For the Libertarians Planning to write in Ron Paul

[mikegideon]

Now why would you want to put the idea of failure into a budding young entrepreneur?

Nothing in life is certain except for, well you know...

Got nothing against the guy at all. Just sayin', if you're gonna try to be the leader of the free world, you're gonna need a comparable AD budget. Numbers really do matter in this case.

[Oh Shoot]

Darn it you got me again. Doesn't change how I may or may not vote though.

It would have to be in an extremely close election state for less than 2% of the vote siphoned off to influence the results. TN almost certainly won't be one of them.

I admit, though, it could have elected Gore via Florida in 2000. Then again the SCOTUS would probably have still elected Dubya.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Again this thread wasnt meant for Romney Pushers but rather to point out that there is a third option for those Planning on writing in Paul or not vote at all If Paul doesnt get the Nomination...

My apologies...I didn't realize that it was supposed to be a semi-private thread.

[plank white]

My apologies...I didn't realize that it was supposed to be a semi-private thread.

The title says for the Libertarians planning on writing in Ron Paul hmmm

But I knew the moment all my post started receiving -1's that you had arrived

[mikegideon]

I don't -1 anybody, except for that douchebag that got banned in the chicken thread. The folks on the board, with all their opinions, ain't the enemy.

[plank white]

I don't -1 anybody, except for that douchebag that got banned in the chicken thread. The folks on the board, with all their opinions, ain't the enemy.

Lol its no big deal man he hits a few of us up like that whenever he disagrees but we usually have someone even us up eventually . It really means nothing Maybe if I was a seller and had horrible rep due to one guys douchery then Id be bothered but Im not a seller and E-points dont really bother me . But they do hurt my E-feelings Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[Erik88]

Tell me how the "conservative " supreme court justices are helping at the moment? Scalia just came out and said new gun laws could be constitutional and what's his name screwed us on the health care ruling. I don't think the world will end when obummer gets his second term but continuing to vote the the Republican nominee just because he has an R next to his name isn't the answer.

[sigmtnman]

The title says for the Libertarians planning on writing in Ron Paul hmmm

But I knew the moment all my post started receiving -1's that you had arrived

Gosh, I was going to defend Robert, thinking he would not do so, but looking at his Reputation Given page, you may be correct.

[mikegideon]

Tell me how the "conservative " supreme court justices are helping at the moment? Scalia just came out and said new gun laws could be constitutional and what's his name screwed us on the health care ruling. I don't think the world will end when obummer gets his second term but continuing to vote the the Republican nominee just because he has an R next to his name isn't the answer.

The answer is what happened in Tennessee yesterday. When they suck, show them the door. Obama definately sucks.

If you don't think a SCOTUS full of Obama appointees would be worse, then you're not thinking at all. This is real fundamental. Democrats hate guns, and republicans don't. That's straight party line stuff.

Edited August 3, 2012 by mikegideon

[RobertNashville]

The title says for the Libertarians planning on writing in Ron Paul hmmm

But I knew the moment all my post started receiving -1's that you had arrived

If you think a member should control who is allowed to participates in a thread why not run the idea by the mods...maybe they'll set up an area where you can have absolute control over who can participate.

If you don't want me to participate in your thread you might try to forgo replying to my posts...oddly enough, yesterday, in a different thread, I was taken to the woodshed by "sigmtnman" on that issue.

[plank white]

The answer is what happened in Tennessee yesterday. When they suck, show them the door. Obama definately sucks.

If you don't think a SCOTUS full of Obama appointees would be worse, then you're not thinking at all. This is real fundamental. Democrats hate guns, and republicans don't. That's straight party line stuff.

