New Gary Johnson Ad: You ARE Libertarian!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't know about that. Many people just don't want to throw their votes away and see people like Oblamo voted into office. If there was a viable third party candidate I'd vote for him/her. Tom Clancy wrote in one of his novels about the President, congress, and supremes all dying from a Japanese pilot crashing a fully fueled 747 into the capital during the State of The Union Address, and the character Ryan became president. He made a lot of changes that I would have agreed with had it been reality. That's pretty much the only viable way to get a 3rd party into the whitehouse, but don't forget you'd also need a third party congress to boot.

That was "Debt of Honor". Been a while since I read it, but wasn't Ryan appointed to CIA Director or

something similar before the crash of the 747 into the Capitol building by the grieving JAL pilot?

According to the line of succession, there was essentially no one left from the branches of government

except him after that event. Good book! Now I'm going to have to re-read it.

I see what you're saying, SWJewellTN. That may be the case.

Edited August 9, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[E4 No More]

That was "Debt of Honor". Been a while since I read it, but wasn't Ryan appointed to CIA Director or

something similar before the crash of the 747 into the Capitol building by the grieving JAL pilot?

According to the line of succession, there was essentially no one left from the branches of government

except him after that event. Good book! Now I'm going to have to re-read it.

I see what you're saying, SWJewellTN. That may be the case.

Yeah, something like that. One supreme was left back and he swore Jack Ryan in. I thought it interesting that long before 911, Tom Clancey thought of flying a plane into a building as an act of terrorism. After 911 I wondered if old Osama Bin Azzhole read Clancy's book, but missed the part about doing it during the State of The Union Address. That's about the only efficient, (and was realistic), way of cleaning out Washington.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I did a little research on third party viability. The consensus seems to be that once a third party issue is a big enough deal for either R or D to notice, then R or D tries to suck the third party in by taking up the issue.

This could be seen a few different ways,

1. Smart political strategy. You take up the issue and steal the wishy washy supporters and reduce an opposing power base at the same time.

2. The third party has waivered just to be absorbed into the collective two party's system but at the same time getting support for their issue.

3. Failure of the party to stand by its beliefs.

All of these outcomes are at least partially responsible for the failure of third party's to create traction. I believe as others have stated it takes a "bottom up" approach. Since this is my belief it is therefore a waste of my vote if I choose an R or D. So my options are, don't vote, or vote third party. Either is a wasted vote in some circles but if I chose to waiver on this I'm No different than the wishy washy voters being absorbed. Maybe the issue truly lies in a vast majority of the population not really believing that a third party canidate can win, but I don't believe that's the case. I think the vast majority doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves and demand what this country needs. Less political bull, more results.

I'm still waiting for somebody to give me a reason to not vote third party. The following don't count due to the fact they are flawed in their reasoning, argument, and result.

1. It's a vote for Obama (whatever you say) (commie/Marxist, got it, thanks)

2. There's no chance of victory (if there on the ballot there's a chance)

3. You suck at math (Ok)

4. Your stupid and I don't like you (No I'm not, you are)

Please, someone give me a reason to vote R or D. Please.

I appreiate your comments, FIST, but if the majority of the voting population thinks a third party can't win, or,

that it's your assertion that the majority of the population doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to vote for a third party,

isn't that a big enough flaw to vote for a third party candidate until one or the other situations is corrected?

I'm not trying to tell you how to vote. I think you know that, already, but given that situation above, does the vote for

that third party candidate have any tangible value? I understand the argument of voting one's conscience and I

respect it. I'm just asking where the value, otherwise, is.

[Guest FIST]

If so many of Obamas policies are communist/socialist etc, and Romney voted along similar lines and even created the foundation of some of that legislation, doesn't that make Romney a communist/socialist? Is the only exception being how he got rich?

I agree on the majority of your points being issues that are bad for this country. How would Romney do things different?

Should we go on his voting record, or his word?

Would Romney be man enough to stand up and take charge of this country, or will it be buisness as usual with a perceived economic improvement? I know you don't speak for him Robert, but since you are a strong supporter of Romney can you tell me why I should trust him any more than the booger hooker currently in office?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeah, something like that. One supreme was left back and he swore Jack Ryan in. I thought it interesting that long before 911, Tom Clancey thought of flying a plane into a building as an act of terrorism. After 911 I wondered if old Osama Bin Azzhole read Clancy's book, but missed the part about doing it during the State of The Union Address. That's about the only efficient, (and was realistic), way of cleaning out Washington.

That's why you and I read his books, isn't it? He is full of some very valid prognostications. His plots are very well thought

out.

