Romney Beats Santorum by 8 Votes and Ron Paul Finishes with Strong Third Place

[USMCJG]

A third party candidate...any third party candidate is not a "real choice".

I'm sick and tired of holding my nose too but we DO have a at least one Conservative candidate left in the race and if enough people support him we can have a decent Republican ticket...it wont' be perfect ticket but no ticket ever has been or ever will be. None of the candidates left are my first choice...for that matter, neither my first, second or third choice even ran; but any of the ones left (with the possible exception of Huntsman) would be a hell of a lot better than the coward in chief socialist dictator want-a-be traitor currently occupying the White House.

I'm tired of holding my nose from all the s**t coming out of Obummer's administration and, while you may not "consider a vote for a 3rd party Ron Paul as a vote for Obama" that is precisely what it is...if you want Obama to get a second term than voting for anyone but the Republican candidate will get it for you.

I am going to vote for the best candidate. Ron Paul is the best candidate. If would prefer it if he got the Republican nomination. And I seriously doubt he will run on a third party ticket anyway.

[USMCJG]

This third party nonsense should be laid to rest. I don't care if it Trump or Paul or

another Perot like midget billionaire. It still just steals elections away from one of

the two otherwise electable candidates. It takes wisdom and throws it out the

window.

My head just exploded. I just read another "Lesser of two evils" remark. When are

people going to figure out how to digest information and make up there own damned

minds, instead of being programmed by the mainstream media? Is it really that hard

to think or is it just laziness? Saying there is only a choice between the lesser of two

evils is saying you have accepted a lower standard, in other words, given up your

principles. If it is truly a choice between the lesser of two evils, there is no good

around. Get an grip on good and evil and digest that, then seek the good.

Complacency is evil.

So you are saying that when we were given a choice between Bush and Kerry, and then Bush and Gore, and then McCain and Obama, we had a "good" choice? None of these people was a good choice by any stretch, just the best choice the two parties allowed us to have. A third party candidate is only a bad choice because there aren't enough people who have the intestinal fortitude to break from the protectionist system the two parties have built for themselves and actually vote for the best candidate. The Democrats and Republicans are counting on us to have the "wisdom" to go along to get along. Edited January 7, 2012 by USMCJG

[Oh Shoot]

... The Democrats and Republicans are counting on us to have the "wisdom" to go along to get along.

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

Dmitry Orlov

Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century

--------

But even though that's true, I strongly urge everyone to vote GOP this election. Getting rid of BHO is that important.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So you are saying that when we were given a choice between Bush and Kerry, and then Bush and Gore, and then McCain and Obama, we had a "good" choice? None of these people was a good choice by any stretch, just the best choice the two parties allowed us to have. A third party candidate is only a bad choice because there aren't enough people who have the intestinal fortitude to break from the protectionist system the two parties have built for themselves and actually vote for the best candidate. The Democrats and Republicans are counting on us to have the "wisdom" to go along to get along.

Yes I am. Have you considered what a majority Congress and President, both liberals would

have done? We might not be here to have this discussion, right now.

If you want your third party, go for it. I've explained it best I can. Stick your head in the

sand when Obama gets re-elected, because I won't want to hear it, afterwards. Besides,

you won't have a country left to discuss.

I never said I liked McCain and I'm not going to listen anymore about how bad Bush was.

That is irrelevant and specious, or, you are a liberal( I doubt that).

mav said it right about having a third party coming up from the local level, moving up to

state and national organizations. that is precisely what should have or be going on.

Go ahead! Throw the baby out with the bath water.

[sigmtnman]

...

[USMCJG]

Yes I am. Have you considered what a majority Congress and President, both liberals would

have done? We might not be here to have this discussion, right now.

Slightly worse than an all "conservative", by today's standards, Congress and President.

If you want your third party, go for it. I've explained it best I can. Stick your head in the

sand when Obama gets re-elected, because I won't want to hear it, afterwards. Besides,

you won't have a country left to discuss.

I never said I liked McCain and I'm not going to listen anymore about how bad Bush was.

That is irrelevant and specious, or, you are a liberal( I doubt that).

I am most assuredly a liberal, in the classical sense at least. You don't need to explain anything to me, I used to think the same as you. Accepting whatever the two parties offer up is why we are where we are now. And why the middle of the political spectrum continues to creep further and further to the left. There has not been a single good presidential candidate offered up by either of the two parties in 28 years, because they have realized that we will happily throw our vote away on John Smithson because he is slightly less offensive than Smith Johnson. And their combined power continues to grow unabated.

[RobertNashville]

I am most assuredly a liberal, in the classical sense at least.

That explains a great deal.