I used to feel the same way till they put a Proven gun grabber up for their nomination ,Things have changed its no longer dem vs rep it destroyer vs destroyer period sorry but nothing Ive seen can convince me that both party's aren't out to destroy this country of course to there way of thinking they are out to control this country what we need is someone to spend time probably an entire term trying to reverse some of The Crap that has been done in the past but we will never have that its all a control game and who do you want to control us more I personally am sick of being controlled and will try to vote for someone who can Lead us in the right direction Not Force us to follow theirs . Im not saying GJ will win all Im saying is if he doesnt we will be stuck in this vicious loop till the entire thing falls apart no matter which Party is in control. Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[RobertNashville]

Gosh, I was going to defend Robert, thinking he would not do so, but looking at his Reputation Given page, you may be correct.

I appreciate that you were going to come to my rescue but it's okay. As to "Reputation Given"; you do realize, don't you, that looking at a member's "Reputation Given" shows what posts he has given a reputation point to but does not show whether it was a -1 or +1, don't you???

If I give a post a +1 but two others give the same post a -1 and you look at my "Reputation Given" you will see the net points given (in my example, a -1) even though I actually gave it a positive point. It took me a while to figure that out but I'm pretty sure that is how the system works...if one of the mods want to clarify maybe they will.

Of course, I may be wasting my time pointing that out since you may not see this post at all - I suppose I'm going to have to go back an delete it since I'm not supposed to be participating in this thread.

[Guest FIST]

Explain how less than 1% of the vote going to GJ is going to change anything? At all?

- OS

It's not going to change anything, this time. Next election say 2% of the vote goes third party, and so on and so on. It's not an over night thing. I wasn't there in 1776 but I imagine that movement started small as well.

[sigmtnman]

I appreciate that you were going to come to my rescue but it's okay. As to "Reputation Given"; you do realize, don't you, that looking at a member's "Reputation Given" shows what posts he has given a reputation point to but does not show whether it was a -1 or +1, don't you???

If I give a post a +1 but two others give the same post a -1 and you look at my "Reputation Given" you will see the net points given (in my example, a -1) even though I actually gave it a positive point. It took me a while to figure that out but I'm pretty sure that is how the system works...if one of the mods want to clarify maybe they will.

Of course, I may be wasting my time pointing that out since you may not see this post at all - I suppose I'm going to have to go back an delete it since I'm not supposed to be participating in this thread.

Yeah, I figured out how it works back in a couple of previous lessor of two evils threads when all my posts had the little red negative number below. I was just inferring that perhaps you were, based on a quick analysis of the number of posts you "voted" on. If I was incorrect, then my apologies and thanks for trying to come to the rescue of us folks who get -1s all the time. I obviously live or die by how other's view my crazy ideas/views and that's why I temper them so much.

Edited August 3, 2012 by sigmtnman

[plank white]

It's not going to change anything, this time. Next election say 2% of the vote goes third party, and so on and so on. It's not an over night thing. I wasn't there in 1776 but I imagine that movement started small as well.

I would Like to think that maybe in a few years those who support Paul , Johnson , Etc. and have found that they are strong believers in the constitution will start running for office and eventually that will have an impact till then all we can do is throw our vote to the Best Guy and tell our children we tried , I shure wish our parents and grandparents had decided not to vote for the lesser of two evils and not to vote against the guy the hate but instead to vote for the guy they wanted we probably wouldnt be in this position now but hey ya gotta start somewhere ya know Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[Oh Shoot]

It's not going to change anything, this time. Next election say 2% of the vote goes third party, and so on and so on. It's not an over night thing. I wasn't there in 1776 but I imagine that movement started small as well.

Yep, there's really a groundswell movement underway:

Highest third party percentage:

2008: Nader .56

2004: Nader .38

2000: Nader 2.73

1996: Perot 8.4

1992: Perot 18.9

1988: Paul .44

1984: too low to pick

Liberals have had the best third party turnout since Perot. Ironic, eh?

Libertarian got .4 in 2008. GJ will do about the same, maybe less. Bob Barr probably had better name recognition.

- OS

Edited August 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[plank white]

Really do like alot of his views wish I had payed more attention to this sooner

[RobertNashville]

At the risk of participating again in a thread I'm not supposed to be in...

