veto proof?

RussP
01-21-2013, 10:43
What if Romney had been elected. Events since November did happen as they did. Romney says, "Further restrictions on or banning firearms will not cure the problem. No, I will not sign such legislation." How long would it take for Progressives to demand impeachment?

Slug71
01-21-2013, 11:58
Is the ignorance feigned, or real? It's hard to tell.

You can imagine that it would have been the same, but that does require you to imagine. Kind of like imagining that Ron Paul was anything better than a 10% candidate, an "also ran".

Do you have a magic mirror where you can see into alternate realities? If you do, what kind of brownies have you been eating lately?

Like it or not/believe it or not, the bottom line is that Ron Paul was the best/most honest candidate that ran last election. His popularity was low because of the MSM and majority of the Republicans thinking he will get nowhere. Had they not had that mindset and been more open about the abortion/gay marriage thing, his percentage could/would have been a lot higher.
Paul would have given Obama a much bigger run for his money than Romney.

As proven with Obama, its all a popularity contest. Nevermind a candidates track record/values are anymore. And then we wonder why we are in this mess.....
Lets all just settle for the lesser of two evils and hope things get better.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 12:07
Are you saying any gun control that might be upcoming will be veto proof?

Not at all. Just that it's a proven fact that Ron Paul has not been able to prevent this. He didn't meet several prerequisites needed to even be in a position to effect what will be happening.

I'm pretty sure there will be some things that will be tried, maybe some things will change, maybe not, but both sides will try.

How does it all end? I doubt the debate over the RKBA will be decided in my lifetime.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 12:13
Like it or not/believe it or not, the bottom line is that Ron Paul was the best/most honest candidate that ran last election. His popularity was low because of the MSM and majority of the Republicans thinking he will get nowhere. Had they not had that mindset and been more open about the abortion/gay marriage thing, his percentage could/would have been a lot higher.
Paul would have given Obama a much bigger run for his money than Romney.

As proven with Obama, its all a popularity contest. Nevermind a candidates track record/values are anymore. And then we wonder why we are in this mess.....
Lets all just settle for the lesser of two evils and hope things get better.

Ron was a career politician. His campaign told bald face lies too. He wasn't any worse than any of the others, except in the whole "vote getting" category. His popularity was low because his campaign was disorganized, he had a habit of tripping over his tongue once in a while, and some of his views were not popular with the left, and some weren't popular with the right. He was personally anti-abortion, a born again christian that said "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate."

I know what he said, and I saw what he did. It all adds up to politician.

Either way, he didn't make it, and as far as I can tell, the worst one from the whole bunch won, and will be worse than anyone else would have been in his "more flexible" second term.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gingrich.

JohnnyReb
01-21-2013, 12:29
Ron was a career politician. His campaign told bald face lies too. He wasn't any worse than any of the others, except in the whole "vote getting" category. His popularity was low because his campaign was disorganized, he had a habit of tripping over his tongue once in a while, and some of his views were not popular with the left, and some weren't popular with the right. He was personally anti-abortion, a born again christian that said "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate."

I know what he said, and I saw what he did. It all adds up to politician.

Either way, he didn't make it, and as far as I can tell, the worst one from the whole bunch won, and will be worse than anyone else would have been in his "more flexible" second term.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gingrich.

If he was given more media exposure and if he was allowed to participate in the debates the same amount of time as everyone else I think he would have done better.

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

Glock30Eric
01-21-2013, 12:31
If he was given more media exposure and if he was allowed to participate in the debates the same amount of time as everyone else I think he would have done better.

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

Yup without a question.

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 12:53
Not at all.
...

Then your statement I quoted is wrong.

Did you see post 200? Gary put it better then I did.

I specifically quoted both Walt and you because you changed "would have" to couldn't.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 13:15
Then your statement I quoted is wrong.

Did you see post 200? Gary put it better then I did.

I specifically quoted both Walt and you because you changed "would have" to couldn't.

Not really, unless you think Ron Paul really didn't want to be president. He tried, didn't quite get there, so as a matter of historical fact, no, Ron Paul could not have stopped what is happening now. If we want to imagine stuff in alternate realities, maybe we could discuss it as a purely hypothetical situation where it was actually possible for him to be president.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have Ron than Barry, but I've pretty much decided that there are too many liberals and socialists voting for OPM to elect anyone that's not for redistributing wealth.

