# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central >  Write-In Vote? Ron Says NO

## Yvonne

Most states won't even count them.  Here's his quote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/021556.html

----------


## newbitech

> Most states won't even count them.  Here's his quote:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/021556.html


im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  

3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.

----------


## MsDoodahs

I don't care.  I'm writing in Ron Paul, that will be the ONLY contest I vote in, and this will be the last time I EVER vote.

Only registered so I would have this one opportunity to vote for the man, and that's what I mean to do.

----------


## Kotin

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


ouch.

----------


## dirknb@hotmail.com

> im voting for obama then. sorry but I won't make the mistake of letting McCain control the world. I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote. 
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


The point is, McCain and Obama are owned by the same people.  Voting for either one of them is keeping yourself in the trap.  They will both take this country to the same destination.

----------


## crackyflipside

> The point is, McCain and Obama are owned by the same people.  Voting for either one of them is keeping yourself in the trap.  They will both take this country to the same destination.


Bingo; if you vote for either Obama or McCain all it shows is that you are content with the system we are being offered by the elites.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

No way McCain.
NObama.

I will vote for Barr or write-in Paul.  But the main reason write-in votes won't count is because Paul hasn't registered in those states to be a write-in candidate.  Paul could do it if he wanted.  He wouldn't have to spend really anything, he has till usually around September to register as a write-in candidate and he wouldn't need to file with the FEC (meaning stop the campaign for liberty and re-start RonPaul2008).

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

some people STILL don't get it LOL. Even in this forum... come on people....

Obama is Mccain
Mccain is Obama

vote for ANYONE but them.

 It will show in the overall percentages how low their numbers are due to people voting for "any" 3rd party candidate instead.

 Vote for obama to not let mccain win, are you joking? Does anyone really think mccain has ANY support at all? We all know women swoon over obama and other people are voting for him just to be on the "I was part of a movement for change" for voting for a black guy. He gives everything away to people so of course they will eat it up and ANYONE who is against the war will be voting for obama anyways even though obama is for the same damn war just worded differently/.

----------


## newbitech

> The point is, McCain and Obama are owned by the same people.  Voting for either one of them is keeping yourself in the trap.  They will both take this country to the same destination.


I get that.  But Obama will win in a landslide.  The bigger the better IMO.  There is still a ton of power in electing a president with a mandate.  Obama will be viewed as the anti-war candidate.  The anti-big business candidate.  The Pro-economy candidate.  If he has this mandate and screws it up, it will be better than if McCain gets the nod and takes  us to Iran immediately with the draft.  Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash.   

If Dr. Paul endorses then yeah I will definitely vote  for whoever he votes for. 
3rd parties just don't work yet.  It will be seen as a protest vote and to be honest, I am not throwing my vote behind someone that ran against Dr. Paul.  The 3rd party leaders, rather than rallying to Dr. Paul waited around for him to fail so they could snatch his support.  Don't want to go into details, but until I hear who Dr. Paul is voting for I'm throwing my weight (lol) along with the rest of the lemmings.

----------


## Truth Warrior

Vote for no one including them.   The right of the slaves to help choose the overseer really ain't worth much.

----------


## newbitech

> Vote for no one including them.


I like what Jesse Ventura suggested, none of the above.  THAT is a protest vote.

----------


## alaric

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


I think i would rather hang myself in the bathroom than vote for obama

----------


## Truth Warrior

> I like what Jesse Ventura suggested, none of the above. THAT is a protest vote.


 It's still a vote.  *Not* voting is a protest vote.

----------


## Theocrat

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Yes. We. Can...vote for another constitutionalist by supporting Congressman Paul's friend, Dr. Chuck Baldwin! More details about that can be found here.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> I get that.  But Obama will win in a landslide.  The bigger the better IMO.  There is still a ton of power in electing a president with a mandate.  Obama will be viewed as the anti-war candidate.  The anti-big business candidate.  The Pro-economy candidate.  If he has this mandate and screws it up, it will be better than if McCain gets the nod and takes  us to Iran immediately with the draft.  Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash.


Totally right.  I remember how Bush was elected on the "no nation building" thing.  Man, that really tied his hands.

You go show these people.  You'll make a huge statement by voting for Obama.

----------


## newbitech

> It's still a vote.  *Not* voting is a protest vote.


how can it be a vote and not a vote?  I considered  sitting home and not voting.  But then no one would know where I stand.  I also considered a "protest vote" by going with a 3rd party, but I'd still be voting for ideas that I couldn't support and a leader that I couldn't get behind.  

So how to maximize my vote?  I figured based on where I live (FL) I should throw my support behind the complete opposite of what is in power now.  That means I vote for Obama.  I can't stand socialism either, but what the hell, dictatorship or socialism I choose socialism.  Sorry I really don't have a viable alternative THIS election that will satisfy ALL of my requirements.  Ron Paul dropped out.  3rd party is a road to nowhere.   

Like I said, when I figure out what direction the campaign for liberty is going I will change my mind.  For now, sad but true I am punching the card for the democrats.

----------


## newbitech

> Totally right.  I remember how Bush was elected on the "no nation building" thing.  Man, that really tied his hands.
> 
> You go show these people.  You'll make a huge statement by voting for Obama.


LOL your sarcasm is great comedic relief especially considering Dr. Paul used your sarcastic argument as a major plank in his platform.

----------


## newbitech

> Yes. We. Can...vote for another constitutionalist by supporting Congressman Paul's friend, Dr. Chuck Baldwin! More details about that can be found here.


One question, where was this "party" its leader and supporters during the repub primaries?

----------


## Theocrat

> One question, where was this "party" its leader and supporters during the repub primaries?


Most of them were supporting Congressman Paul, hoping he would win with enough delegates to get the nomination.

----------


## newbitech

> Most of them were supporting Congressman Paul, hoping he would win with enough delegates to get the nomination.


would you mind directing me to the Baldwin endorsement on Dr. Paul?

never mind found it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg

----------


## speciallyblend

so true




> some people STILL don't get it LOL. Even in this forum... come on people....
> 
> Obama is Mccain
> Mccain is Obama
> 
> vote for ANYONE but them.
> 
>  It will show in the overall percentages how low their numbers are due to people voting for "any" 3rd party candidate instead.
> 
>  Vote for obama to not let mccain win, are you joking? Does anyone really think mccain has ANY support at all? We all know women swoon over obama and other people are voting for him just to be on the "I was part of a movement for change" for voting for a black guy. He gives everything away to people so of course they will eat it up and ANYONE who is against the war will be voting for obama anyways even though obama is for the same damn war just worded differently/.

----------


## amy31416

> would you mind directing me to the Baldwin endorsement on Dr. Paul?
> 
> never mind found it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg

----------


## newbitech

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c84pJ6E7BYg


i might go with this guy, need to see if he is on the ballot in FL.

did barr endorse Dr. Paul?

----------


## JaylieWoW

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


I'd be willing to bet Paul would endorse Baldwin .  Yes, I know, I know, you are standing firm until or unless Paul himself says it but I would like you to consider this...

Obama already has plenty of support and barring any massive FUBAR between now and election, I'd bet my house he'll be our next president.  If you really think the GOP (or any other party who NEEDS votes) doesn't pay attention to "3rd party" votes please go stick your head back in the sand and pull the lever for Obama.  (My apologies if that comes off as harsh, I really just want you to reconsider your decision, yes, I am trying to CONVINCE you to do so).

I think the point others are trying to make is that there is no difference AT ALL between Obama & McCain.  By voting for EITHER of them you are sending the message their policies are acceptable.

Frankly, I don't understand the latest debates on the board with some insisting vote Barr or vote Baldwin (voicing support notwithstanding of course, we should feel free to do that much).  If we all vote for EITHER Barr or Baldwin, their totals combined will still (possibly) make the "power parties" stand up and take notice.  Of course, this could all change between now and then, but based on the way things stand today, a vote for either Barr or Baldwin is anything BUT a "throw-away" vote.  The more people who can be convinced to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, the more we might find ourselves having truly CONSTITUTIONAL candidates presented.  Isn't this at least part of the point of the entire last year and a half of support for Paul?  Why throw THAT away??!

