Romney Supporter Gets Yelled At by Jerry Doyle

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

No matter what happens with the RNC convention, I will vote for the best man for the job as POTUS. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, either way that is where my vote will go. Not voting for Mitt Flip-Flop Romney or Obama.

[sigmtnman]

That's how the supporters of both parties act. Check out the other thread where I was called a commieO supporter.

[Guest bkelm18]

No matter what happens with the RNC convention, I will vote for the best man for the job as POTUS. Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, either way that is where my vote will go. Not voting for Mitt Flip-Flop Romney or Obama.

So you're voting for Obama. Gotcha.

[sigmtnman]

I see what you did.

[E4 No More]

So you're voting for Obama. Gotcha.

Logic is lost on them.

[RobertNashville]

Logic is lost on them.

I see passion and conviction here but certainly no logic in continuing to promote a candidate like Ron Paul (or any other fringe candidate) who has lost every single run for President he's made (and lost big this time).

I like Jerry Doyle and I understand his point but refusing to support Romney is only going to serve to keep the communist in office and there is nothing logical about that.

[E4 No More]

I see passion and conviction here but certainly no logic in continuing to promote a candidate like Ron Paul (or any other fringe candidate) who has lost every single run for President he's made (and lost big this time).

I like Jerry Doyle and I understand his point but refusing to support Romney is only going to serve to keep the communist in office and there is nothing logical about that.

Oh I agree. I have felt that a major problem in this country is the two-party system. Unfortunately, protest votes, (or lack thereof), do not change the system but simply make it worse.

[jtmaze]

Part of the reason that libertarians get such a bad name is because of guys like that. Name calling doesn't fix the problem. He is right about certain points. The problem is the libertarians want to start at the top and work down instead of starting at local governments then turn them around, then move to state governments( using the success of the local governments) gain seats in the state government. Make the state government successful to show that your ideas work then expand to several states. Then gradually get elected to us congress and then make a bid for presidency. If you vote independent you are insuring Obama a second term.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[Murgatroy]

So you're voting for Obama. Gotcha.

Ding.

I understand supporting your candidate, but the point is, when it gets down to the line, a vote for a fringe player takes a vote away that could be used to defeat the real enemy.

When it comes down to the line, I will vote for Romney, even if he isn't my ideal choice, he is better than the alternative of wasting my vote and letting O win a second term.

What is it Ben Franklin used to say? "Join or die?"

[eapking]

I think folks ought to hold their "protest votes" for another election. Four more years of Barry are ensured by not voting for Romney, and we are all in big doo-doo.

[Sam1]

I see passion and conviction here but certainly no logic in continuing to promote a candidate like Ron Paul (or any other fringe candidate) who has lost every single run for President he's made (and lost big this time).

I like Jerry Doyle and I understand his point but refusing to support Romney is only going to serve to keep the communist in office and there is nothing logical about that.

The thing that gets me is how Ron Paul is the same as the rest of them. He's near the top of the list for funneling money back to his district out of congress. He plugs them into bills then votes against them when he knows the bills will get passed so he gets the money and says he voted against it. He's a joke like the rest of them...

[daddyo]

So, really, you guys are saying that it simply doesn't matter WHO we vote for. They're ALL dirtbags.

I agree.

[Dennis1209]

Oh I agree. I have felt that a major problem in this country is the two-party system. Unfortunately, protest votes, (or lack thereof), do not change the system but simply make it worse.

Absolutely positively 100% correct. I'll bet my bippy there's going to be a substantial segment of the population voting their conscience (third party). So, it appears we're in for another four years of national socialism, decades with the future SCOUS appointments.

Just as the sun will rise in the Eastern sky tomorrow morning, a Republican or Democrat will become the next president. That's where the money and support is. Those that promise the most out of the public treasury will get elected. Show me the money!

With the above indisputable facts; in my pea size brain it's logical to vote for the lesser of two evils. As the "lesser" should take US from point A to point B at a slower rate. Thereby allowing the American people more time to realize their errors and try to fix the system.

It's strategically sound to change an established political party from within to the will of the people, rather than destroy it and build a new one. I believe the military war colleges teach this strategy?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"It's strategically sound to change an established political party from within to the will of the people, rather than destroy it and build a new one. I believe the military war colleges teach this strategy? "

From some around here, you'd believe the Tea Party is just another bunch of dirtbags, also. What you typed above

is their policy. I agree with you, Dennis.