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 13:24
The whole thread is pretty much what if someone else were president.

Well, what if Ron Paul were president?

The simple truth is (if elected) ron paul would have prevented this.

That is a true statement whether you want to admit it or not.

cesaros
01-21-2013, 13:25
Don't get me wrong, I would much rather have...

Pretty much sums up the entire republican party's voting history.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 13:38
If he was given more media exposure and if he was allowed to participate in the debates the same amount of time as everyone else I think he would have done better.

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

I'm not so sure. He got plenty of exposure around here, and less than half if the guys around here were in the Paul camp. It's a shame he didn't have the ability to cut through the media and resonate with the people that Reagan had.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 13:56
The whole thread is pretty much what if someone else were president.

Well, what if Ron Paul were president?

The simple truth is (if elected) ron paul would have prevented this.

That is a true statement whether you want to admit it or not.

If the founders had enough brains to include a balanced budget requirement, things would be a lot different. If The electorate was 95% independant minded libertarians, things would be a lot different.

But honestly, I could not even tell you how things would be in two or 10 years if I was named benevolent dictator for a 12 year term, with immunity. The way things work in our actual form of government, is that no one gets everything they want.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 14:02
Pretty much sums up the entire republican party's voting history.

Not the entire party, or even the entire bunch of people that tend to vote republican (big difference).

I would love for things to be different. But they aren't different, they are how they are today. There are reasons that is so. I have no guilt about Romney getting the nomination. I didn't vote for him in the Primary. I do blame all of the people that voted for Romney in the primary, it's really all their fault. Not the Ron Paul guys. I don't blame the guys that voted for Romney in the General election for Barry still being president. I blame the guys that voted for barry. It's a cause and effect relationship.

Ruble Noon
01-21-2013, 14:18
I'm not so sure. He got plenty of exposure around here, and less than half if the guys around here were in the Paul camp. It's a shame he didn't have the ability to cut through the media and resonate with the people that Reagan had.

People around here believed what the MSM broadcast into their heads.

G19G20
01-21-2013, 16:09
I'm not so sure. He got plenty of exposure around here, and less than half if the guys around here were in the Paul camp. It's a shame he didn't have the ability to cut through the media and resonate with the people that Reagan had.

Oh please. Most of the peanut gallery here, including you, spent more time bashing on Paul and his supporters, while regurgitating the same media lines you're now decrying. How can someone cut through the media bs and resonate when the people that should be voting for him are buying the media bs and even propagating it?

Im just hoping that maybe this will be the last election where Republicans are ok with giving up on the PLATFORM (you know, small gov't, low spending, respect for rights and rule of law, etc) in order to try to "win", even if a "win" is actually a loss. Hell, even if McCain had won I think it's pretty clear now that there was no difference between him and Obama, just like there was no difference between Romney and Obama. Here's hoping for a true conservative in 2016. I know who my money's on but Im sure Ill see plenty of support for more RINOs like Rubio.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 16:17
People around here believed what the MSM broadcast into their heads.

You do realize that thought was planted into your subconscious mind by satellite, you are a robot with no will of your own, a simple biometric automaton carrying out the instructions of the hive mind......

[/sarcasm]

Get real. There are more uninformed voters than mind controlled voters. Apathy rules the day again.

I looked at Ron Paul closely, and had hundreds of conversations about him, and to be honest, he wasn't in my top four in the pack. He was third from the bottom, and both those guys got further in the race toward the white house than he did.

I liked his fiscal ideas. I've just seen too much of the world and learned a little too much about human nature to believe in his foreign policy. But our military can be more lethal, and less expensive at the same time. We could live within our means if we really tried to. It would piss a bunch of people off, but so be it. It's the right thing to do for the next couple of generations.



He's retired now. Time to look ahead. I'd be happy if there was a guy all of us could agree would be good for the country.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 16:25
Oh please. Most of the peanut gallery here, including you, spent more time bashing on Paul and his supporters, while regurgitating the same media lines you're now decrying. How can someone cut through the media bs and resonate when the people that should be voting for him are buying the media bs and even propagating it?