Either way, this election doesn't really matter in the long run.  What matters is what happens from this day forward.  Are we going to sit back and accept what is given to us or are we really serious about taking back America, one seat at a time?  I would like to live to see that America one day, I really would, wouldn't you?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Anyone here who plans on voting for Obama does not belong on this board. You do not know the true meaning of liberty or freedom, and you certainly don't know what you stand for. It's shameful and sickening. You can't even begin to justify Obama's name leaving your mouth.....

Treason.

----------


## amy31416

> i might go with this guy, need to see if he is on the ballot in FL.
> 
> did barr endorse Dr. Paul?


I'm not sure, I don't think there was anything official, but Barr supported him--not to the extent that Baldwin did as far as I know.

----------


## fletcher

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Puke.  I feel embarrassed for you.  You seem to have learned nothing at all from Paul.

----------


## amy31416

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for RP to endorse anyone--there's nobody good enough in the Republican party and I think that it's considered bad form to endorse outside the party.

----------


## torchbearer

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Voting third party does the same thing, its a nil vot for obama and mccain, so neither gains, and just in case everyone else is thinking the same, the third party guy might win.
If everyone who didn't like mccain or obama voted for a third party, who knows what would be possible.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

I don't think Ron Paul would be so stupid to endorse Baldwin and lose his libertarian supporters.  I think he is right in just remaining neutral on this one and allowing people to decide on their own.  TONES

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Alex Jones has already pissed off the libertarians...TONES

----------


## Theocrat

> Alex Jones has already pissed off the libertarians...TONES


Why do you post "TONES" after all your posts?

----------


## newbitech

> I'd be willing to bet Paul would endorse Baldwin .  Yes, I know, I know, you are standing firm until or unless Paul himself says it but I would like you to consider this...
> 
> Obama already has plenty of support and barring any massive FUBAR between now and election, I'd bet my house he'll be our next president.  If you really think the GOP (or any other party who NEEDS votes) doesn't pay attention to "3rd party" votes please go stick your head back in the sand and pull the lever for Obama.  (My apologies if that comes off as harsh, I really just want you to reconsider your decision, yes, I am trying to CONVINCE you to do so).
> 
> I think the point others are trying to make is that there is no difference AT ALL between Obama & McCain.  By voting for EITHER of them you are sending the message their policies are acceptable.
> 
> Frankly, I don't understand the latest debates on the board with some insisting vote Barr or vote Baldwin (voicing support notwithstanding of course, we should feel free to do that much).  If we all vote for EITHER Barr or Baldwin, their totals combined will still (possibly) make the "power parties" stand up and take notice.  Of course, this could all change between now and then, but based on the way things stand today, a vote for either Barr or Baldwin is anything BUT a "throw-away" vote.  The more people who can be convinced to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, the more we might find ourselves having truly CONSTITUTIONAL candidates presented.  Isn't this at least part of the point of the entire last year and a half of support for Paul?  Why throw THAT away??!
> 
> Either way, this election doesn't really matter in the long run.  What matters is what happens from this day forward.  Are we going to sit back and accept what is given to us or are we really serious about taking back America, one seat at a time?  I would like to live to see that America one day, I really would, wouldn't you?


I get that, I really do.  Did you vote in 2006 when the repubs lost the majority in the house and the senate?  I live in a state dominated by repubs.  Neither one of these  two candidates are active here.  I was planning to write Dr. Paul in, but he says that would be unproductive.  I figure the more dems I vote for on my ballot, the bigger the message will be.  I am looking for alternatives, but have none.  I could just go back to sleep and vote McCain like most other ex-paul voters I know.  They are more worried about raising taxes that Obama promises than going to war.  But I know our foreign policy is what is killing us.  Temporary tax relief cannot offset it.  

I have no choice unless I choose to do nothing.

----------


## newbitech

> Anyone here who plans on voting for Obama does not belong on this board. You do not know the true meaning of liberty or freedom, and you certainly don't know what you stand for. It's shameful and sickening. You can't even begin to justify Obama's name leaving your mouth.....
> 
> Treason.


screw you man, there are only D's and R's on my ballot. I didnt "plan" on voting for anyone until I heard Dr. Paul speak.  Now that I understand more politics, I can see how voting for Obama where I live might help our cause.  I was going to write in Dr. Paul until I read this thread.  I still might cause its all a throw away anyhow.  Nothing is changing short of violent revolution for the next couple years anyways.  Don't be a punk.

----------


## newbitech

> Puke.  I feel embarrassed for you.  You seem to have learned nothing at all from Paul.


you should be embarrassed for yourself.  The only thing I have on my ballot are D's and R's.  Dr. Paul said write ins are unproductive.  You seem to like to talk garbage without thinking.  Why don't you suggest something that makes sense in my case?  Can ya handle that?

----------


## newbitech

> Voting third party does the same thing, its a nil vot for obama and mccain, so neither gains, and just in case everyone else is thinking the same, the third party guy might win.
> If everyone who didn't like mccain or obama voted for a third party, who knows what would be possible.


what if there is no 3rd party on the ballot?

----------


## newbitech

> I don't care.  I'm writing in Ron Paul, that will be the ONLY contest I vote in, and this will be the last time I EVER vote.
> 
> Only registered so I would have this one opportunity to vote for the man, and that's what I mean to do.



You know, I have disagreed with you about some stuff in the past, but I think this is excellent advise.  Dr. Paul didn't really say DON'T write him in.  Hell, my votes probably wasted either way.  I think I'll just make a scene at the voting booth by putting a big red sharpie "RON PAUL" across the entire ballot then.  Let them do whatever they want with it.

----------


## OptionsTrader

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


That is funny, I didn't see a single word about _WHY_ you will vote _FOR_ Obama.  If you are voting against McCain and will not vote third party, just don't vote at all.

----------


## newbitech

> That is funny, I didn't see a single word about _WHY_ you will vote _FOR_ Obama.  If you are voting against McCain and will not vote third party, just don't vote at all.


then you didnt read what I wrote. or maybe just read the first post.  He is the lesser of two evils, plain and simple.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

I sign my name because I like it...TONES

----------


## RCA

Will this finally put an end to all this write-in fantasy crap!?

Let's rally behind Bob Barr and actually make a difference!

----------


## newbitech

> Will this finally put an end to all this write-in fantasy crap!?
> 
> Let's rally behind Bob Barr and actually make a difference!


besides the fact he's not on my ballot, I just don't know if I can support a party that didn't really use its power to get behind Dr. Paul in the primaries.  Correct me if Im wrong though.

----------


## pcosmar

> Will this finally put an end to all this write-in fantasy crap!?
> 
> Let's rally behind Bob Barr and actually make a difference!


NO.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Here's my dilemma....I am a first time voter and didn't know that I had to be a registered republican to vote in the Florida primary...so I couldn't vote for Ron Paul....I have a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" and I would feel guilty placing it on my car since it's not true that I voted for Ron Paul...so the only way I can feel Ok about placing the sticker is a write-in vote for Ron Paul.

Since I plan to vote for a third party candidate, it looks like I can't use the bumper sticker.

----------


## pcosmar

I do not expect my vote to count for anything other than a statement.
For that I could write in Micky Mouse. 
The LP has no chance of winning.
The CP has no chance of winning.
I do not think McCain has any chance, but I will not vote for him.
I believe that Obama has already got the election sealed, and I will not vote for him.

I will write in my choice, not because it will do any good, but because it is my choice.

----------


## SnappleLlama

I'm writing in Ron Paul.  The fact that the vote may not be counted is of no matter to me.

Still waiting for a response from the PA Bureau of Elections...

----------


## newbitech

> Here's my dilemma....I am a first time voter and didn't know that I had to be a registered republican to vote in the Florida primary...so I couldn't vote for Ron Paul....I have a bumper sticker that says "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" and I would feel guilty placing it on my car since it's not true that I voted for Ron Paul...so the only way I can feel Ok about placing the sticker is a write-in vote for Ron Paul.
> 
> Since I plan to vote for a third party candidate, it looks like I can't use the bumper sticker.


i didnt see a 3rd party in the FL ballot.  I see npa (no party affiliation) and WRI, I assume write in.  