Vote your conscience. I'm voting mine and really more concerned about getting a congressional majority than just

the president. I'd vote for Paul if he was a viable candidate. I just don't think he is.

You guys trashing Romney are really helping the MSM and the commies more than you think, though.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The problem is the libertarians want to start at the top and work down instead of starting at local governments then turn them around, then move to state governments( using the success of the local governments) gain seats in the state government.

Libertarians do run in local and state elections and sometimes they win. They certainly win local/state more often than national. Have to overcome monopolistic election practices in most regions. Expensive to get on a ballot. On most ballots, candidates can only be labeled Democrat, Republican, or Independent. So a yellow dog democrat (who will vote for a yellow dog provided the dog is a democrat) or a second-coming republican (wouldn't vote for a democrat descended from on high with gabriel's horn blaring)-- Those party-line voters can vote a straight ticket even if they don't know who is running. They can vote a straight ticket even if they don't know the day of the week or what planet they are on. OTOH, any Green, Constitution Party or Libertarian voter must learn the candidates in order to know which "independent" candidates to pick.

R's and D's couldn't get mindless pavlovian reflex votes without a cheat sheet right there on the ballot! The ballot is an open-book test for R's and D's. If ballots didn't have party labels, any willfully-ignorant yellow-dog D or second-coming R would have to randomly vote. Any third party candidate would have identical odds with D and R candidates for the pavlovian votes. The ignoramus vote would be evenly distributed among all candidates. The R's and D's don't want competition from upstarts. I prefer party labels on the ballots. However it could be made fair two ways-- Either remove all party labels from ballots, or alternately allow third party candidates to be labeled with party affiliation rather than "independent". Perhaps Basil Marceaux could run under auspices of the Fringe party.

Another issue about the presidential race-- Platform is assembled at the presidential conventions and then all the little dogs toe the line and parrot the national party platform. So if a party decides to attract libertarians, decisions at the national convention level will trickle down into the talking points and campaign speeches of all the little dogs. Most little dogs won't campaign contradicting the guy at the head of the ticket. If they know what's good for them.

I understand supporting your candidate, but the point is, when it gets down to the line, a vote for a fringe player takes a vote away that could be used to defeat the real enemy.

I don't want to be mindless bashing or confrontational. Am not a reflexive "blame bush" feller, but facts are facts-- After nearly 20 years of struggle, by the year 2000 we almost had a balanced budget, R's were in charge of congress, and R's (barely) won the presidency. Six years later R's lost congress because of unpopular laws, bad budgets, and highly visible scandals. G.W. was a nice guy you might like to drink a beer with, but after 8 years we were hopelessly in debt, economy in the crapper, G.W. and liberal R's had alienated everybody except "center-right and war-mongers", and the R brand name had been so damaged that in 2008 you couldn't even elect an R for dogcatcher. Really I'm not trying to be snarky, but dang sometimes it is difficult to identify the "real enemy".

I think folks ought to hold their "protest votes" for another election. Four more years of Barry are ensured by not voting for Romney, and we are all in big doo-doo.

It isn't impossible I might vote Romney, but I could vote Basil Marceaux or Barak Obama and it wouldn't make a dimes worth of difference. Each and every libertarian in TN could vote Gary Johnson and Romney would still carry TN. Romney will either win or lose based on a handful of swing states. Tennesseans can't do a thing about it one way or t'other unless nobody bothers to vote except in Memphis.

Absolutely positively 100% correct. I'll bet my bippy there's going to be a substantial segment of the population voting their conscience (third party). So, it appears we're in for another four years of national socialism, decades with the future SCOUS appointments.

Just as the sun will rise in the Eastern sky tomorrow morning, a Republican or Democrat will become the next president. That's where the money and support is. Those that promise the most out of the public treasury will get elected. Show me the money!

With the above indisputable facts; in my pea size brain it's logical to vote for the lesser of two evils. As the "lesser" should take US from point A to point B at a slower rate. Thereby allowing the American people more time to realize their errors and try to fix the system.

Up until Y2K the libertarians got several percent on presidential races. There are more libertarians now than then, but D and R hucksters have managed to make every election seem an "end of the world" issue, scaring people into voting the lesser of two evils, so the turnout was barely 1 percent the last couple of cycles. This is self-defeating, because if a major party loses by 2 percent but only 0.75 percent voted libertarian, the party platform planners will say, "We can safely ignore libertarians because even if we had won them over we would have still lost". However, if the major party loses 2 percent but there was a 5 percent libertarian vote, then if the strategists have any brain cells at all, they might decide to modify the platform to woo libertarians.