Bin Laden probably did, or one of his soldiers did.

[E4 No More]

That's why you and I read his books, isn't it? He is full of some very valid prognostications. His plots are very well thought

out.

Bin Laden probably did, or one of his soldiers did.

Yes, that and I just loved the character of Jack Ryan - pretty much doing the right things under pressure even though it's rarely the easy thing to do.

[Guest FIST]

I appreiate your comments, FIST, but if the majority of the voting population thinks a third party can't win, or,

that it's your assertion that the majority of the population doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to vote for a third party,

isn't that a big enough flaw to vote for a third party candidate until one or the other situations is corrected?

I'm not trying to tell you how to vote. I think you know that, already, but given that situation above, does the vote for

that third party candidate have any tangible value? I understand the argument of voting one's conscience and I

respect it. I'm just asking where the value, otherwise, is.

I'm not 100% sure if there is a tangible value. Maybe the value comes from a major party taking up a partial part of a third party cause. Theoretically by assimilating third party issues you could possibly re shape one of the party's in it's image, to an extent.

I still believe the bottom up approach is the best course of action and I truly believe a single vote matters more there either way. Maybe voting for third party in a presidential race is a way to show your dissaproval of Washington, even if its insignificant..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Considering that Romney would have his hands full getting the executive branch of managers cleaned out,

which is what he is good at, and filling them with a totally different type of manager in them, that alone would

create value for a Romney presidency. Most of his policies, I think would stem from the House of Representatives

anyway, and be steered on or off course by whatever Senate we have. Unless a president is an activist, he would

be unlikely be much more than a manager, with the exception of foreign policy. That one I don't know how Romney

would be. I'm admitting to you I think he won't be like Ronald Reagan, not that he should be. He will be working

with a Congress that will send him hopefully decent legislation, rather than a bunch of mandates.

Obama is an activist president and is starting to exert his power with executive orders and he has placed very

dangerous people in administrative positions that is wrecking our economy, and country. Whoever gets in there

will have to clean house very fast and undo a lot of regulatory burdens that those dangerous people are dealing

out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not 100% sure if there is a tangible value. Maybe the value comes from a major party taking up a partial part of a third party cause. Theoretically by assimilating third party issues you could possibly re shape one of the party's in it's image, to an extent.

I still believe the bottom up approach is the best course of action and I truly believe a single vote matters more there either way. Maybe voting for third party in a presidential race is a way to show your dissaproval of Washington, even if its insignificant..

I agree with everything you just said. You also said what the Tea Party is actively pursuing.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, that and I just loved the character of Jack Ryan - pretty much doing the right things under pressure even though it's rarely the easy thing to do.

Ryan's character is a rare breed. I wonder if he exists somewhere in life? Not in DC!

[Guest FIST]

Considering that Romney would have his hands full getting the executive branch of managers cleaned out,

which is what he is good at, and filling them with a totally different type of manager in them, that alone would

create value for a Romney presidency. Most of his policies, I think would stem from the House of Representatives

anyway, and be steered on or off course by whatever Senate we have. Unless a president is an activist, he would

be unlikely be much more than a manager, with the exception of foreign policy. That one I don't know how Romney

would be. I'm admitting to you I think he won't be like Ronald Reagan, not that he should be. He will be working

with a Congress that will send him hopefully decent legislation, rather than a bunch of mandates.

Obama is an activist president and is starting to exert his power with executive orders and he has placed very

dangerous people in administrative positions that is wrecking our economy, and country. Whoever gets in there

will have to clean house very fast and undo a lot of regulatory burdens that those dangerous people are dealing

out.

Do you persoanlly feel Romney will take immediate action to clean house? I'm not saying he won't, I'm just trying to get a feel for how others view him and his resolve. To date, I don't get the impression that he is a natural leader. He reminds me of the NCO who is pulled from his MOS for a few years(Recruiting, instructor, etc) and upon returning to a line unit isn't quite sure how things need to be done, but instead applies what used to be done and not using the wealth of knowledge that is subordinat to him.

[RobertNashville]

If so many of Obamas policies are communist/socialist etc, and Romney voted along similar lines and even created the foundation of some of that legislation, doesn't that make Romney a communist/socialist? Is the only exception being how he got rich?

As far as I know, the only thing Romney did as governor that could be labeled "socialist" was MA health care but as I understand the history of that legislation, there was no attempt to nor does it go around the private health care industry - whereas Obama has said multiple times that he wants and Obamacare will push everyone into a single-payer, universal health care system which will kill private health care insurance.