Oh just noticed a RFP (real food party)

----------


## qh4dotcom

> i didnt see a 3rd party in the FL ballot.  I see npa (no party affiliation) and WRI, I assume write in.  
> 
> Oh just noticed a RFP (real food party)


The Libertarian party is confident that they can get on the ballot in 48 states...West Virginia and Oklahoma are the ones they are not so sure about.

What will you do if the LP is on the Florida ballot?

----------


## newbitech

> The Libertarian party is confident that they can get on the ballot in 48 states...West Virginia and Oklahoma are the ones they are not so sure about.
> 
> What will you do if the LP is on the Florida ballot?


Well, I would love to vote LP and have started researching the candidates there.  The only thing that bothers me about them is that I do not see a LP endorsement of Ron Paul during the primaries.  I might be able to overlook Barr being in the CIA and voting for the Patriot Act, but I really need to see the LP leaning more conservative the way Dr. Paul talks about conservative.  

Honestly, I might just go against  Dr. Paul's logic and write in for some of the reasons that people here have said.  I just really thought I'd be able to  make a difference with my vote.  Truth is, I am a little disappointed and ready to go back to my old political views, which is  ....

----------


## RCA

> besides the fact he's not on my ballot, I just don't know if I can support a party that didn't really use its power to get behind Dr. Paul in the primaries.  Correct me if Im wrong though.


He's on the ballot in Florida.

http://www.lp.org/ballot-access#fl

I just don't understand the write-in logic:

1) I like Ron Paul's ideas.

2) Ron Paul says writing him in is unproductive.

3) I'll write him in anyway regardless of what he says.

Huh!?

----------


## Lovecraftian4Paul

I'm undecided between Barr and Baldwin. I like them both though. One thing's for sure: I will not vote for McCain or Obama. However, as much as I despise it, I could see how our left leaning supporters in "swing states" might vote for Obama--purely to help seal a massive defeat for McCain. One would think Bob Barr alone could also do this, if he gains high enough support.

McCain must go down in a deep inferno to weaken the grasp of the GOP neo-cons. But that's not a good enough reason for the bulk of Ron Paulians to vote Obama! Barr or Baldwin. Write-in votes for Ron Paul will only count as much as they do every year for Mickey Mouse or Cthulhu (not at all).

----------


## newbitech

> He's on the ballot in Florida.
> 
> http://www.lp.org/ballot-access#fl


over 100k signatures!  Ron Paul only got ~63k votes in the primary.  See I have a hard time with that.   I mean, where are all these folks at and why didn't they vote for Dr. Paul?

----------


## armstrong

everyone who does not like Obama or Mcain need to vote as one for a third party candidate that would being exciting to see and very could win the white house

----------


## porcupine

We have a lot of libertarians (running as r's or d's) in New Hampshire who are running for state rep and various local offices and winning!  Join the Free State Project and maybe you'll be next in 2010.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> over 100k signatures!  Ron Paul only got ~63k votes in the primary.  See I have a hard time with that.   I mean, where are all these folks at and why didn't they vote for Dr. Paul?


Ron Paul has been a presidential candidate for 17 months....the LP has been around for 37 years...there's your difference...people who know LP but have never heard of Ron Paul or his stance on the issues and message of freedom.

----------


## rprprs

> I'm writing in Ron Paul.  The fact that the vote may not be counted is of no matter to me.
> 
> Still waiting for a response from the PA Bureau of Elections...


Snapple,

If you get a response, please post it here.  I'm in PA and would like to hear their response.  But if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.
Check this out > http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_262039.html
It's a little dated, but I don't expect much has changed.

On a more general note, this whole situation is truly sad and frustrating.  It is a true dilemma with no easy answers, despite how simplistically some may view it.  Each and every one of the remaining options has its downside.  What saddens me most is that, once again, they have us right were they want us.  I mean, just look at the posts in this thread.  We are without consensus.  It's just what TPTB and the _Republicrats_ want.  Divide and conquer.

I fully understand why Ron didn't mount an independent campaign, but, boy, do I wish he had.

----------


## newbitech

> Ron Paul has been a presidential candidate for 17 months....the LP has been around for 37 years...there's your difference...people who know LP but have never heard of Ron Paul or his stance on the issues and message of freedom.


so when the LP brass saw Ron Paul, they wanted him on their  ballot, but decided that his ideas were not good enough to switch parties or endorse?  

I know lots of people who never heard of Ron Paul but changed party affiliation to vote republican.  Why didn't the LP help us out?  I just don't think I can get behind that.  I am sure the ideas are anti establishment,  but why not get behind Ron Paul when they had the chance?  When the R and D officially merge, is the L going to fill the void?  Thats not what I want!

----------


## Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice

By not voting, you solidify an argument for not filing an income tax form if you believe you don't legally have to. The goal being to prove you have no contracts with the Federal government that would give them jurisdiction over you in a court of law. Something to consider, this for entertainment purposes only.

----------


## SnappleLlama

> Snapple,
> 
> If you get a response, please post it here.  I'm in PA and would like to hear their response.  But if I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath.
> Check this out > http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_262039.html
> It's a little dated, but I don't expect much has changed.
> 
> On a more general note, this whole situation is truly sad and frustrating.  It is a true dilemma with no easy answers, despite how simplistically some may view it.  Each and every one of the remaining options has its downside.  What saddens me most is that, once again, they have us right were they want us.  I mean, just look at the posts in this thread.  We are without consensus.  It's just what TPTB and the _Republicrats_ want.  Divide and conquer.
> 
> I fully understand why Ron didn't mount an independent campaign, but, boy, do I wish he had.


I work for the PA state government (blah), so I was hoping they'd actually get back to me, but I'll probably just call them tomorrow and clear everything up with them...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> You know, I have disagreed with you about some stuff in the past, but I think this is excellent advise.  Dr. Paul didn't really say DON'T write him in.  Hell, my votes probably wasted either way.  I think I'll just make a scene at the voting booth by putting a big red sharpie "RON PAUL" across the entire ballot then.  Let them do whatever they want with it.


This kid's a crock. Sweet grammar. Screw me? How about screw you, buddy. I'm not the one who will be voting for a socialist, big government, two faced SOB. The fact of the matter is you don't have a spine or you would be voting for a candidate that stands for liberty. You and your new candidate are just as anti-liberty as McCain is. Again, you don't know the meaning of liberty or freedom. You are foolish and your words are empty rhetoric. You were a fair weather Paul supporter and it's clear you never knew what he stood for. 

WWPD. What would Paul do? He would never endorse Obama...that's a fact.

----------


## rprprs

> *I work for the PA state government* (blah), so I was hoping they'd actually get back to me, but I'll probably just call them tomorrow and clear everything up with them...


LOL...pretty funny.  So did I (Labor and Industry).  I'm not there anymore though.

----------


## mdmarino

> so when the LP brass saw Ron Paul, they wanted him on their ballot, but decided that his ideas were not good enough to switch parties or endorse? 
> 
> I know lots of people who never heard of Ron Paul but changed party affiliation to vote republican. Why didn't the LP help us out? I just don't think I can get behind that...


Not sure what you mean by that, but (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) one of the major Libertarian candidates, Mary Ruwart, was a strong supporter of Ron Paul's and campaigned for him, I do believe. I watched the entire Libertarian convention and heard his name mentioned several times. Some of their delegates even wrote in Dr. Paul on the first ballot. 

I can't swear to it, but I'd be willing to bet that many Libertarians voted for Dr. Paul in the primaries. I think that one of the Libertarian delegates from WV was a regular poster on these boards and worked very hard for Dr. Paul in the primaries. So, I really don't understand what you mean when you imply that the Libertarian party didn't support Dr. Paul. ???

----------


## EastWindRain

Vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin.



This election is no different from all the recent others. You have your choice of:

A. Criminal A. or 
B. Criminal B. 

Most people think "well I don't want to throw my vote away, voting for a third party, so I have to vote for the lesser of two evils". Don't you understand that is exactly what THE ZIONISTS want you to think. They want you thinking that you can't change the system. They offer you two peas in a pod. Two CFR stooges who do what their Zionist masters tell them to do. Vote THIRD Party. Vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin, whose platform is the same as Ron Paul's. I hope Ron Paul comes out and endorses Chuck Baldwin, but I fear he won't, because Ron Paul is trying to rebuild the Republican Party. And it wouldn't look good if Ron Paul endorses a Candidate who was in another party. (But secretly Ron Paul endorses Dr. Chuck Baldwin.)