As long as a major party can win half the time and stay a large minority the other half of the time, why would they be motivated to do anything different than the same-old-same-old? If you can successfully sell shoddy product then what would motivate you to improve the quality?

It's strategically sound to change an established political party from within to the will of the people, rather than destroy it and build a new one. I believe the military war colleges teach this strategy?

Libertarians have been trying to change the R party from within, but many groups try to change the R party from within. Goldwater was a favorite. He was as libertarian as Ron Paul. Goldwater got real upset and was known to say nasty things about preachers changing the party from within. As Jonnin and Mav mentioned elsewhere, an anti-gay platform doesn't attract the 10 percent of gays, many of whom are above-average educated, high income and fiscally conservative. Various other narrow-minded social conservative issues chase off fiscally conservative people who can't stand busybodies and meddlers. The preachers have been "changing the party from within". And the war-mongers. Lots of folks trying to "change the party from within". Or to preserve the sabotage they committed many years ago.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[RobertNashville]

What a lot of libertarians don't seem to (or refuse to) understand is that there is more to life than fiscal policy - those "narrow minded conservative/social conservative issues" are absolutely as important to me and to many other people as fiscal policy or whether/when/where we go to war.

Issues like abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are important to many, many people including independents - minimizing or ignoring those issues is one reason why I don't believe the libertarian view will ever be more than a minor part of the political landscape.

Edited July 13, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

What a lot of libertarians don't seem to (or refuse to) understand is that there is more to life than fiscal policy - those "narrow minded conservative/social conservative issues" are absolutely as important to me and to many other people as fiscal policy or whether/when/where we go to war.

Issues like abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are important to many, many people including independents - minimizing or ignoring those issues is one reason why I don't believe the libertarian view will ever be more than a minor part of the political landscape.

Nah Robert, Libertarians get that. The problem is that it is not in the Constitution for the fed to regulate morality.

[RobertNashville]

Nah Robert, Libertarians get that. The problem is that it is not in the Constitution for the fed to regulate morality.

Maybe I missed it but they don't seem to.

The Constitution doesn't regulate a lot of things but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't or don't need to be regulated.

Creating the laws that regulate our society was left to the people, or more specifically, to those sent to represent the people's interests in Congress - when I pick a party to associate with (formally or informally), or a candidate to vote for I want to associate with a party/vote for a candidate that holds to most of the same moral positions I hold to and I don't think that makes me either narrow minded or unusual (and if it does make me narrow minded than I can live with that).

I say again, there is a lot more to life than fiscal policy an I'll never vote for someone or associate with a party just because they have a good fiscal policy.

[sigmtnman]

Maybe I missed it but they don't seem to.

The Constitution doesn't regulate a lot of things but that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't or don't need to be regulated.

Creating the laws that regulate our society was left to the people, or more specifically, to those sent to represent the people's interests in Congress - when I pick a party to associate with (formally or informally), or a candidate to vote for I want to associate with a party/vote for a candidate that holds to most of the same moral positions I hold to and I don't think that makes me either narrow minded or unusual (and if it does make me narrow minded than I can live with that).

I say again, there is a lot more to life than fiscal policy an I'll never vote for someone or associate with a party just because they have a good fiscal policy.

It used to be called State's Rights. The powers were left to the States and the people. Listen to Dr. Paul closely and he will explain it. Listen to the pundits on TV and you won't get it.

[RobertNashville]

It used to be called State's Rights. The powers were left to the States and the people. Listen to Dr. Paul closely and he will explain it. Listen to the pundits on TV and you won't get it.

It still is but I'm not talking about Federal vs State responsibilities and rights.

I believe that man is a moral creature and for a society to function; most especially a society that seeks to allow and foster personal liberty and freedom; we need both a population and a government that is comprised of a preponderance of people of good morals at all levels of government, Federal, State and Local.

To attempt to strip moral/social issues from government, political parties of from considering whether to support a particular candidate for office is, in my opinion, a fools errand and a dangerous one as well.

Edited July 14, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

It still is but I'm not talking about Federal vs State responsibilities and rights.

I believe that man is a moral creature and for a society to function; most especially a society that seeks to allow and foster personal liberty and freedom; we need both a population and a government that is comprised of a preponderance of people of good morals at all levels of government, Federal, State and Local.