If so many of Obamas policies are communist/socialist etc, and Romney voted along similar lines and even created the foundation of some of that legislation, doesn't that make Romney a communist/socialist? Is the only exception being how he got rich?Would Romney be man enough to stand up and take charge of this country, or will it be buisness as usual with a perceived economic improvement? I know you don't speak for him Robert, but since you are a strong supporter of Romney can you tell me why I should trust him any more than the booger hooker currently in office?

What I know about Romney is that he's proven himself in business and that his actions show me that he is a capitalist at heart. That gives me reason to believe that he will seek solutions to our problems based in private, free-market capitalism rather than government and that he'll surround himself with those who think the same way.

What I believe about Romney (based in part on the lack or any evidence to the contrary and also on personal experience with those of the Morman faith) is that he is an honest, principled man who will at least attempt to do what is best for the country.

Whether he will "man enough" for the job? Who knows - how can we actually know that about anyone until they get there...I am just convinced that he is a far better choice than the commie in office now and the only choice who actually has the ability to win the election.

[MattCary]

In "Debt of Honor:" Jack Ryan has been appointed to fill the VP slot vacated by the resignation of Ed Kealty. The plane hits the Capitol Building during the swearing in ceremony, everyone in the gov is present, except Jack, who is in the tunnel waiting to enter the chamber.

"Executive Orders" begins with the dust clearing and the secret service calling Jack Ryan "Mr. President." He takes the oath of office in front of a judge and a CNN camera, IIRC.

I, too, thought of these books on 9/11.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Considering that Romney would have his hands full getting the executive branch of managers cleaned out,

which is what he is good at, and filling them with a totally different type of manager in them, that alone would

create value for a Romney presidency. Most of his policies, I think would stem from the House of Representatives

anyway, and be steered on or off course by whatever Senate we have. Unless a president is an activist, he would

be unlikely be much more than a manager, with the exception of foreign policy. That one I don't know how Romney

would be. I'm admitting to you I think he won't be like Ronald Reagan, not that he should be. He will be working

with a Congress that will send him hopefully decent legislation, rather than a bunch of mandates.

Hi 6.8

Have been "for selfish motivations" trying to estimate what might happen if Romney wins, trying to figure if there is anything little old me might do to stay as far away possible from behind the 8-ball. Kinda futile. Just curious. Haven't made any conclusions.

Because sometime in the next presidential term I'll most likely have to sign up with social security and try to get back a little bit of my quarter million bucks of social security payments, am curious how those "really smart financiers" in a Romney admin will handle that little detail. I suspect it will involve some flavor of partial default on my quarter million bucks. The true curiosity is whether bankers, fat cats and sovereign funds will be expected to share the pain.

If the gov partial-defaults on the little people who were forced to involuntarily pay money for SocSec bonds, but the gov does not partial-default on "voluntary" gov bond holders, then that would be disappointing. I kinda expect that the priority will be higher to "make whole" fat cats bonds. I kinda expect that the priority will be lower to "make whole" SocSecurity bonds, funded by people forced to fork over the money at the point of a gun. I know that the gov is gonna have to rip SOMEBODY, but it will be less painful if they rip EVERYBODY about the same, rather than first honor bonds "voluntarily" bought by fat cats. Actually, it seems fairer to me to preferentially default on people who voluntarily bought bonds of their own free will, before defaulting on people who were forced to pay at the point of a gun. But equal default to everybody would be better than screwing little people to free up money to pay-back fat cats.

====

It seems inevitable to get some kind of Romney tax cut. It seems inevitable that military spending will increase, and that spending cuts will be minimal. There will be cooked-book master plans showing how they can simultaneously slash taxes, raise spending, and somehow balance the budget by the year 2040. In other words, we'll most likely keep adding at least a trillion per year deficit thruout the Romney years.

Somewhat depends on how many wars we can get ourselves into. Even bigger deficits if we can get some new wars going on. Even if we finally start up WWIII they won't ever raise taxes to pay for the wars (as they did in WWII). It started with LBJ and been thataway ever since-- GUNS AND BUTTER. I'll vote for your welfare program if you vote for my missile system. If we cut domestic spending and raise taxes to fight a war, then it makes the voters even more pissed, when sons coming home in body bags tends to make wars kinda unpopular anyway. So in order to keep voters from rebelling against wars, they keep the firehose running full-blast spewing money for domestic spending. They don't raise tax because nobody likes tax. GUNS AND BUTTER. A respected USA policy since 1963. Romney doesn't seem the kind of feller likely to deviate from the fine tradition of GUNS AND BUTTER.