----------


## newbitech

> Not sure what you mean by that, but (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) one of the major Libertarian candidates, Mary Ruwart, was a strong supporter of Ron Paul's and campaigned for him, I do believe. I watched the entire Libertarian convention and heard his name mentioned several times. Some of their delegates even wrote in Dr. Paul on the first ballot. 
> 
> I can't swear to it, but I'd be willing to bet that many Libertarians voted for Dr. Paul in the primaries. I think that one of the Libertarian delegates from WV was a regular poster on these boards and worked very hard for Dr. Paul in the primaries. So, I really don't understand what you mean when you imply that the Libertarian party didn't support Dr. Paul. ???


well like you said, they wrote in Dr. Paul on  the ballot which mean he wasn't trying to get their nomination.  We needed those people to register repub to vote for Dr. Paul there.  I thought that Dr. Paul is trying to get back to Republican roots, not start a new party or get votes for Libertarians.  I guess I am a little confused.  It seems like the support came from all over the place across to political spectrum.  Why should people who were going to vote for Dr. Paul  just switch to a different party (again) and vote for a candidate whose party competed for Dr. Pauls votes?


Personally, I'd rather start a new party or join something like the Constitution Party then try to change the Repubs or Dems.  But even then, I am not really in to party politics.  Ron Paul cured me of that =D.  I want to vote based on principles but in this situation, the choice is not obvious.

----------


## RevolutionSD

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Obama wants to attack Iran and likely will only pull out a few troops from Iraq in his first term. Sorry, please research Obama before you go doing something as horrendous as that.

Obamacain are equally as destructful for America.

----------


## newbitech

> Vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
> 
> 
> 
> This election is no different from all the recent others. You have your choice of:
> 
> A. Criminal A. or 
> B. Criminal B. 
> 
> Most people think "well I don't want to throw my vote away, voting for a third party, so I have to vote for the lesser of two evils". Don't you understand that is exactly what THE ZIONISTS want you to think. They want you thinking that you can't change the system. They offer you two peas in a pod. Two CFR stooges who do what their Zionist masters tell them to do. Vote THIRD Party. Vote for Dr. Chuck Baldwin, whose platform is the same as Ron Paul's. I hope Ron Paul comes out and endorses Chuck Baldwin, but I fear he won't, because Ron Paul is trying to rebuild the Republican Party. And it wouldn't look good if Ron Paul endorses a Candidate who was in another party. (But secretly Ron Paul endorses Dr. Chuck Baldwin.)


can you tell me if I will have this choice in FL,or at least point me in the right direction?  And if Dr. Paul wants to change the  Repub party, then shouldn't we be doing the same thing?   It would be nice if Dr. Paul endorsed someone, but it sounds like he wants us to make up our own minds while discouraging us from throwing away our vote with a write in.   

I have to admit, I am totally confused on how to proceed.

----------


## chowdy

I'm voting LP.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> can you tell me if I will have this choice in FL,or at least point me in the right direction?  And if Dr. Paul wants to change the  Repub party, then shouldn't we be doing the same thing?   It would be nice if Dr. Paul endorsed someone, but it sounds like he wants us to make up our own minds while discouraging us from throwing away our vote with a write in.   
> 
> I have to admit, I am totally confused on how to proceed.


Why don't you do some research yourself? It'd be nice if, being from the state, you discovered for yourself who is currently on the ballot and what you can do to get a good candidate on the ballot instead of being lazy and expecting everything to be handed to you. You seem young and impressionable, which is probably why you can't distinguish a criminal from a saint.

----------


## newbitech

> Obama wants to attack Iran and likely will only pull out a few troops from Iraq in his first term. Sorry, please research Obama before you go doing something as horrendous as that.
> 
> Obamacain are equally as destructful for America.


I know what Obama stands for and I am totally against it.  I also know that in order for us to succeed in this movement, we have to get a critical mass.  We don't have that.  We won't have that in this election.  I do know that where I live, we will vote for Jeb Bush if he was on the ticket.  The only candidate that will give the perception of beating that is Obama.  

What Obama offers me is a chance to tell the people where I live that I am putting down the establishment.  Since the critical mass does not perceive Obama as being an establishment candidate, I will be voting with them rather than against them.

By throwing my vote to a 3rd party, I am telling the  critical mass that I am not concerned with putting down the establish.  It will be perceived that I am pushing an agenda that is not supported by the vast majority of Americans.  Maybe my logic is flawed, but I have not heard a better alternative that will accomplish something in this election.  And if I am going to stick to principle, its going to be write in against Dr. Paul's better judgment.  Its a no win situation any way I slice it.

----------


## newbitech

> Why don't you do some research yourself? It'd be nice if, being from the state, you discovered for yourself who is currently on the ballot and what you can do to get a good candidate on the ballot instead of being lazy and expecting everything to be handed to you. You seem young and impressionable, which is probably why you can't distinguish a criminal from a saint.


I already addressed your punk attitude.  I looked up the information on FL's state election web site.  Didn't you read my  previous post?  Apparently not.  I am doing research or are you suggesting this site is useless for that?  How is asking for more information on the information super highway lazy?  

Young and impressionable?  Yeah if you are 65 and a nazi.  Who are you accusing of being a criminal?  Do you have something to back that up?  And who are you bowing down to as your saint?  I know its not Dr. Paul cause he's not going to be on the ballot either. 

What a punk.

----------


## newbitech

> This kid's a crock. Sweet grammar. Screw me? How about screw you, buddy. I'm not the one who will be voting for a socialist, big government, two faced SOB. The fact of the matter is you don't have a spine or you would be voting for a candidate that stands for liberty. You and your new candidate are just as anti-liberty as McCain is. Again, you don't know the meaning of liberty or freedom. You are foolish and your words are empty rhetoric. You were a fair weather Paul supporter and it's clear you never knew what he stood for. 
> 
> WWPD. What would Paul do? He would never endorse Obama...that's a fact.


oh just saw this little gem.  WWPD, thats a great question, apparently he isn't endorsing anyone.  Maybe he will not vote.  Maybe he will write in your name.  Who knows.  One thing I do know is that you have no idea what you are talking about when you try to characterize me.  How about taking some of Dr. Pauls advise and let me make up my own mind.

----------


## tpreitzel

I'm voting Constitution Party. I'll take a man of integrity like Chuck Baldwin any day. In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time, Quigley lays out the fact that both major parties are controlled by the same financial and political forces. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. So, I'm doing what the majority of fence sitters should do, I'm voting my conscience based on constitutional principle. Until my peers do likewise, we'll continue the slide into fascism (national socialism).

----------


## Akus

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, *but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils* on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


you've really learned nothing over these seventeen years, have you?  A Ron Paul message board is the last place I'd expect to hear something like this.

----------


## Matt Collins

> im voting for obama then.


If you are voting for Obama or McCain, then you never really truly understood Ron Paul's platform...sorry....

----------


## SnappleLlama

> LOL...pretty funny.  So did I (Labor and Industry).  I'm not there anymore though.


ha, ha...get this: I work for Public Welfare.  Trust me, it's painful, but it pays the bills (and student loans).

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Vote for no one including them.   The right of the slaves to help choose the overseer really ain't worth much.


Well said, cheers to that!

----------


## newbitech

> you've really learned nothing over these seventeen years, have you?  A Ron Paul message board is the last place I'd expect to hear something like this.


17 months?  Look I  am really trying to make sure my vote counts.  Most people I know of have already switched parties to vote for Ron Paul or die.  I want to stand by that and so do the people I have influence over.  Now Ron Paul says writing in his name is a waste of time and he isn't endorsing anyone. 

So the only thing that I can really defeat the establishment in THIS election is make sure the republicans are defeated.  Maybe Obama is a forgone conclusion to win.  I know in my precinct he is not going to win  unless Obama surges here.  

The way I see, the only choices I have are Principles in Foundation, Socialism, or  Dictatorship.  Principle has dropped out or splintered into several ideologically bent campaigns, Dictatorship offers Death, and  Socialism offer Taxes.  

I want to choose principle but then I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face.   I'm not ready to die.  Taxes can only be stolen if I work for someone else or buy crap I don't need.  So taxes.   And I will make sure that I am not responsible for Death.  