Im just hoping that maybe this will be the last election where Republicans are ok with giving up on the PLATFORM (you know, small gov't, low spending, respect for rights and rule of law, etc) in order to try to "win", even if a "win" is actually a loss. Hell, even if McCain had won I think it's pretty clear now that there was no difference between him and Obama, just like there was no difference between Romney and Obama. Here's hoping for a true conservative in 2016. I know who my money's on but Im sure Ill see plenty of support for more RINOs like Rubio.

You tended to get real weird, a lot. IIRC. You were far from what I would consider a good spokesman for the guy. The stealth trojan horse delegate plan and all that was really entertaining, but not helpful. How's Mr. Gilbert doing by the way?


I do share your hope for a true conservative in 2016. I hope the libertarian party finds a good candidate too. Rubio's latest foray into illegal immigrant amnesty kills his chances for me, the open border libertarians might still like him. Kristy, nope, fat forker might have taken on the teachers, but that's the only conservative thing I know that he's done.

It is way too far away to pick my guy or gal just yet, but I'm hoping Ted Cruz does well.

Time will tell.



One thing, no two people are the exact same. No two presidents would have had the exact same results. Until you will open your mind to that plainly evident fact, you will always be seen as having a fringe perspective. No president goes to Washington alone. Not everyone running really has a chance to win. Rosanne Barr ran. Did you give her even odds with Ron Paul? Ron had a much better chance than she did, and still wasn't close to making it.

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 17:40
If the founders had enough brains to include a balanced budget requirement, things would be a lot different. If The electorate was 95% independant minded libertarians, things would be a lot different.

But honestly, I could not even tell you how things would be in two or 10 years if I was named benevolent dictator for a 12 year term, with immunity. The way things work in our actual form of government, is that no one gets everything they want.

If you didn't get the implied "if he had been elected president" part of walt cowan's post, just say so. You don't have to change the subject.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 17:59
If you didn't get the implied "if he had been elected president" part of walt cowan's post, just say so. You don't have to change the subject.

It's as useful as "If Ben Franklin came back and was installed as president today"


I have a lot of wishful thinking too, but I don't spend a lot of time on it. There are too many real things to plan for and do.


Was not intending to be to harsh about pointing it out. Walt is "good people". So are you, even though we don't always agree.

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 18:11
So no comment on if you understood the implied "if elected" part?

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 19:03
So no comment on if you understood the implied "if elected" part?


Take a deep breath, let it out, take another, let it out.

I did make a comment. 12 short minutes before your post.


It's as useful as "If Ben Franklin came back and was installed as president today"

Syclone538
01-21-2013, 19:13
Well you did make a comment, but not on if you understood the implied "if elected" part.

Anyway, I agree it's not important.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 19:45
Well you did make a comment, but not on if you understood the implied "if elected" part.

Anyway, I agree it's not important.

:wavey:

The 2012 election didn't go the way either of us would have wished. Let's both hope we survive, and get better choices in the next one.

Slug71
01-21-2013, 19:58
:wavey:

The 2012 election didn't go the way either of us would have wished. Let's both hope we survive, and get better choices in the next one.

Agreed.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 20:00
Agreed.

Fair 'nuff.

Semper Gumby.:wavey:

Ruble Noon
01-21-2013, 21:06
You do realize that thought was planted into your subconscious mind by satellite, you are a robot with no will of your own, a simple biometric automaton carrying out the instructions of the hive mind......

[/sarcasm]

Get real. There are more uninformed voters than mind controlled voters. Apathy rules the day again.

I looked at Ron Paul closely, and had hundreds of conversations about him, and to be honest, he wasn't in my top four in the pack. He was third from the bottom, and both those guys got further in the race toward the white house than he did.

I liked his fiscal ideas. I've just seen too much of the world and learned a little too much about human nature to believe in his foreign policy. But our military can be more lethal, and less expensive at the same time. We could live within our means if we really tried to. It would piss a bunch of people off, but so be it. It's the right thing to do for the next couple of generations.



He's retired now. Time to look ahead. I'd be happy if there was a guy all of us could agree would be good for the country.

