Ron Paul supporters

[Guest adamoxtwo]

To the Mitt is the same as BHO crowd, do you really think he could do worse?

Look at the Employment Rate vs Unemployment. The key to seeing the correct picture (which is why it isn't used) is seeing how many Americans HAVE jobs rather then looking at how many people have SUBMITTED a claim. The unemployment makes it not look that bad, but the employment rate will blow your mind.

[sigmtnman]

It doesn't piss me off but it does disappoint...surely we aren't going to vote or not vote for someone because of their religion (or lack of religion) are we? I would hope not.

Personally, I would find making a voting choice based on "religion" just a disgusting as making that decision based on skin color.

It's ok; you didn't read my further explanation in my reply to Lester.

Your second argument is a straw man, but yes voting based on skin color is disgusting.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It doesn't piss me off but it does disappoint...surely we aren't going to vote or not vote for someone because of their religion (or lack of religion) are we? I would hope not.

Personally, I would find making a voting choice based on "religion" just a disgusting as making that decision based on skin color.

Yep, it ought not matter, within "normal parameters". I already said I'd vote for any race or religion, assuming agreement with policy, and with sufficient confidence I'm not voting for a meddling bigot. There is no race or religion fully staffed with meddling bigots. I won't even vote for a white atheist like me if he/she has odds of being a meddling bigot.

For hypothetical example-- Posit a political race between an obviously racist cyan candidate versus an obviously racist magenta candidate. Magenta voters, even the non-racist magenta voters who would otherwise ignore color-- If two racists are the only viable choices, then magenta voters will tend to vote the magenta candidate to best assure their own safety if "things get out of hand." Ditto for cyan voters.

Voters would become increasingly comfortable voting cross-race given improved confidence of non-racist candidates.

It works the same regarding religion. Religion doesn't matter if the candidate isn't a meddling bigot. This quandary is worse for voters in some other nations, but no law of nature says it can't get bad here. For instance a voter's choices based on religion vs level of bigotry are life-and-death such places as Egypt, Iraq, certain multi-religion African nations. Maybe the non-bigot christian Egyptian voter must decide between voting a christian (and losing), or voting a sunni or sheite, and also pick among the ones who merely want to oppress them and beat them up occasionally, versus other candidates who want to wipe them out entirely. Now that's an election with consequences!

For instance in the recent republican primary, all were self described christians. Everyone can make their own guesses but my guess--

Romney and Paul were the least likely meddling bigots. Neither appear likely to push law or executive policy based solely on immovable religious conviction. Romney and Paul seem to have minimal odds of situations where you can debate til yer blue in the face but it doesn't matter because the dude's holy book says different, and he's gonna be president four more years come hell or high water. Like it or lump it, policy X is inevitable regardkess of any and all real world logic because one citizen out of 300 million happens to have a certain religious conviction.

Cain was difficult to read. I really like Cain. A smart man of good principles and not drastically in disagreement on policy. Logical enough to be reasoned with on most matters. On the other hand Cain was adamant on certain religious issues and spent a fair amount of campaign time talking religion. One couldn't rule out the possibility of un-debatable bull-headed executive decisions just because of the way one man reads his bible.

I think Santorum was the most obvious danger of electing a four-year theocratic dictator, who can't be reasoned with AT ALL on policies relevant to his religion. The candidate most likely to use the big stick of gov to make people behave according to his religion. Not only "quirky" in reasoning of executive policy, but also a behavior-control nut.

Perry and Bachmann were possibly less rabid than Santorum but it is a guessing game. I happened to like Bachmann quite a bit on many issues, but it was too easy to visualize Perry or Bachmann making bull-headed weird executive decisions based on their interpretation of the bible rather than real-world facts.

Gingrich spent a lot of time speaking of values and religion which I suspect simple pandering which he didn't really mean. Kinda like Bill Clinton speaking of religion. Right. Give me a break. Gingrich was bright and had some good ideas but the source of Gingrich un-debatable bull-headed executive decisions would be more that Gingrich has a highly elevated image of his own wisdom and once he decides something neither heaven nor earth would shake his opinion.

I don't think the above evaluations are religiously bigoted. The two I picked "best" claim to be christians just like the ones I picked "worst". You might think me too sensitive on the subject, and I'm gonna "lose the argument" by breaking Godwin's law-- In the early days many German Jews supported Hitler because they liked that he was a strong leader in Germany's time of troubles. They liked Hitler's vision for rebuilding Germany and liked his strong anti-communist stance. They ignored his "kill the jews" rhetoric, believing that Hitler was merely pandering to right-wing Germans to get more votes, and that Hitler would never really do that stuff. So maybe you can't discount sermons on the campaign trail as mere pandering. Elections have consequences.

Now speaking of the ridiculousness of people voting because of religion, let me remind you of all the traffic among the religious right trying to pick among Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry, arguing back and forth which candidate was the "true christian" and therefore the "true conservative". If that ain't voting because of religion, on a mass scale, then what is?

Kinda like the "strange coincidence" that nearly all black folk voted for Obama.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There hasn't been but one TN senator unseated in my voting lifetime (I'm 64, and it was Ross Bass in 1966), and only a handful in whole history, so don't hold your breath.

- OS

But that doesn't mean Tennessee can't do it. Poskevich appears to have a decent chance. He's got my vote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Kinda like the "strange coincidence" that nearly all black folk voted for Obama."

Nothing strange about it, but i don't think I'll dabble into that political incorrectness today. I know what you meant, Lester.

[Oh Shoot]

But that doesn't mean Tennessee can't do it. Poskevich appears to have a decent chance. He's got my vote.

I voted for him today.

I'll be amazed if he or any of the other Rep in primary get 10%.

In general, Corker will crush whoever. Actually, is anyone even running on Dem ticket?

- OS

Edited July 25, 2012 by OhShoot

[jeepbus]

There hasn't been but one TN senator unseated in my voting lifetime (I'm 64, and it was Ross Bass in 1966), and only a handful in whole history, so don't hold your breath.

- OS

On that note ,I wish they would put a term limit on those fools. That is crazy ,I did not know that little tid bit. thank s for sharin that.

[RobertNashville]

On that note ,I wish they would put a term limit on those fools. That is crazy ,I did not know that little tid bit. thank s for sharin that.

I'm not a big believer in term limits...seems to me that we already have the power to limit a politician's term (voting) and if we chose not to use that power who's fault is that, especially given how few people actually vote? According to some studies, even among those who claim to be truly concerned and involved with the political process, only about 1 in three are even registered to vote.

As far as U.S. Senators go, I prefer the Constitutional way of each State appointing their Senators.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

Some folks will never get it . Its really not that hard to see that in order for RP to put support behind Romney he would have to throw away 70 years of self respect , Honor , and integrity . Just because the Republicans did as they were told and chose Romney to go against Obama doesn't mean Romney is a good choice.

Romney is quoted saying he is for Gun rights and quoted saying he is for Gun Prohibition.

Romney is a staunch advocate for doing away with Obama care yet Obama care is Based on Romney care .

Numerous other flip flop statements have been made like this and if I cant vote for Ron Paul in the election Ill vote for Gary Johnson .

Ron Paul supporters have been bashed in , made fun of , and disrespected from the begining by mainstream republicans and they think RP supporters should just say OH well never mind standing our ground we should do what we are told.

I think its time people quit falling for the 2 party system which controls everything and stop voting for the "Less of to evils" and vote for good

sure wish my parents and grandparents would have done the same and not left this mess for us . All I can tell my son when he is older and the economy drops out from under us and we are living in a True Police state That atleast I tried I spread the word as much as possible and voting for a good man not the guy who didnt Lie as much as the other guy .

Romney care is vastly different from Obama-care. I know i know it's the same, but how it was brought into law is completely different. The people of the Massachusetts directly voted for Romney-care. Americans did not have a direct vote on Obama care. Then you get into States Rights vs Federal Authorities over citizens. So, even though the medical coverage and care is probably the same the process making it a law is vastly different.

[RobertNashville]

Some folks will never get it . Its really not that hard to see that in order for RP to put support behind Romney he would have to throw away 70 years of self respect , Honor , and integrity . Just because the Republicans did as they were told and chose Romney to go against Obama doesn't mean Romney is a good choice.

Funny, I thought Romney won because he got more votes than the other candidates...silly me.

As for "Republicans" doing what they were told", do you have any actual evidence to support that assertion? I'm thinking it never happened 'cause I didn't get the memo from the RNC telling me who I had to vote for.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wouldn't hurt my feelings to term-limit senators and representatives but as Robert points out it is at least theoretically possible to run them off before they decide they've stolen enough money and leave of their own accord, or before they eventually die of old age. Term limits would help because unless the "scoundrel you know" is the most evil kind of scoundrel, it seems risky to trade him in on a "scoundrel you don't know" who might be worse. Term limits would force voters to choose a new set of scoundrels every once in awhile. Churn the stack.

Major embezzlements are discovered after a life-long trusted employee suddenly dies. Or unexpectedly gets sick, missing so much work that other people have to do his job for awhile. In fact one thing to watch is an employee "too conscientious" who never misses work and never takes vacations, same position for many years. Perhaps indicative of a dedicated worker or perhaps indicative of cooked books which require close supervision. Such situation isn't drastically different than life-long congresscritters. We ought to at least sweep the old skeletons out of the closets once in awhile to make room for new skeletons. Give fresh new faces equal opportunity to steal us blind and sell us out. To paraphrase Fearless Leader, "I do think at a certain point you've made off with enough money."

We would almost certainly be better off with a presidential term limit of four years rather than eight. Second terms are rarely better than the first. Second terms often suck so bad that hindsight will make you wish you had voted the other way so that somebody else, anybody else would have been president rather than the second term creep that nobody will admit voting for.

On the other hand, with a four year term limit the prez would be a lame duck the first day in office. Each new-elected president would be free to jump the shark right away rather than pretend to be good for the first term, waiting til re-election to screw up as bad as possible. Even if both parties suck equally, at least they would be forced to go head-to-head from square one on equal footing every four years. Less time that things can go to hell in a handbasket before a new scoundrel can take over and ruin us in a new and different way.

[Volzfan]

Ron Paul has about as much chance of winning this election as I do of hitting the next 5 Powerball drawings in a row!!!! They say never say never. Well I'm saying that Ron Paul will NEVER be President! I would almost bet that O is funneling him money so that he can keep his supporters with all of the Kool-Aid that they can drink and that will put him back in the White House and in position to finish flushing this once great country down the toilet! Wake up and vote for the only man at this critical time who can stop the Obama train! Hold your nose and look the other way when you place your vote for Romney but do it!!

[Guest ThePunisher]

RP and Johnson have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than winning POTUS. They couldn't even win the R primary. But there is an idiot commie in the WH, and and some more idiots in Congrees and a whole lot of idiots that voted for them, and are determined to re-elect them so they can totally destroy our once great country. Please go ahead and say you are voting for RP or Johnson when in actuality you are voting to re-elect Obummer the commie. Geeze...