What I have learned is to vote my conscience and right now that is telling me to write in Dr. Paul's name.  BUT, logic and Dr. Paul's words are forcing me to reconsider.

----------


## jmag

If you vote for a lesser of two evils you have to actually live with it - yuck..

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... *I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses*.


What kind of person needs endorsements to make a decision on voting? I don't know any so I'm going with a bot on this one. it seems like a lot of the activity on these forums are from bots.

----------


## newbitech

> If you are voting for Obama or McCain, then you never really truly understood Ron Paul's platform...sorry....


Thats a big ole jump in conclusions.  My vote is wasted because the alternatives are split.  Face it, we are stuck with the same ole same ole.  What difference does it make really?

This whole thing has turned in to a huge waste of my time.  Politics is not going to solve our problems.  It didn't solve  the problems in 1776 (ask ben franklin) and it won't solve them now.

----------


## Akus

> 17 months?  Look I  am really trying to make sure my vote counts.  Most people I know of have already switched parties to vote for Ron Paul or die.  I want to stand by that and so do the people I have influence over.  Now Ron Paul says writing in his name is a waste of time and he isn't endorsing anyone. 
> 
> So the only thing that I can really defeat the establishment in THIS election is make sure the republicans are defeated.  Maybe Obama is a forgone conclusion to win.  I know in my precinct he is not going to win  unless Obama surges here.  
> 
> The way I see, the only choices I have are Principles in Foundation, Socialism, or  Dictatorship.  Principle has dropped out or splintered into several ideologically bent campaigns, Dictatorship offers Death, and  Socialism offer Taxes.  
> 
> I want to choose principle but then I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face.   I'm not ready to die.  Taxes can only be stolen if I work for someone else or buy crap I don't need.  So taxes.   And I will make sure that I am not responsible for Death.  
> 
> What I have learned is to vote my conscience and right now that is telling me to write in Dr. Paul's name.  BUT, logic and Dr. Paul's words are forcing me to reconsider.


Thank you.

You made an asinine "lesser of the evil" arguement. 
I told you that you've learnt nothing.
You replied and beautifully reinforced my point that, indeed, you've learned nothing from Ron Paul. You are like those 95 year old grannies, who hate McCain but will vote for him because at least he is not that black Muslim who will turn this entire country into Taliban....

----------


## newbitech

> What kind of person needs endorsements to make a decision on voting? I don't know any so I'm going with a bot on this one. it seems like a lot of the activity on these forums are from bots.


a bot?  why are you trying to insult and piss me off?  what kind of jerk are you?  I don't need an endorsement, but Dr. Paul basically unendorsed himself.  What the hell am I supposed to do now when the only person I was 100% sure of voting for basically says, don't? 

So glad all of you had a back up plan.  My back up plan is a lot more realistic.  Back up,back way the up.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> ...So the only thing that I can really *defeat the establishment* in THIS election is make sure the republicans are defeated...


Wow, you still don't get it. By any chance, are you a spam bot?

----------


## newbitech

> Thank you.
> 
> You made an asinine "lesser of the evil" arguement. 
> I told you that you've learnt nothing.
> You replied and beautifully reinforced my point that, indeed, you've learned nothing from Ron Paul. You are like those 95 year old grannies, who hate McCain but will vote for him because at least he is not that black Muslim who will turn this entire country into Taliban....


you are thanking me?  like I did some kind of favor.  I am not asking for your acceptance.  Get over  yourself.  I am explaining how I and the VAST majority of sheeple are thinking.  if you don't get  that you need to have people on your side, you will win nothing.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> a bot?  why are you trying to insult and piss me off?  what kind of jerk are you?  I don't need an endorsement, but Dr. Paul basically unendorsed himself.  What the hell am I supposed to do now when the only person I was 100% sure of voting for basically says, don't? 
> 
> So glad all of you had a back up plan.  My back up plan is a lot more realistic.  Back up,back way the up.


I'm the punk? At least I have a spine and I'm steadfast in my beliefs. It looks to me that everyone here has shot your ridiculous statement down and you can't even defend it. Get lost, traitor.

Punk attitude? Maybe. But I know what I stand for and I know what this movement is about. You are counterproductive, so take your Obama jizzfest to the uneducated Obama forums.

----------


## newbitech

> Wow, you still don't get it. By any chance, are you a spam bot?


no i think I get it.  you are here for your personal entertainment.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Thats a big ole jump in conclusions.  My vote is wasted because the alternatives are split.  Face it, we are stuck with the same ole same ole.  What difference does it make really?
> 
> *This whole thing has turned in to a huge waste of my time.  Politics is not going to solve our problems.  It didn't solve  the problems in 1776 (ask ben franklin) and it won't solve them now.*


Ok, I just read this and I completely agree (Take back my statement on being a bot). So how could you, with this mentality, go vote for Obomination?

----------


## newbitech

> I'm the punk? At least I have a spine and I'm steadfast in my beliefs. It looks to me that everyone here has shot your ridiculous statement down and you can't even defend it. Get lost, traitor.
> 
> Punk attitude? Maybe. But I know what I stand for and I know what this movement is about. You are counterproductive, so take your Obama jizzfest to the uneducated Obama forums.


yes you have a spine.  you come on to the internet and try and start arguments and insult people looking for answers.  

I can guarantee you that you would not speak that way to me if you know me.  You act like a child.  What does it say about these people trying to "shoot" down other people?  And I think you missed something because several people in this thread have been very helpful.  I think your personal attacks deserve some moderation.  Btw are you sure you will be voting this time around?

----------


## newbitech

> Ok, I just read this and I completely agree (Take back my statement on being a bot). So how could you, with this mentality, go vote for Obomination?


Thank you jeez the hostility around here is so thick.  I don't see how I could persuade anyone to vote any different after reading some of these comments.

To answer your question?  I am at a complete loss.  I really hadn't given any thought at all to where my vote would go if it didn't go to Ron Paul.  It just hit me like and hour ago or  whenever this thread was posted that dang, I don't have any kind of back up plan.

Seriously I have been all in for Ron Paul through to my core, and the first thing that hits my mind when I think of Dr. Paul not winning is damn McCain CAN"T win.  HE JUST CAN"T.  I would sooner die than go through another 4 years of GOP dictatorship.  So in my logical mind I am thinking the only way McCain can be defeated is if Obama takes all the vote of the people that feel like I do. 

Maybe this and maybe that.  We all know the reality is one of these guys IS GOING TO WIN THIS TIME.  So which one?  That might not make to much since in the long run, but for now, thats my reaction to Dr. Paul being completely out of in and discouraging writing his name in.  Sorry if it rubs people wrong, but thats real.

----------


## Imperial

You may as well vote 3rd Party. Barr, Baldwin, or even another if you must. However, this is what it comes down to.

If you write-in Ron Paul, you feel good but did nothing. Kind of like Congress with most of their bills and resolutions.

If you vote McCain, you get a pretty open war-mongering policy. However, the economy will keep going like it has under Bush. Expect another boom to come, but a bigger bust, and the cycle will get worse and worse. There won't be any change really in the social policy either; more of the usual.

If you vote Obama, you will get huge spending. Expect the system to come under major strain at the end of his term(either first or second) with his spending.(The system rarely crashes anymore at the beginning of a term; it ebbs and flows with the elections). Some change in social policy, but more government regulation. The foreign policy will be more of the same, not as blunt as McCain but easily capable of pulling out a new Iraq.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> yes you have a spine.  you come on to the internet and try and start arguments and insult people looking for answers.  
> 
> I can guarantee you that you would not speak that way to me if you know me.  You act like a child.  What does it say about these people trying to "shoot" down other people?  And I think you missed something because several people in this thread have been very helpful.  I think your personal attacks deserve some moderation.  Btw are you sure you will be voting this time around?


Personal attacks? I'm simply telling you to do some research and study before you go around making ridiculous statements about supporting a socialist. It boils my blood! How can you claim to be a patriot and freedom lover, then go and vote for someone like that? It's hypocritical. Why are you even trying to be a part of this movement, then? We are moving AWAY from big government and violations of our rights, yet you want to cast a vote for that. Am I the only one that sees it this way?