To attempt to strip moral/social issues from government, political parties of from considering whether to support a particular candidate for office is, in my opinion, a fools errand and a dangerous one as well.

This is a very broad topic and damn near impossible for me to convey in a week of discussions, much less in a post or two, so I'll just throw some thoughts out.

Does the virtuous man need a law to tell him to be good? Does the man without virtue care if there is a law?

⁴ Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

⁵ And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

⁶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

⁷ And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

⁸ According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

⁹ Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

¹⁰ And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.

¹¹ And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

¹² And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

¹³ And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

¹⁴ And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

¹⁵ And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

¹⁶ And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

¹⁷ He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

¹⁸ And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.

Samuel 8

[RobertNashville]

No to both questions but I believe it correct to say that in the Bible, there were still were laws. based on moral principles, that God and man expected to be obeyed, punishment meted out when they weren't obeyed and that God wanted virtuous men to govern/lead.

[sigmtnman]

I would rather the separation of church and state as I have no desire to have another persons religion forced onto me with changing demographics. The governments job is settle property rights, contract and common defense issues. Governments have shown themselves incapable of being moral and therefore incapable of enforcing morality.

Help me understand which particular moral issues you wish the government to regulate. One at a time would be great so as not to try to tackle too much at once.

Edited July 14, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What a lot of libertarians don't seem to (or refuse to) understand is that there is more to life than fiscal policy - those "narrow minded conservative/social conservative issues" are absolutely as important to me and to many other people as fiscal policy or whether/when/where we go to war.

Issues like abortion, gay marriage and other social issues are important to many, many people including independents - minimizing or ignoring those issues is one reason why I don't believe the libertarian view will ever be more than a minor part of the political landscape.

Hi Robert

Sigmtnman excellently put forth on constitutional issues and states rights so here are additional aspects. I don't intend the following as mocking or disrespectful. If it accidentally reads thataway then please blame it on my poor writing skills rather than malice.

I'm not anti-religious and think people can believe ANYTHING and practice ANYTHING except when it hurts other people. On the flip-side, also think people can dis-believe ANYTHING and act on their dis-belief any way they choose as long as it doesn't hurt other people. In fact, though it shouldn't be enforced by law, I believe it vey impolite for Religion A to get in the face of Religion B warning of fire and brimstone. Similarly it is extremely impolite for Atheists to get in the face of the Religious mocking and/or evangelizing. Or vice versa. Regardless who does it, that is crude, uncultured, uncalled-for behavior. Though not necessarily illegal.

My lifestyle is nearly identical to typical religious folk except I don't go to church. Religious folk tend to be fine people and good neighbors. Live and let live. Don't push me and I won't push back. I'll never intentionally push first.

---- Non Pragmatic Attitude? ----

It seems ironic that libertarians are criticized as idealistically impractical-- Voting for candidates who can't win-- But on the other hand you would stubbornly insist on candidates who would enforce morality at the point of a gun! That is a textbook example of impractical! Though there are millions of sanctimonious meddlers in the world (both religious and atheist), I believe that they are among the minority. Even worse, their numbers are divided because there is no Sanctimonious Meddler Party where they can all join forces-- The commie Sanctimonious Meddlers tend to the D party and the free-enterprise Sanctimonious Meddlers tend to the R party. Don't you realize that insisting on Sanctimonious Meddling issues in the R party platform-- It virtually guarantees that the R party can't consistently win?

In fact, the only way a Sanctimonious Meddling R party can stay viable is when the D party Sanctimonious Meddlers accidentally escape their pens and cause so much mischeif that independents hold their nose and vote for R moral sanctimonious meddlers in order to avoid being robbed blind by D sanctimonious meddlers! Some choice, huh? The only way R's ever win is when D meddlers act even worse! If the most-rabid D meddlers can ever be rounded up, given a shot of thorazine and put back in the quiet room, then a Sanctimonious Meddling R party will hardly ever win. Unfortunately it is more difficult to catch a D sanctimonious meddler than to catch a greased pig in a mudhole, so it might take awhile.

[RobertNashville]

This isn't a state's rights discussion nor does it have anything to do with religiosity.

I don’t make my decisions about a candidate based only on his fiscal policy - what morals he holds to personally and has demonstrated in his life as well as what moral principles he brings to the office he is seeking is at last as important to me as any other policy/consideration. Society, through government, has both an obligation and and a right to set moral and ethical boundaries and enforce them...to not do so invites anarchy.

Edited July 15, 2012 by RobertNashville