====

Re foreign policy, maybe it will work out OK in a Romney admin but there are signs that Romney Foreign Policy will be dictated by chickenhawk neocons. Obama is a chickenhawk war monger with the blood of innocents on his hands, but it might be lots worse under Romney. Dunno. I hope not.

Romney might staff his admin differently, but so far his campaign is tapping into the same chickenhawk foreign policy geniuses who brought us the iraq war. I dunno nothin. Here are a few links you can read if yer feeling nerdy. If so, please tell me what you think.

From the horses mouth, Romney foreign policy campaign advisors-- http://www.mittromne...y-advisory-team

This is a generally interesting little site-- You can search on the name of public figures and get some bio information, and you can click a button that will make "connection maps" with other prominent people in the database. Possibly useful research tool for looking up Romney's friends and advisors-- http://www.nndb.com/

This org had members which later became prominent in the G. W. Bush foreign policy team, many names also on the Romney campaign site list above-- http://en.wikipedia....merican_Century

PNAC finally got a "bad reputation" and went dormant about 2007. Most all of the usual suspects re-organized into a new group peddling the same wares. Coincidentally, the Romney advisors are well represented here as well-- http://en.wikipedia....licy_Initiative

Cato is a libertarian think tank. Christopher Preble works for Cato and here are some of his ideas on this front--

http://www.cato-at-l...ending-promise/

http://www.cato.org/...icy-kcrws-point

There is lots of similar stuff one can find. One final link which a dedicated partisan can discount as leftwing ravings. Most likely the author ain't gonna be voting Romney, but if this is pure paranoia partisan propaganda, it is at least well-crafted self-consistent democrat propaganda-- http://www.thenation...con-war-cabinet

[plank white]

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Do you persoanlly feel Romney will take immediate action to clean house? I'm not saying he won't, I'm just trying to get a feel for how others view him and his resolve. To date, I don't get the impression that he is a natural leader. He reminds me of the NCO who is pulled from his MOS for a few years(Recruiting, instructor, etc) and upon returning to a line unit isn't quite sure how things need to be done, but instead applies what used to be done and not using the wealth of knowledge that is subordinat to him.

I think he has no choice to do that and it will kill any credibility if he doesn't. Government has to shrink. I think that will take years, even with Romney. then again, Romney may do some really stupid things and actually grow it some. If he goes the stupid route, even with good intentions, it will kill the rest of his presidency.

Your feelings about him being that NCO that is lost may be a good way to look at him, but how many presidents had a strong start at something they've never done before. Even with the worst president(the current one) there was a learning curve. How do you prepare to be President? Comparing the two, I say Obama is the least prepared and surrounded by a bunch of communist advisers. Looking at Romney's bunch, I know a lot of the names, but that means nothing. Romney needs to surround himself with a bunch like Reagan did. You won't find that kind of group of advisers just anywhere.

On Lester's post below yours(and I'll have to be nerdy tomorrow, close to work time and still no nap) there are a couple links, one particular that always fascinates me:Cato Institute. That is one of the foremost think tanks around, more libertarian than Heritage by a long shot. Both are great resources, though. If Romney got a few of those guys, and the bunch from Reason.com, I'd feel better about him, and I admit I am worried about the surroundings of a Romney admin.

It doesn't matter who gets to occupy the White House next time. It won't be a bed of roses for anyone.

There are too many problems. Getting rid of Obama is absolutely necessary, but that isn't going to be enough.

Edited August 10, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In "Debt of Honor:" Jack Ryan has been appointed to fill the VP slot vacated by the resignation of Ed Kealty. The plane hits the Capitol Building during the swearing in ceremony, everyone in the gov is present, except Jack, who is in the tunnel waiting to enter the chamber.

"Executive Orders" begins with the dust clearing and the secret service calling Jack Ryan "Mr. President." He takes the oath of office in front of a judge and a CNN camera, IIRC.

I, too, thought of these books on 9/11.

Thanks, Matt. Now I remember.

[RobertNashville]

...

Really classy poster...funny how some seem to have nothing better to do than make up anti-Romney pictures and videos but I guess lashing out is to be expected from some when you candidates have no chance of prevailing in the election.

[plank white]

Really classy poster...funny how some seem to have nothing better to do than make up anti-Romney pictures and videos but I guess lashing out is to be expected from some when you candidates have no chance of prevailing in the election.

[RobertNashville]

Gary Johnson may not the great Libertarian hope some here want him to be...

[media=]

[/media]

[mikegideon]

Git 'er done.

[plank white]

[daddyo]

This is an awesome thread!!