If "acting like a child" means calling you out on your hypocrisy than yes, I am acting like a child. I don't know about you, but I, as well as many people here, will be voting for a candidate that protects our liberties. A vote for Obama is a vote against that, and personally, I can't figure out how you Obama-lovers defect after you get tired of the good doctor. The two don't have anything in common.... AT ALL. What is it you saw in our message anyway? It couldn't have been much considering Obama is the polar opposite. He supports preemptive war, nation building, unconstitutional projects, expanded government, invasion of privacy, mandates, higher taxes, etc etc.

I mean this...where in the world do you get off? You're no part of this movement and you don't stand for any kind of freedom if you cast a vote for a candidate like that. You clearly didn't think this through because they aren't even close to similar....It's disgusting. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. I'm sick of traitors and people defecting to Obama and weakening our cause. There is absolutely NO excuse for it. It cannot be rationalized or justified in any way, shape, and form so I don't know why you're bothering and why some people are buying it. This isn't about "voting for the other guy." It's about putting real constitutionalists in office and restoring our great nation to what the founding fathers envisioned. I'm sick, I'm fed up, and I'm not going to let people like you send my country further down the tube!

I challenge you all this upcoming election. Cast a vote with meaning. Vote for freedom, liberty, and our Constitution.

----------


## rajibo

> Personal attacks? I'm simply telling you to do some research and study before you go around making ridiculous statements about supporting a socialist. It boils my blood! How can you claim to be a patriot and freedom lover, then go and vote for someone like that? It's hypocritical. Why are you even trying to be a part of this movement, then? We are moving AWAY from big government and violations of our rights, yet you want to cast a vote for that. Am I the only one that sees it this way?
> 
> If "acting like a child" means calling you out on your hypocrisy than yes, I am acting like a child. I don't know about you, but I, as well as many people here, will be voting for a candidate that protects our liberties. A vote for Obama is a vote against that, and personally, I can't figure out how you Obama-lovers defect after you get tired of the good doctor. The two don't have anything in common.... AT ALL. What is it you saw in our message anyway? It couldn't have been much considering Obama is the polar opposite. He supports preemptive war, nation building, unconstitutional projects, expanded government, invasion of privacy, mandates, higher taxes, etc etc.
> 
> I mean this...where in the world do you get off? You're no part of this movement and you don't stand for any kind of freedom if you cast a vote for a candidate like that. You clearly didn't think this through because they aren't even close to similar....It's disgusting. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. I'm sick of traitors and people defecting to Obama and weakening our cause. There is absolutely NO excuse for it. It cannot be rationalized or justified in any way, shape, and form so I don't know why you're bothering and why some people are buying it. This isn't about "voting for the other guy." It's about putting real constitutionalists in office and restoring our great nation to what the founding fathers envisioned. I'm sick, I'm fed up, and I'm not going to let people like you send my country further down the tube!
> 
> I challenge you all this upcoming election. Cast a vote with meaning. Vote for freedom, liberty, and our Constitution.



It could be argued that a landslide victory for the Democrats would make it easier for our people to move into the Republican party.  It would cause those who haven't woken up yet to ask "What went wrong?"  and we'd be there to tell them.

That being said, I'm not going to vote for Obama.

----------


## EastWindRain

> Personal attacks? I'm simply telling you to do some research and study before you go around making ridiculous statements about supporting a socialist. It boils my blood! How can you claim to be a patriot and freedom lover, then go and vote for someone like that? It's hypocritical. Why are you even trying to be a part of this movement, then? We are moving AWAY from big government and violations of our rights, yet you want to cast a vote for that. Am I the only one that sees it this way?
> 
> If "acting like a child" means calling you out on your hypocrisy than yes, I am acting like a child. I don't know about you, but I, as well as many people here, will be voting for a candidate that protects our liberties. A vote for Obama is a vote against that, and personally, I can't figure out how you Obama-lovers defect after you get tired of the good doctor. The two don't have anything in common.... AT ALL. What is it you saw in our message anyway? It couldn't have been much considering Obama is the polar opposite. He supports preemptive war, nation building, unconstitutional projects, expanded government, invasion of privacy, mandates, higher taxes, etc etc.
> 
> I mean this...where in the world do you get off? You're no part of this movement and you don't stand for any kind of freedom if you cast a vote for a candidate like that. You clearly didn't think this through because they aren't even close to similar....It's disgusting. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks. I'm sick of traitors and people defecting to Obama and weakening our cause. There is absolutely NO excuse for it. It cannot be rationalized or justified in any way, shape, and form so I don't know why you're bothering and why some people are buying it. This isn't about "voting for the other guy." It's about putting real constitutionalists in office and restoring our great nation to what the founding fathers envisioned. I'm sick, I'm fed up, and I'm not going to let people like you send my country further down the tube!
> 
> I challenge you all this upcoming election. *Cast a vote with meaning. Vote for freedom, liberty, and our Constitution*.


Out of the 5 major Candidates running for the President of the United States, you are describing Chuck Baldwin. 

a. McCain (CFR)
b. Obama (CFR)
c. Bob Barr (not to be trusted)
d. Ralph Nader (fake)
*e. Chuck Baldwin* (Ron Paul Patriot type)

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Thank you jeez the hostility around here is so thick.  I don't see how I could persuade anyone to vote any different after reading some of these comments.
> 
> To answer your question?  I am at a complete loss.  I really hadn't given any thought at all to where my vote would go if it didn't go to Ron Paul.  It just hit me like and hour ago or  whenever this thread was posted that dang, I don't have any kind of back up plan.
> 
> Seriously I have been all in for Ron Paul through to my core, and the first thing that hits my mind when I think of Dr. Paul not winning is damn McCain CAN"T win.  HE JUST CAN"T.  I would sooner die than go through another 4 years of GOP dictatorship.  So in my logical mind I am thinking the only way McCain can be defeated is if Obama takes all the vote of the people that feel like I do. 
> 
> Maybe this and maybe that.  We all know the reality is one of these guys IS GOING TO WIN THIS TIME.  So which one?  That might not make to much since in the long run, but for now, thats my reaction to Dr. Paul being completely out of in and discouraging writing his name in.  Sorry if it rubs people wrong, but thats real.


Did you honestly think Ron even had a chance? I didn't. I still voted for him though. Although you are talking to someone who gave up voting before Ron, he just made me so damn happy listening to him that I had to vote for the guy. 

My only suggestion to you at this point is, vote for yourself, or for your parents or something.

----------


## JS4Pat

> Bingo; if you vote for either Obama or McCain all it shows is that you are content with the system we are being offered by the elites.


BINGO...

How can a Ron Paul supporter fall for the "lesser of 2 evils scam"?

----------


## aspiringconstitutionalist

Vote Barr or Baldwin.

A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for the status quo.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Out of the 5 major Candidates running for the President of the United States, you are describing Chuck Baldwin. 
> 
> a. McCain (CFR)
> b. Obama (CFR)
> c. Bob Barr (not to be trusted)
> d. Ralph Nader (fake)
> *e. Chuck Baldwin* (Ron Paul Patriot type)


I don't know why Nader is listed as fake...he's pretty genuine, but not exactly a freedom lover. Good guy, but his policies are wrong. He thinks excessive regulation and government involvement on things like health care are helpful. Nothing in the Constitution says the people should be regulated.... He's not fake, he's just not the right candidate for this movement in my opinion.

I think Chuck is great, but I also trust Barr. I believe he means what he says and I think he's fighting hard for liberty now. Ron recently expressed that he feels the same way as well, so I think I'm in good company of trusting him. All in all, it's a tough decision, but I'd swing towards Barr. I believe he's reformed, and Chuck needs to follow example. Malicious things like this article make me dislike Chuck a bit http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm

Just my 2 cents, but either Chuck or Barr are much, much closer to liberty than Obama is.

----------


## Jeremy

I've been trying to tell people this for so long... some people here just don't want to listen

----------


## newbitech

> It could be argued that a landslide victory for the Democrats would make it easier for our people to move into the Republican party.  It would cause those who haven't woken up yet to ask "What went wrong?"  and we'd be there to tell them.
> 
> That being said, I'm not going to vote for Obama.


thank you.  I said I am voting for Obama to deliver a blow to the GOP.  As far as most "voters" are concerned, their are two teams.  The Dems and the Repubs.  From what I understand, Dr. Paul thinks the best way to bring about change is to do that by returning the Republican party back to its roots.  Not through a 3rd party or independent party.  These things fracture the movement.  