--------------moving on---------------

Frankly; I'm getting more than a little tired of all the people who complain constantly about how bad our choices are election after election while doing NOTHING to change it. If people want better candidates than those who chose to run the they should damn sure get out there and run for office themselves.

While I'm on my soapbox; I'm also getting more than a little tired of all the threads touting Ron Paul...it seems as if there is a new thread about how wonderful he is almost everyday. I find it odd that most other people don't feel the need to come onto this site and promote "their" particular candidate so why do RP maniacs feel the need to do so???

Edited January 8, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

"Classical" liberals as in times before about 1900, had a world view very similar to modern libertarians. Later on, the name was co-opted by people who are decidedly not liberal in the classical sense.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Hell, I'd still vote for Sarah Palin over anyone else running, but I guess that's

wishful thinking. The ones I liked aren't available anymore.

I agree with you Robert.

[RobertNashville]

"Classical" liberals as in times before about 1900, had a world view very similar to modern libertarians. Later on, the name was co-opted by people who are decidedly not liberal in the classical sense.

Actually I do know that; I was trying to make a joke but just realized that I forget to add smiley face.

[mav]

While I'm on my soapbox; I'm also getting more than a little tired of all the threads touting Ron Paul...it seems as if there is a new thread about how wonderful he is almost everyday. I find it odd that most other people don't feel the need to come onto this site and promote "their" particular candidate so why do RP maniacs feel the need to do so.

Well... you will only have to endure it another 10 months. Seriously though, why care? If you don't like the Ron Paul threads certain individuals post don't click on them.

I really like this forum. I think it is great that TGODavid has given us a political section, knife section, and a general section. I seriously doubt I would participate all that much if it was just handguns, long guns, training, and firearm related stories. That gets boring after a while. I can only read so many reviews on the same gun that has been reviewed ten previous times or endure another what's your favorite 1911, etc...

[Oh Shoot]

"Classical" liberals as in times before about 1900, had a world view very similar to modern libertarians. Later on, the name was co-opted by people who are decidedly not liberal in the classical sense.

Yep, even when I was in college, I thought "liberalism" mainly meant "freedom". Tricky Dick et al were the Gestapo.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Well... you will only have to endure it another 10 months. Seriously though, why care? If you don't like the Ron Paul threads certain individuals post don't click on them.

I really like this forum. I think it is great that TGODavid has given us a political section, knife section, and a general section. I seriously doubt I would participate all that much if it was just handguns, long guns, training, and firearm related stories. That gets boring after a while. I can only read so many reviews on the same gun that has been reviewed ten previous times or endure another what's your favorite 1911, etc...

Actually, RP will be out of the race long before 10 months go by (unless of course he does run third party to boost his ego).

Of course once he is out or once he loses a third party bid for President then all the threads will be about how he wasn't treated fairly by the press, etc., etc. and all the other excuses used over the years for why he never wins the nomination.

[sigmtnman]

Actually, RP will be out of the race long before 10 months go by (unless of course he does run third party to boost his ego).

Of course once he is out or once he loses a third party bid for President then all the threads will be about how he wasn't treated fairly by the press, etc., etc. and all the other excuses used over the years for why he never wins the nomination.

I'm curious why you feel he runs to boost his ego? Is that a blanket statement based on how politicians are or has he done something to make you feel he is egotistic?

Earlier you state:

If people want better candidates than those who chose to run the they should damn sure get out there and run for office themselves.

Perhaps he is doing what you suggest? Have you seriously listened to him talk for an extended period of time? He doesn't do soundbites, he understands what he talks about and always comes across as very cordial and thoughtful.

[RobertNashville]

I'm curious why you feel he runs to boost his ego? Is that a blanket statement based on how politicians are or has he done something to make you feel he is egotistic?

Well; all politicians have to have pretty big egos just to put themselves out there but I think RP may be a bit more egocentric than others. I tend to believe that deep down, RP knows he can't win (in fact there was even a recent interview where he stated, and I"m paraphrasing here, that he can't really "see himself in the White House"...seeming to indicate that he doesn't really think he can win).

Then there is also his refusal to rule out a third party run.

Third party candidates don't win Presidential elections so to me, if you can't win the nomination of your party and given the total failure of a third party bid for the past 100 years or so, about the only logical reasons to run for President third party is either revenge or an ego trip...RP doesn't hit me as a vengeful person so that leaves ego.

Of course this is all opinion/observation/supposition...what the hell do I know about it!

Earlier you state: "If people want better candidates than those who chose to run the they should damn sure get out there and run for office themselves."

Perhaps he is doing what you suggest? Have you seriously listened to him talk for an extended period of time? He doesn't do soundbites, he understands what he talks about and always comes across as very cordial and thoughtful.

I wasn't really talking about RP at all with that statement and I applaud him running; rather, I was referring to all the armchair quarterbacks that always moan about not having good choices but do nothing themselves to change it.

I have listened to RP...I like his positions on many issues; but not on some big issues (issues big for me that is)...and while he isn't who I support, if he gets the nomination I'd have no problem voting for him. What I find distasteful as those who are so enamored with him that they say they won't vote at all or will vote third party if he doesn't get the nomination...to me me, that is reckless and shows a lack of regard for the country.

[sigmtnman]

Thanks for Explaining Robert.

This clip from the Judge explains how plenty of Republicans feel regarding the direction of the party and why the third party is an option.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yep, even when I was in college, I thought "liberalism" mainly meant "freedom". Tricky Dick et al were the Gestapo.

- OS

Strange how definitions drift. At that time Tricky Dick was a mainstream republican and Goldwater was a right-wing extremist.

But today, Tricky Dick would be too left-wing to qualify as a modern RINO, and would probably have to run as a democrat. Similarly JFK might have to run as a republican, and Goldwater would be shunned like Ron Paul as an impractical unrealistic libertarian.

[Oh Shoot]

Strange how definitions drift. At that time Tricky Dick was a mainstream republican and Goldwater was a right-wing extremist.

But today, Tricky Dick would be too left-wing to qualify as a modern RINO, and would probably have to run as a democrat. Similarly JFK might have to run as a republican, and Goldwater would be shunned like Ron Paul as an impractical unrealistic libertarian.

Pert good recap and comparisons through the drift of time, methinks.

[seez52]

We're stuck in a loop. We hold our noses and vote year after year and where has it gotten us? Or maybe some would say look how much worse it would be if we hadn't held our noses and voted.

To me RP is not an ego driven candidate. He simply fits the definition of seeing no good choices and is stepping in to change it. It can't be done overnight or even through one election cycle. It has to build momentum and RP has already developed a head of steam. So, those of us who are tired of holding our noses don't feel like we are showing a lack of regard for the country, on the contrary, we are standing our ground and working toward changing the system. Yes, we may in the meantime be destined for a decade of malaise, but it is what's necessary to truly affect the change we need.

Holding our noses and voting for McCain got us in the spot, (along with many others before that) why would doing it again make it any better now? The establishment of both parties needs to understand we're not going for this s**t anymore, and you can't make us.

As far as third party runs go, you can forget it. The system is not set up for that mechanically. If we as a country were truly interested in electing the best person for the job we'd have to completely revamp the election process. This 4 year long continuous campaign cycle is ridiculous. Campaigns need to be much shorter, funded with public money, exclude all other contributions, all primaries held simultaneously, and a run off (within weeks) if no candidate in the general receives more than 50% of the vote.

I don't believe the founders ever expected all this crap with parties to get the way it has. Otherwise they would not have set the president and vice president election the way they did. It's time for a revamp, but we'll never get it. So the only alternative is to change the two party system we're stuck with, and that means holding our noses is out. We've got to change one of the parties to the core. Holding our noses again, even for just one vote because we're afraid of what might happen, and gets us no closer to a better system. It just kicks the can down the road and we wasted our time, and our country is no better off.

Our regard for the country is great even though our time horizon may be long.

[seez52]

Strange how definitions drift. At that time Tricky Dick was a mainstream republican and Goldwater was a right-wing extremist.

But today, Tricky Dick would be too left-wing to qualify as a modern RINO, and would probably have to run as a democrat. Similarly JFK might have to run as a republican, and Goldwater would be shunned like Ron Paul as an impractical unrealistic libertarian.

EXCELLENT! Goldwater is my hero. Can't believe McCain was allowed to take his senate seat. A sad day.

Goldwater was disappointed in Eisenhower, and had great hopes for Nixon but became disappointed in him as well.

Edited January 8, 2012 by seez52

[mav]

Here is a statement I made several months ago in a thread when I was correcting someone on their crass comments against Ron Paul supporters.

In my mind, this election is nothing more than stopping Obama and voting him out of office. That is my primary concern. Do I feel some candidates would be better than others? Of course I do. Nonetheless, ousting Obama is of the utmost concern, regardess of who gets the nomination. Insulting supporters of other candidates, and making off the wall statements is by no means a way to influence people in supporting your candidate, assuming he wins and their's loses. Spite, oftentimes, is a good motivator. Just something to think about.

I still feel that same way. If anyone has read any of my posts, it is no secret that I am a Paul supporter. However, I am not a Ronulan. I feel that Paul is the best candidate running, but I am not going to into all of that. I have done it numerous times, and I am tired of repeating myself.