The republican voters got played like a fiddle this past election. It would behoove republicans to learn how and why.
The information is out there and a good majority of it was posted here in GTPI.

EOS
01-21-2013, 21:13
Let me be frank, Ron Paul was the only Conservative.

-Mitt Romney supported an AWB, partially wrote and inspired Obamacare that was drafted from his socialized MA system, and praised Obamacare's inception.

-Herman Cain's 999 plan would have raised taxes on 90% of Americans and he was Chairman of the St. Louis Federal Reserve(that says enough)

-Rick Santorum wanted the government to impose his morals and values on us and manage our personal lives.


-Newt Gingrich was a RINO who supported a healthcare
mandate(similar to Obamacare) and pocketed much moneyfrom Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and was an adulterer as many GOPers claim to abhor.


ALL supported Obama's NDAA
ALL supported the Patriot Act
ALL wanted more war with the Middle East and continued mass spending.
NONE of them wanted to cut the spending or balance the
budget.

I ask how any of that is "Conservative"?
Voting for scumbags like this because they aren't someone else has allowed them to erode as much of our freedom and liberty as the
Democrats. I'm hoping we've all learned our lesson for 2016, and that lesson is: A RINO as a nominee means another Democrat marxist as POTUS.

Have a nice day:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 21:50
Let me be frank, Ron Paul was the only Conservative.

-Mitt Romney supported an AWB, partially wrote and inspired Obamacare that was drafted from his socialized MA system, and praised Obamacare's inception.

-Herman Cain's 999 plan would have raised taxes on 90% of Americans and he was Chairman of the St. Louis Federal Reserve(that says enough)

-Rick Santorum wanted the government to impose his morals and values on us and manage our personal lives.


-Newt Gingrich was a RINO who supported a healthcare
mandate(similar to Obamacare) and pocketed much moneyfrom Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and was an adulterer as many GOPers claim to abhor.


ALL supported Obama's NDAA
ALL supported the Patriot Act
ALL wanted more war with the Middle East and continued mass spending.
NONE of them wanted to cut the spending or balance the
budget.

I ask how any of that is "Conservative"?
Voting for scumbags like this because they aren't someone else has allowed them to erode as much of our freedom and liberty as the
Democrats. I'm hoping we've all learned our lesson for 2016, and that lesson is: A RINO as a nominee means another Democrat marxist as POTUS.

Have a nice day:wavey:

Ron Paul was a Libertarian. There is a difference.

None of them were perfect, all of them would have been better than Barry, including Paul.

But we are here now. The big question is how do we go forward into a better place.

RC-RAMIE
01-21-2013, 21:55
Ron Paul was a Libertarian. There is a difference.

None of them were perfect, all of them would have been better than Barry, including Paul.

But we are here now. The big question is how do we go forward into a better place.

He may be Libertarian leaning but he ran as a Republican and held office as a Republican.


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

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 21:56
The republican voters got played like a fiddle this past election. It would behoove republicans to learn how and why.
The information is out there and a good majority of it was posted here in GTPI.

The bowstrings are playing across your neural cortex, you only think there was a ron paul, he is a figment of your imagination, you are really in the matrix, and not yet worthy of a blue or red pill choice......

[/sarcasm]

It's awful easy to dismiss others as nonthinking automatons.
It's a trap though, one that does not make you any better than they are.

It would behoove everyone to let go of their preconceived notions, and to look carefully around in all directions. The have-not's just voted for a socialist promising them OPM.


We are way past choosing between libertarianism and conservatism. Might as well pick fights over who has blue or green eyes.

Don't look at who lost, look at who won. Understand that the reason that he won, is that more people voted for him than all the others combined. That is where your problem is. Until you realize that, picking the most conservative (libertarian) candidate might seem important.

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 21:59
He may be Libertarian leaning but he ran as a Republican and held office as a Republican.


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

Yup. So did McCain. So did Romney. What's that prove again?

RC-RAMIE
01-21-2013, 22:08
Yup. So did McCain. So did Romney. What's that prove again?

Means he is a Republican.



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

Cavalry Doc
01-21-2013, 22:16
Means he is a Republican.



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

There are liberals, conservatives, and libertarians that call themselves republicans.