The only way I know how to punish the repubs who treated our movement like crap is stay registered as a repub and vote for a dem.  This is a slap in the face to those people in my town that wanted McCain.  I am not suggesting that all Ron Paul supporters go and vote for Obama.  I am just expressing my instinct.  I could have wrote what the guy you are responding to wrote about 2 hours ago before i read what Ron Paul said about a write in.

Problem is, now I have no basis for saying stuff like that because no matter how I vote, I go against some part of what I have stood for politically for the last year.

I don't hate the guy for his opinion, I just hate how he would be so upset as to go off on me by calling me a traitor, hypocrite, etc etc.. I also don't blame him for being so pissed, but damn Ron Paul said we should not vote for him!  WHAT THE HELL!  MY WORLD HAS JUST BEEN TURNED COMPLETELY UP SIDE DOWN!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Did you honestly think Ron even had a chance? I didn't. I still voted for him though. Although you are talking to someone who gave up voting before Ron, he just made me so damn happy listening to him that I had to vote for the guy. 
> 
> My only suggestion to you at this point is, vote for yourself, or for your parents or something.


Or he should leave the movement and join the growing socialist one where he clearly belongs. Deep down, he's an Obama supporter. No true freedom loving American could ever consider voting for him...

Pat and Flipside, I agree. The "lesser of the two evils" theory is complete BS. I have an idea. Let's vote for a candidate that stands for something and coincides with our beliefs. I feel like I'd be compromising everything I stood for if I voted for a person like Obama.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> thank you.  I said I am voting for Obama to deliver a blow to the GOP.  As far as most "voters" are concerned, their are two teams.  The Dems and the Repubs.  From what I understand, Dr. Paul thinks the best way to bring about change is to do that by returning the Republican party back to its roots.  Not through a 3rd party or independent party.  These things fracture the movement.  
> 
> The only way I know how to punish the repubs who treated our movement like crap is stay registered as a repub and vote for a dem.  This is a slap in the face to those people in my town that wanted McCain.  I am not suggesting that all Ron Paul supporters go and vote for Obama.  I am just expressing my instinct.  I could have wrote what the guy you are responding to wrote about 2 hours ago before i read what Ron Paul said about a write in.
> 
> Problem is, now I have no basis for saying stuff like that because no matter how I vote, I go against some part of what I have stood for politically for the last year.
> 
> I don't hate the guy for his opinion, I just hate how he would be so upset as to go off on me by calling me a traitor, hypocrite, etc etc.. I also don't blame him for being so pissed, but damn Ron Paul said we should not vote for him!  WHAT THE HELL!  MY WORLD HAS JUST BEEN TURNED COMPLETELY UP SIDE DOWN!


Both of you are foolish. That's a foolish theory. Here's another idea...let's deal a blow to both parties by voting for one that stands for something. You guys are trying to decide if you'd rather be hit by a car or bus. I'll just take the bridge over the accident scene.

----------


## EastWindRain

Alex Jones *DOES NOT SUPPORT BOB BARR*! Alex Jones supports Dr. Chuck Baldwin. At the 8 minute mark of the following video/radio interview he states the following. 

"Here is another point that I want to throw in just briefly. I am not going to be supporting Libertarian Presidential Candidate CIA officer pro drug war, pro gun control votes, he then acts like he's a good guy on the NRA board Bob Barr. He is just there to Neutralize and make sure that party goes no where. And I can say that authoritatively. I wouldn't trust Bob Barr as far as you can throw him. And I have had him on a few times. He knows full well who I am, and I just don't trust him. I trust you! [Chuck Baldwin] So Ron Paul better put his support behind you, once he's out of it after the convention." stated Alex Jones. 

"I was with Ron Paul just last week in Washington. We had a good talk. He is very supportive of our campaign. He and I have been friends for a long time and I am glad to call him my friend", replied Chuck Baldwin. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP3RsacOxC8

----------


## brandon

I didn't read the thread, only the OP.

Dr. Paul is just being modest, and a bit naive. Many of us will not be voting for Barr of Baldwin for a variety of reasons. I know I wont be. And certainly we will not be voting McCain or Obama. So that leaves us two choices. Either don't vote at all, or write in Ron Paul. If we dont vote, we are not counted. If we do vote, they might not count the vote for Paul, but it will register as another voter who did not vote for Mcbama. In addition, a large amount of write in votes will send a message to the LP that they must get their act together and stop compromising principle for political gain.

----------


## newbitech

> Did you honestly think Ron even had a chance? I didn't. I still voted for him though. Although you are talking to someone who gave up voting before Ron, he just made me so damn happy listening to him that I had to vote for the guy. 
> 
> My only suggestion to you at this point is, vote for yourself, or for your parents or something.


Right up until Super Tuesday.  Yes I did.  But at least I had principle if he didn't win the nomination, I could write him in.  Even that looks hopeless now.  I am getting more "political" traction advising people how to prepare for economic melt down, police state, and the draft than I would if I tried to convince people to once again change party affiliation.  I know you don't have to do that in the general but still, I have all but lost interest in politics once again.  I might take a closer look at the constitution party but I have definitely ruled out the Libs.  

I think I am gonna either write in Ron Paul, go fishing, or try to make something happen within local Repub politics by sending a strong anti-McCain message from a registered GOP voter.  

Either way, after this election, Im dropping off the grid.  I don't think we are going to make it another 4 years.

----------


## nobody's_hero

So, if we can't write in Ron Paul (either because Ron Paul would prefer us not to, or that being uncertified (or whatever) would mean those write-in votes wouldn't count), just how are we supposed to assess the effectiveness of this rEVOLution? 

We've been hearing figures of one million votes for Ron Paul. Those are just primary votes. We have no idea how many millions more were planning to show up at the polls in November and cast their official vote for Ron Paul. 

So, now, do we count all of Bob Barr's and Baldwin's votes and give much of the credit for their success to the rEVOLution?

It just frustrates me that there seems to be no accurate way of knowing exactly what our numbers are.

I know we can get a rough estimate by counting the number of people who join the Campaign for Liberty, but what about all those casual internet users that probably won't find out about the CFL? 

Someone just tell me that there's at least 15 million of us liberty-lovers so I can sleep somewhat easier tonight.

----------


## brandon

> Someone just tell me that there's at least 15 million of us liberty-lovers so I can sleep somewhat easier tonight.


There's not. Or at least they don't know it yet. There may very well be 15 mil people that support our ideas, but 13 million of them dont vote or follow politics because they are so frustrated with the system.

We are getting there though. Don't give up hope.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> In addition, a large amount of write in votes will send a message to the LP that they must get their act together and stop compromising principle for political gain.


Bull$#@!.

If write ins aren't counted, then how will the LP know they lost voters? They'd have to pull a number out of their ass or something.

And what do you mean get their act together??
Oh so Barr will get them .5% this year as opposed to 1% for a normal election?

They don't have an act to get together in the first place. They want to become a bigger party and if that means for one election nominating a more mainstream candidate, then who can blame them especially if they set a party record this year for votes received. 

Neocons are Republicans who support the President and want nothing but to remain in power. Barr is no longer Republican, he no longer supports the president, and he obviously doesn't crave an electoral win. I suggest everyone cut him some slack before calling him a neocon.

----------


## EastWindRain

Ron Paul should do one of the following:

A. Announce that he is going to Run in 2012, with his son's Rand Paul's help, so the movement can keep moving forward with their signs, bumper stickers, DVD's to friends etc. (And write in Ron Paul's name anyway, regardless of whether or not it is counted)

B. Ron Paul should endorse Chuck Baldwin. The whole movement would then need to triple their efforts in favor of Chuck Baldwin. We would have 4 months to do this. (Ross Perot had only  2 months) Give it a good shot to get 25% of the vote. (Who cares if Obama or McCain wins)

C. Ron Paul announces that he is going to run third party and takes over for Chuck Baldwin in the Constitution Party. (This option would be good if Ron Paul doesn't not intend to run in 2012.)

----------


## Michael Landon

I'm planning on voting for Barr.  If he isn't on the ballot then I'll vote for Baldwin.  If Baldwin isn't on the ballot then I'll write in Ron Paul.  That is where I currently stand.

