|
|
Post by Kirk Wickizer on Sept 7, 2012 22:26:43 GMT -5
Ha ha ! That one is dead nuts !!
|
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Sept 7, 2012 23:48:40 GMT -5
So.......a vote that is not directly against Obama is automatically a vote for him??? Why can the same not be said for Romney?
|
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Sept 8, 2012 3:19:35 GMT -5
David as you know all of that is just semantics - doesnt matter how you say it.
REALISTICALLY - THIS ELECTION - WITH THE CANDIDATES WE HAVE...if you don't vote for Romney, you might as well be voting for Obama - because the only person it benefits is him.
Or you can vote for this election cycle's version of HOPE AND CHANGE and vote for the libertarian. Or you can vote for Obama directly, but thats another story.
I can't think of anything on the Libertarian's platform that I don't agree with on some level. I'd love the fair tax - but it won't happen - not without alot of people dying. The FED and the current income tax structure lines the pockets of very powerful men - and they won't allow it to change. How can I say that? Because the fair tax is THE ONLY thing that makes sense.
And its also one of the furthest things from happening - because everytime someone tries to do something about it - they are either shot, or smeared.
SMALL government - get out of our personal lives, dont tell me what liberties I can or can't have that don't effect anyone but myself. Give me the opportunity to fail - if failing is what I deserve. Give businesses the opportunity to fail, if failing is what they deserve.
This election has all signs to be extremely close - and the truth is, most people voting for Romney on some level, probably a high level, agree with the Libertarian platform as well. Unfortunately, the Libertarians have ALOT of work to do building a foundation on the lower levels of politics, representatives, congressman, senators, governors - if you want to have a successful Lib presidential candidate - well it helps to know exactly what that is, and who in office to relate it to.
Most people on the street and dare I say most people that will vote don't even know there is a third party candidate at all. Unlike in '92 when Ross Perot got almost 20 million votes and gave the election to Clinton.
Like I said before and got no substantive rebuttal or response - some of us unfortunately for the sake of our families and livelihoods and the imminent Obama-spree on policy that will come if reelected, I am perfectly fine with voting AGAINST Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Sept 8, 2012 4:36:18 GMT -5
Ryan, Does this mean you finally believe that Ron Paul has no chance?  |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Sept 8, 2012 8:12:51 GMT -5
Ron Paul did more than any other candidate: he changed the conversation. Now let's hope that some of his ideas actually get adopted. (Audit the Fed is a good start)
Ron Bath nailed it in my opinion. Before any Libertarian will ever be President, you have to get him some kind of base installed in Congress.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Wells on Sept 8, 2012 9:32:43 GMT -5
I believe Ron Paul knew he didn't have a chance but fought for what believed his whole life for just to get America to wake up a little more than the day before. He knows he's not a young man but won't stop because he's passionate about the fight, which is a totally logical outlook. He won't be around WHEN it actually happens but it will happen....I hope
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Sept 8, 2012 13:49:20 GMT -5
i hope you are right about that
my feeling is that it is already to late
but
i would never give up the fight either way
|
|
|
|
Post by Kirk Wickizer on Sept 8, 2012 19:01:31 GMT -5
The race is too close in the swing states. Every last vote counts. Most who want Ron Paul or Gary Johnson likely prefer Romney over Obama. Obamas background is frightening. So incredible that I wouldn't recommend posting the details on this board. Even the most conservative public officials have stayed away from discussing it for fear they would not be taken seriously. It's all available on the net. Just remember that google favors the left and all that that implies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Kaufman on Sept 8, 2012 19:41:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Sept 9, 2012 15:13:57 GMT -5
John - I agree and am a huge Ron Paul fan. It was more of a reference to a post some months ago when Ryan reused to acknowledge that RP did not have a viable chance.
If not for his stance on foreign policy - he would probably be in the lead.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Sept 9, 2012 15:53:44 GMT -5
Totally agree, Bill. Ron Paul sank his own ship. As much as I love the guy, a gigantic piece of being the President is having a firm grasp on foreign policy. Ron Paul is right on when he talks ending foreign aid to countries who work against us, but his notion of closing his eyes and pretending that there is nobody out there bent on destruction is, frankly, frightening and stupid. While his principles are in the right place, all the principles in the world have to be tempered with some degree of common sense.
If I were President, I would make Ron Paul the Secretary of the Treasury immediately. But he'd never be my National Security Advisor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Sept 9, 2012 17:35:29 GMT -5
depends on whether or not you believe what the mainstream media says is the reason why we go to war or invade others man i hate the mainstream media  |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Sept 9, 2012 17:45:13 GMT -5
The race is too close in the swing states. Every last vote counts. Most who want Ron Paul or Gary Johnson likely prefer Romney over Obama. Obamas background is frightening. So incredible that I wouldn't recommend posting the details on this board. Even the most conservative public officials have stayed away from discussing it for fear they would not be taken seriously. It's all available on the net. Just remember that google favors the left and all that that implies. you still believe that after what happened to Paul votes in Iowa? i dont have faith anymore that the will/vote of the people will be what decides it |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Sept 13, 2012 11:19:57 GMT -5
Ryan, Does this mean you finally believe that Ron Paul has no chance? The only reason he didn't have a chance is the power of stupid people in large numbers..... I.e. those who declared he had no chance because the media said he didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by John Wilson on Sept 13, 2012 11:36:24 GMT -5
"The Power of Stupid People in Large Numbers" is a fact of life that you can either accept or not. But to ignore the reality of it and be a prisoner of hope accomplishes nothing. Being mad at the reality doesn't change the reality.
Your choice at this point is Romney or Obama. Romney is nobody's favorite, but to suggest that there is no difference is craziness. Yep, I think the fix was in for Romney long before the primaries ever happened. No, I'm not happy about it.
The only real change you have a say in is at the State level and the elections for Congress. We may never get a real chance to elect the right President, but you can damn sure put the right people in his way.
A President Ron Paul would have been useless if there is no Congress that will support him. Gary Johnson? Who? Yeah, good luck with that.
People talk about the "obstructionist Republicans in the Congress." Thank God Almighty for them. Can you imagine if we had not put enough people in Obama's way to stop his forward march to America's destruction?
CONGRESS is the reason Obama was kept in check. McCain would have been a sorry President, Hillary would have been equally bad as Obama. It was Congress that kept the ship from turning over completely.
|
|