When I hear anyone make statements about how poor the candidate choices are for any given office and how they wish others will get out there and run, I always want to ask "have YOU run for office?

Why is it some nebulous "someone good" who needs to run...if people really want better choices then why aren't THEY running for office instead of expecting someone else to do it?

After having just helped a candidate in a very small way in a relatively small race I once again became amazed that anybody would want to run for anything. As such, I think we ought to be damn glad that anybody even slightly decent will run for office.

[Guest FIST]

Yep, there's really a groundswell movement underway:

Highest third party percentage:

2008: Nader .56

2004: Nader .38

2000: Nader 2.73

1996: Perot 8.4

1992: Perot 18.9

1988: Paul .44

1984: too low to pick

Liberals have had the best third party turnout since Perot. Ironic, eh?

Libertarian got .4 in 2008. GJ will do about the same, maybe less. Bob Barr probably had better name recognition.

- OS

Everything starts somewhere.

[plank white]

Yep, there's really a groundswell movement underway:

Highest third party percentage:

2008: Nader .56

2004: Nader .38

2000: Nader 2.73

1996: Perot 8.4

1992: Perot 18.9

1988: Paul .44

1984: too low to pick

Liberals have had the best third party turnout since Perot. Ironic, eh?

Libertarian got .4 in 2008. GJ will do about the same, maybe less. Bob Barr probably had better name recognition.

- OS

Im thinking with more and more folks Turning off their tvs and Radios and learning about the candidates from the internet on an individual basis eventually we will be able to overcome "Doing what everyone else does" or what the media says is big news etc. as long as the internet stays free I don't see how we can be as controlled as we were in the past I know when bush was in office I voted for him a second term because honestly it felt like the right thing to do every channel said something about "Staying the course" etc. I dont even know who the third party candidate was then I didnt watch debates I may have seen some of the Highlights and that was only what the media decided to show If it were not for the web I probably wouldve never heard of Paul or Johnson or wouldve been laughing at them along with everyone else during the morning show on tv while getting ready for work I think the internet Helped to basically make me see things i didnt notice, or didnt care to notice before and as long as we keep it out of the hands of the government it may prove to be our only beacon to truth in the future and will hopefully get the word out to more and more as the next few years unfold and will introduce change, its getting really hard for the media to suppress things aswell as over exaggerate things the way the used to so I think that in itself my help a 3rd party candidate in the future aswell. Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[Oh Shoot]

Everything starts somewhere.

...a 3rd party candidate in the future aswell.

Well, it doesn't start THIS year, and being part of the .5% again ain't gonna foment jack crap.

- OS

[plank white]

Well, it doesn't start THIS year, and being part of the .5% again ain't gonna foment jack crap.

- OS

I know my vote doesnt mean Much , But its one less vote that wouldve been virtually guaranteed to the GOP a few years back who knows maybe this will wake them up and force them to make better decisions I doubt it seeing as choosing Mcain last time didnt change their ways I guess they will just keep picking loosers that we dont want and the majority of us will side with them anyway but I for one Will not blindly give my vote to the publicans again Edited August 3, 2012 by plank white

[Guest FIST]

Well, it doesn't start THIS year, and being part of the .5% again ain't gonna foment jack crap.

- OS

I agree this year will not be the one that a third party canidate wins. This may not even be the year that gets a third party fermenting.

[sigmtnman]

Well, it doesn't start THIS year, and being part of the .5% again ain't gonna foment jack crap.

- OS

It has to start somewhere. You expect >40% to just pop out of nowhere overnight? What does the constant belittling of voting third party forment?

[Guest ThePunisher]

If you vote the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for an evil.

Eventually by voting the lesser of the two evils, you get to the point of no evil, or at least of no consequence. The US was faced with the same dilemma in WWII when we chose to ally with Stalin thinking it would be better to stamp out Hitler's fascism first, and then deal with communism later.

Edited August 3, 2012 by ThePunisher