One area where I part company with a lot of people is on the issue of third parties. I am for multiple parties, but as I stated the other day in order to break apart the dichotomy, independent parties need to start at the local and state level and succeed in winning elections. The greater their success at this level will eventually mean the greater probability of success on the federal level. While anyone has the right to run third party at the highest level, a top down approach has a very low probability of succeeding.

One other area where I part company with a lot of people is criticizing those who do vote third party. I will by no means ever tell anyone that they have no regard for their country or do not have their country's best interest in mind if they decide to vote third party. My view has always been that if there is a candidate you like, regardless of party affiliation, then vote for them. I will however, from time to time, step in on someone who is trying to portray their candidate as something they are not, but I won't tell them not to vote for them even if it is a third or the opposite party.

In regards to Paul, he has my vote in the primary. Unlike some, I believe he has the greatest chance of success in beating Obama plus I share a lot of his views. Paul is not going to run third party. He did not do it in 2008, and he is not going to do it in 2012. Paul knows his chances in getting the nomination are moderately low, but he is about promoting ideas and educating people on those ideas, which is something we desparately need.

Here is a quote from Paul in 2008.

Though victory in the political sense is not available, many victories have been achieved due to hard work and enthusiasm. McCain has the nominal number...but if you're in a campaign for only gaining power, that is one thing; if you're in a campaign to influence ideas and the future of the country, it's never over

For arguments sake, lets say he does run third party. First off, it won't be on the Libertarian ticket. Johnson already has that spot. Will I vote for him in a third party? No. While I do believe Paul is the best candidate to go against Obama for the GOP, I do not see him winning under a third party platform. I do think he has enough support though to split the vote thereby allowing Obama to squeek out a victory. Regardless of how I feel about this, I still will not criticize those who would vote for him under such a scenario. If by some miracle he won under third party, I would be kissing the butts of those voted for him and thanking them for sticking to their prinicples.

To those who refuse to vote if Paul or your candidate of choice doesn't get the GOP nomination, I do have a problem with that. To me voting is one of our most precious rights. It is a right that was paid for by blood, and to not exercise that right because your particular candidate didn't win the nomination is rather insulting even though it is within your rights not to vote.

[Oh Shoot]

We're stuck in a loop. We hold our noses and vote year after year and where has it gotten us? Or maybe some would say look how much worse it would be if we hadn't held our noses and voted....

Well, ya know, one real problem is that we should NOT be voting for anything higher than our Reps to the House. They pick the Senators, like the Constitution was written. And they should pick the Prez. The citizenry voting for President is not in Constitution, and is absurd.

Consumes half the first term of any sitting President, determines his policy, etc. It's a national American Idol contest, with a man spending a billion dollars to get a $400K/year job.

We should be in touch with our direct state and national reps, that's all. Hold their feet to the fire. They only have two years to do the will of the people, or they're out. Not THAT would "fundamentally change America". Back to something sane.

- OS

[seez52]

Well, ya know, one real problem is that we should NOT be voting for anything higher than our Reps to the House. They pick the Senators, like the Constitution was written. And they should pick the Prez. The citizenry voting for President is not in Constitution, and is absurd.

- OS

yes, that was a goof up when the 17 amendment was passed. Senators should be there to represent the states and appointed by the state houses and not be popularly elected. Actually though, I do believe popular elections for president with the electorial college is constitutional, but the founders originally had it so that the one who got the second most votes became the vice president. That's what makes me think they had no idea that parties were going to be so involved and powerful.

[wjh2657]

Step 1: Repeal 17^thamendment. Give state legislatures a voice back in government.

Step 2: Don’t send anybody back after a second term.

Step 3: Run Independents at State and Local level.

Step 4: Voters need to read and understand Constitution and then insist elected representatives follow it!

The two parties we have now have been bought off and are too firmly entrenched in Washingtonto budge them as parties. BUT, we can send them people they can’t control! With real Representatives in the House, real State Senators in the Senate and State governments under heavy local pressure to not toady up to Federal parties we could get some control back.

The whole problem is that. from the beginning (1840-present) we sat back and have allowed the two parties to control us.

Edited January 11, 2012 by wjh2657

[Oh Shoot]

....The whole problem is that. from the beginning (1840-present) we sat back and have allowed the two parties to control us.

Appropriate quote at least once a week:

"The Soviet Union had a single, entrenched, systemically corrupt political party, which held a monopoly on power. The U.S. has two entrenched, systemically corrupt political parties, whose positions are often indistinguishable, and which together hold a monopoly on power. In either case, there is, or was, a single governing elite, but in the United States it organized itself into opposing teams to make its stranglehold on power seem more sportsmanlike."

Dmitry Orlov

Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century