He is less a republican than McCain and Romney were. Far as I know, neither one of them quit the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian.


That was really where his heart was if you'll admit it, but he compromised his principles to run as a Republican, knowing he wasn't going to win the nomination, either time.

He had a good message, on some points. Unfortunately, Barry won.

If it were a foot race, look to see who got the most votes in order...... Paul was what, fifth place in a two way race, that should make you think about what is needed.

EOS
01-21-2013, 22:22
Ron Paul was a Libertarian. There is a difference.

None of them were perfect, all of them would have been better than Barry, including Paul.

But we are here now. The big question is how do we go forward into a better place.

Our big problem with Barry is he spends too much, and is bankrupting us and the country, that goes without saying.



That being said, what did any of those GOP candidates I listed above offer to the contrary? That is a humble and serious question I ask you. The GOP spending may go towards things you believe in like fighting in the sandbox, Social adjustment programs, Social Security, Medicare etc. but in our current financial and spending state, it's still money out of our pockets and/or money the government doesn't have, and therefore must print out of thin air, or borrow from The People's Republic.

Well, I hope we could have a candidate in '16 we could both support, just make sure he isn't Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or Gov. Lard Ass. I hope Rand Paul is the one.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2013, 07:52
Our big problem with Barry is he spends too much, and is bankrupting us and the country, that goes without saying.


If it were only the spending, we'd be in much better shape than we are. Fundamental transformation, coming to a country near you, in ways that will probably surprise all of us, and not for the better.




That being said, what did any of those GOP candidates I listed above offer to the contrary? That is a humble and serious question I ask you. The GOP spending may go towards things you believe in like fighting in the sandbox, Social adjustment programs, Social Security, Medicare etc. but in our current financial and spending state, it's still money out of our pockets and/or money the government doesn't have, and therefore must print out of thin air, or borrow from The People's Republic.

Well, I hope we could have a candidate in '16 we could both support, just make sure he isn't Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or Gov. Lard Ass. I hope Rand Paul is the one.

What exactly is that supposed to be. "My loser" was better than "your loser"....... Uh, they all lost. If you really want to see how "good" each of them was, tally the votes in the primary, then the general. Fact is, Romney was the best of the republicans in the pack. Not on policy or because any of us liked him, but because he WON the primary. No trophies for just participating, all of the GOP field are going to have almost no effect on public policy in the next 4 years, certainly much less than if one of them was inaugurated yesterday. You don't win the super bowl by being pure of heart and mind, you win it by being better than the opposition, at the end of the game, they look at the score board, and the team with the most points wins. Barry was better at getting into the White House. Nothing else matters in presidential politics.

If you are looking for a perfect candidate, you are doomed to be disappointed. We can wish all day long, but I think it's better to operate within the reality of the situation. There are hundreds of millions of voters out there, what any two voters thinks doesn't matter much. You have to win over the masses in order to win.

How that happens? I'll let you know right after it does, if it's not too late already.

certifiedfunds
01-22-2013, 19:54
The spending is part of the transformation. Collapse. Make em scared and hungry and people will cry out for a government solution b


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

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2013, 20:22
The spending is part of the transformation. Collapse. Make em scared and hungry and people will cry out for a government solution b


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

It's just part of it. Theoretical fear is nothing compared to real fear. When the grocery shelves are bare, and there is no information on when they might be full again, if you don't have a lot of food, pucker factor goes through the roof.

There is a hierarchy of needs. When people are unable to provide them for themselves and their families, and the government they depended on to keep that stuff flowing to them lets them down, it's going to be interesting. Very few lazy welfare bums and food stamp queens will watch their families starve to death after they realize they cannot provide for themselves. Charity can cover some of that need, but the entitlement addicts really think what you have is really theirs.... just ask gunhaver.

Unfortunately, it's almost guaranteed to go there eventually. That's why you need extra mags, firearms, a neighborhood watch, and a strategic and tactical neighborhood watch plan in a worst case scenario, including traffic control points over-watched by LP/OP's with accurate long range weapons.

If you have all of that, and nothing ever happens, it's a fun hobby, and most of the same preps prepare you for mundane power outages, snow storms, and tornadoes.

If you don't have that and something happens....

:dunno: