My Personal Rant About The 2012 ElectionI wrote this on my Facebook page. I hav

[sepe]

I don't want those that don't bother to vote now to start voting all of the sudden. They are almost by definition uneducated about the candidates and issues. Those people tend to vote for the guy that promises them the most freebies. Exactly the opposite of what we need.

As for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, I agree they have great ideas and would have made presidents with views much more in line with the founders (although I think they would be such a shock to the current system I wonder if the republic could handle it all at once).

However, at this point there is really only two choices.. Obama or Romney. Although neither comes close to the libertarian ideals they are still drastically different on at least a few issues that should concern libertarians. Failing to vote for the one closest to your views has the effect of helping the one that is furthest from them.

What if you've only got about 5% in common with one and at the most 10% in common (based on his answers that week) with the other? Using your logic, I should vote Romney even though I wouldn't trust him to babysit a pile of dog because I think he might suck slightly less. I'm guessing if I said who I was voting for in other races many here would think I'm an idiot that is wasting votes. I am perfectly fine with that as I think supporting parties you don't agree with is extremely idiotic.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

said it before and I'll say it again, those complaining about who someone else is voting for just doesn't get America...

They took the time to register to vote

They took the time to find a candidate who they agree with

They care enough to get to the polls and cast their vote


If you want to make a difference, stop wasting your breath on people who are participating in our election process and go get the OTHER HALF OF THIS COUNTRY who doesn't bother to vote.

If all of those people who think "my vote doesn't matter" got out and voted, the could put anyone they wanted in office.

Please, stop chastising Ron Paul or Gary Johnson supporters, the probably know a lot more about their candidate than you do yours.

While I mostly agree with you, a couple of points: first, careful readers of the political sub-forum here know there's plenty of finger-wagging in both directions. To accuse those not voting for Johnson as less knowledgable is to discount the possibility they have equal knowledge and passion but maybe a different plan of attack. Secondly, those that don't vote probably shouldn't. Among ither things, unless they were to have a minimal knowledge of how the government's supposed to work, the constitution, and sense of individual responsibility...maybe they should just stay home and keep watching reality tv. We've got enough Obama-phone voters already.

 

[ATM]

McCain had a chance. Johnson doesn't. So yes.

Assuming he had a chance at the time hardly supports relevance.

You don't have any impact on who will win. Deal with it.

The only currency you have to invest at the ballot box is the consent of the governed.

I will cast it for whomever I give my consent to govern.

I will withhold it from those who scheme and design to rule me despite their "chances" of success.

 

[NomadS]

What if you've only got about 5% in common with one and at the most 10% in common (based on his answers that week) with the other? Using your logic, I should vote Romney even though I wouldn't trust him to babysit a pile of dog because I think he might suck slightly less. I'm guessing if I said who I was voting for in other races many here would think I'm an idiot that is wasting votes. I am perfectly fine with that as I think supporting parties you don't agree with is extremely idiotic.

At some point, yes, you have to refuse to compromise. But I find it hard to believe that Romney would appoint a Supreme Court justice that only agrees with 10% of what you do. But even then, 10% is still better than 5%. Yes they both suck but an extra 5% might make a key difference. What if the moon shot was off by 5%? Or you paycheck was off by 5%? It makes a difference.

What if the choice of who babysit your dog was between: a) person who spread it on the outside of your house and b) pne who decided to spread it all over the inside of your house? One of the two is going to watch it.. which would you choose? If you don't choose between one of them, I am going to find some people to make the choice for you. Are you will to let that happen?

What I am really hoping is that those that are unhappy with the Parties will get involved in one of the TWO parties (would love to see libertarians get involved in the democratic party as well as in the republican) and work to make them more consistent with their views. I have no doubt both of us would be better off if they did.

 

[NomadS]

This article might do a better job at explaining what I am trying to put into words.

The Different Interpretations of “Compromise” « Commentary Magazine

 

[sepe]

At some point, yes, you have to refuse to compromise. But I find it hard to believe that Romney would appoint a Supreme Court justice that only agrees with 10% of what you do. But even then, 10% is still better than 5%. Yes they both suck but an extra 5% might make a key difference. What if the moon shot was off by 5%? Or you paycheck was off by 5%? It makes a difference.

What if the choice of who babysit your dog was between: a) person who spread it on the outside of your house and b) pne who decided to spread it all over the inside of your house? One of the two is going to watch it.. which would you choose? If you don't choose between one of them, I am going to find some people to make the choice for you. Are you will to let that happen?

What I am really hoping is that those that are unhappy with the Parties will get involved in one of the TWO parties (would love to see libertarians get involved in the democratic party as well as in the republican) and work to make them more consistent with their views. I have no doubt both of us would be better off if they did.

There isn't much showing that Romney will do a better job appointing a Justice. There isn't much showing that Romney will do much different than what Obama is doing. He has had trouble staying consistent with his beliefs. If he has to change his stances based on which crowd he is talking to, why should we believe anything he says? I mean, he isn't quite as bad as Cain aka the Pokemon Master, but it is pretty pathetic.

I really don't see much of a reason to get involved in either party, especially the republican party. When people try working within party rules, rules get changed at the last minute to exclude those that are different. Why continue working with them or supporting them in any way?

 

[NomadS]

Assuming he had a chance at the time hardly supports relevance.

Of course it does. How many votes decided the election in Florida in 2004? Every vote could be the deciding vote.

You don't have any impact on who will win. Deal with it.

Florida again. Who knows if a state might be closer than the talking heads think it will.

The only currency you have to invest at the ballot box is the consent of the governed.

Yes and that is why it is important to vote for someone that has a chance to win.

I will cast it for whomever I give my consent to govern.

whoever wins, is who will govern you. Unless you are ready to throw the dice of revolution. And there is no guarantee revolution would result in a return to the founding values. History actually it is more likely we would end up with a dictator. I don't particularly like who wins, heck usually don't like who wins. Hence the need to make sure the primary winner is someone that you support as fully as possible.

I will withhold it from those who scheme and design to rule me despite their "chances" of success.

again.. primary candidates are key. But there is still, at the least, a bad choice and a worse choice in almost every election. If the bad choice has a chance to win then I think that in most situations that should be the choice.

 

[NomadS]

There isn't much showing that Romney will do a better job appointing a Justice. There isn't much showing that Romney will do much different than what Obama is doing. He has had trouble staying consistent with his beliefs. If he has to change his stances based on which crowd he is talking to, why should we believe anything he says? I mean, he isn't quite as bad as Cain aka the Pokemon Master, but it is pretty pathetic.

Won't do better than Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg? are you serious? I really don't understand how people can think that.

I really don't see much of a reason to get involved in either party, especially the republican party. When people try working within party rules, rules get changed at the last minute to exclude those that are different. Why continue working with them or supporting them in any way?

Again, the point is to get involved at the state level. When you make the rules the 'establishment' that exists today will not be able to change the rules. You have to change it from the inside. Look at what Mourdock did to Lugar. The entrenched establishment can be beaten and moved in a better direction.

 

[Lex Concord]

Lets take pictures out of context more often because the pope is obviously for slavery right.

Judging by the other flag in the background, he may only support it here in Indiana.

 

[sepe]

Won't do better than Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg? are you serious? I really don't understand how people can think that.




Again, the point is to get involved at the state level. When you make the rules the 'establishment' that exists today will not be able to change the rules. You have to change it from the inside. Look at what Mourdock did to Lugar. The entrenched establishment can be beaten and moved in a better direction.

Yes, I am serious. Romney has shown me nothing to prove that he is worthy of my support or trust. If he went along with MA politics happily while having differing opinions and beliefs, I would take issue with him on that. If he is going to appoint people that will follow the Constitution, he is appointing people that would oppose his most consistent beliefs and statements.

 

[Lex Concord]

no it isn't .. it is the result of citizens supporting fringe parties that don't have enough support to win. .

Really? The only time that is even arguable to have happened (and there are plenty of counters out there) was in 1992. Even taking that one for granted, was that the turning point referenced up thread?

 

[Lex Concord]

The Republican party wants nothing to do with their ideas at all though.

You're forgetting the respect, open-mindedness, and inclusion with which Ron Paul, his ideas, and his delegates were treated during the primary.

Oh, wait...I thought I was back in the other dimension...never mind.

 

[Lex Concord]

Well we obviously haven't been vigilant which is why we're in the mess we're in today. But don't worry, the Libertarians have us covered. Gary Johnson is the Messiah!

I'm just curious. Other than you and those denigrating folks who might vote for Johnson, who said that Johnson is the Messiah, here, or anywhere else?

 

[Lex Concord]

You think McCain would have nominated Sotomayor and Kagan? That alone would have made him a better choice. And yes I held my nose when I voted for him in general election. Again. There is no one that is electable that will agree with everything you or I do. We have to pick the best from those that have a chance to win.

And yet Obama still won Indiana, and those of us who voted for other than McCain didn't make a difference in the numbers. I didn't have to hold my nose.

I really enjoy the recent commercials regarding how one vote can make a difference....and the fact that they had to dive back into the middle of the 19th century to find a verifiable example.

 

[Wreaver]

I've said it before, I don't think Romney has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this thing. The man can barely raise excitement in his own party so forget rallying the independents he'll need to win. People are looking for a scapegoat and they'll blame Johnson voters instead of looking at the faults of their candidate and the amazingly weak campaign he's run.

 

[88GT]

To compare those with my decision to vote for johnson is a ridiculous argument.

Straw man much?

No, it's not ridiculous. It's an analogy on compromise.

And yet Obama still won Indiana, and those of us who voted for other than McCain didn't make a difference in the numbers. I didn't have to hold my nose.

Technically speaking, your statement is only fully correct if Obama won by more votes than were cast for Barr. Since this was not the case, it is premature and presumptuous to assume facts not in evidence about the voting preferences of those 29,257 had Barr not been on the ballot.

If voting doesn't matter, why are people so adamant about voting for Johnson in the first place?

 

[88GT]

I've said it before, I don't think Romney has a snowballs chance in hell of winning this thing. The man can barely raise excitement in his own party so forget rallying the independents he'll need to win. People are looking for a scapegoat and they'll blame Johnson voters instead of looking at the faults of their candidate and the amazingly weak campaign he's run.

So what will Johnson's excuse be for losing?

 

[lucky4034]

I don't understand what people don't understand? You get one vote... you don't get to dictate everyone elses vote.

 

[Stschil]

every election is the most important so far... the minute we forget that, we lose the country. Vigilance is the price of liberty.

The New Websters Dictionary:

Vigilance: (verb) Keeping watch over the repbulican party by continually rewarding them for ignoring their contituants, changing rules to benifits the elite, and perpetrating fraud.


You care more about comfort than liberty.

 

[88GT]

The New Websters Dictionary:

Vigilance: (verb) Keeping watch over the repbulican party by continually rewarding them for ignoring their contituants, changing rules to benifits the elite, and perpetrating fraud.


You care more about comfort than liberty.

Technically, that would be a noun. And more specifically, a gerund.

But to the content of your post: is that your opinion of everyone who will cast a vote for Romney this November, or just one person based on the totality of his posts?