- ML

----------


## brandon

> Bull$#@!.
> 
> If write ins aren't counted, then how will the LP know they lost voters? They'd have to pull a number out of their ass or something.


Do you realize that there is more then one election happening in november?  Say 10 people come to vote. Suppose 3 of those people vote for Obama, 3 vote for McCain, 1 votes for Barr, and 2  vote for RP. Each of the candidates running will get a lower percentage of the vote then if those two people that wrote in Ron Paul stayed home. Even if RP's votes are not counted towards him, they are still counted towards the overall vote total.




> And what do you mean get their act together??


I mean they must stop nominating people whose voting record is the antithesis of the LP platform. RP sparked a huge movement built on principle and integrity. The LP had a chance to capitalize on that, but they were tricked by an opportunist.

If they nominated Mary Ruwart there would be no division within the revolution. All of us would be supporting her 100%, as her platform is almost identical to Pauls, and she has the history to prove she really believes these things. I am positive Ruwart would get far more votes then Barr. The LP is nothing without the support of the RP revolution.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I'm planning on voting for Barr.  If he isn't on the ballot then I'll vote for Baldwin.  If Baldwin isn't on the ballot then I'll write in Ron Paul.  That is where I currently stand.
> 
> - ML


+1

Barr is just more able to spread the liberty message than Baldwin... mainly because the LP is the biggest 3rd party in the country.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I'm planning on voting for Barr.  If he isn't on the ballot then I'll vote for Baldwin.  If Baldwin isn't on the ballot then I'll write in Ron Paul.  That is where I currently stand.
> 
> - ML


That's my plan too....unless you live in West Virginia or Oklahoma, Barr should be in your state's ballot

----------


## EastWindRain

The movement has been successfully "*Divided and Conquered*". 

- 1/4 are writing Ron Paul's name in (and possibly spoiling their ticket)
- 1/4 aren't voting (and are staying home)
- 1/4 are voting for Bob Barr
- 1/4 are voting for Chuck Baldwin

Final Result: No Unity = No Progress

Ron Paul should tell us what to do, so that we can remain a strong unified unit.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The movement has been successfully "*Divided and Conquered*". 
> 
> - 1/4 are writing Ron Paul's name in (and possibly spoiling their ticket)
> - 1/4 aren't voting (and are staying home)
> - 1/4 are voting for Bob Barr
> - 1/4 are voting for Chuck Baldwin
> 
> Final Result: No Unity = No Progress
> 
> Ron Paul should tell us what to do, so that we can remain a strong unified unit.


I think we as a whole body should formally debate our options and then make an endorsement of our own, for our own.

----------


## angelatc

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


The point is that it means ballot access will be easier for, and the press will pay more attention to, third parties in the future if they can make in-roads in getting votes.

----------


## brandon

> The point is that it means ballot access will be easier for, and the press will pay more attention to, third parties in the future if they can make in-roads in getting votes.


And the problem is that if the LP does good with impure candidates they will continue down the path of nominating candidates that do not follow the platform. Ultimately they will sell out all of their values and stances for political gain. Just like the neocons took over the R's, the will take over the L's.

I vote on principle, not party line.

----------


## QCB79

> Ron Paul should tell us what to do, so that we can remain a strong unified unit.



he did...he said we should get involved in the process, run for offices, take matters into our own hands and go make a difference in the system

----------


## brandon

> he did...he said we should get involved in the process, run for offices, take matters into our own hands and go make a difference in the system


Exactly. Our presidential vote is trivial.

----------


## newbitech

> The point is that it means ballot access will be easier for, and the press will pay more attention to, third parties in the future if they can make in-roads in getting votes.


is that what we are trying to accomplish?  How does that help  us take back the Republican party?  From what I can tell a 3rd party president is probably at least 2 election cycles out.  We don't have that kind of time. 

The big story is going to be the mass exodus away from the Republican party.  The bigger the better IMO.  That opens the door for Ron Paul Republicans in 2010 and 2012.  

I understand the 3rd party argument but at some point I need to see political ideology become a constituent reality.  Otherwise, I think I am wasting time trying to do something that has never been done before.  I already said it, but I think its becoming more clear to me.

Ron Paul was/is the last chance to peacefully revolt.  I don't want to have to die to take this country back, but I will.  I really think our time is running out.  2008 we may see a few Ron Paul Republicans win congressional or Senate seats.  Otherwise, we can't expect much else out of this political season.  2010  will tell us if our country is ready to do this peacefully and orderly.  By 2012, if we still  have the same fascist media, the same power hungry Military/Industrial complex, and the same snoozing population, then its lights out for the Constitution and America as we know it.

Some say we are already at that point and Dr. Paul was the only chance we had at restoring it.  Some say that we don't have another 4 years to take it back.  Maybe I am giving to much credit to the corrupt elitist crowd, but a severely crippled US is easy target for up and coming nations.  We still have threats from the outside and as long as we keep spreading ourselves out all over the world and pissing people off, those threats do not diminish.  We are already being infiltrated, and is only a matter of time before our government allows us to get burned again, or worse turns the military on us.

----------


## libertarian4321

> This kid's a crock. Sweet grammar. Screw me? How about screw you, buddy. I'm not the one who will be voting for a socialist, big government, two faced SOB. The fact of the matter is you don't have a spine or you would be voting for a candidate that stands for liberty. You and your new candidate are just as anti-liberty as McCain is. Again, you don't know the meaning of liberty or freedom. You are foolish and your words are empty rhetoric. You were a fair weather Paul supporter and it's clear you never knew what he stood for. 
> 
> WWPD. What would Paul do? He would never endorse Obama...that's a fact.


We lost this election.  There are NO GOOD CHOICES at this point.

We can either

1) not vote - a terrible choice- not voting isn't a "protest", its letting them run over you...
2) write in Ron Paul- Ron doesn't want us to do this, and in any case, your vote may not even have our vote counted
3) vote for Barr - I am not yet convinced that this guy is a reformed neocon
4) vote for Baldwin (utterly pointless other than as a futile protest vote- he probably won't even be on the ballot in many states)
5) vote for the "lesser evil" of the two guys still running.  Yes, Obama and McCain BOTH SUCK- but to some of us, one may suck slightly less than the other.  Since we have no chance of getting what we want at this point, it may behoove us to try and prevent that which we despise most.  Hence, it is NOT unreasonable to vote for Obama to try and stop McCain (or vice versa- though I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was the last warmonger, er, candidate,  on earth).

We LOST, folks.  We aren't going to get what we want, so its up to each of us to decide which of the unpalatable choices above is best for us.

I may not decide until the last days before the election- but yeah, I might hold my nose and vote for Obama, or I might hold my nose and vote for Barr, or (insert crappy choice here).

The only thing I know for sure is that I will not choose "not voting", nor will I ever vote for old man McWar.

----------


## EastWindRain

> And the problem is that if the LP does good with impure candidates they will continue down the path of nominating candidates that do not follow the platform. Ultimately they will sell out all of their values and stances for political gain. Just like the neocons took over the R's, the will take over the L's.
> 
> I vote on principle, not party line.


This is exactly accurate! How do you think THEY (the Zionist NeoCons) captured the two main parties in the first place? With Politics you can't sell out. Once you start selling out and compromising votes for principles, you end up going down a slippery slope which leads to the destruction of the party and of the principles governing it. They only reason Ron Paul came as far as he did was PRINCIPLE. Don't sell out! In my opinion Bob Barr is not the man for the LP. Chuck Baldwin has the right set of principles, but he belongs to the wrong party, if the overall goal is to recapture and rebuild the Republican Party based on solid principles. 

Here is an idea. As a movement we could all vote for Chuck Baldwin, if Ron Paul gave the nod, and get say 25% of the vote. (At least this way the movement would know its numbers) Then in 2012, (if there is an election) Chuck could possibly become the running mate (vice President) of a Ron Paul 2012 run. Then those who voted for Chuck on principle, would vote again for him and a Ron Paul combo deal? Just an idea.

----------


## purplechoe

> Yes. We. Can...vote for another constitutionalist by supporting Congressman Paul's friend, Dr. Chuck Baldwin! More details about that can be found here.


DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! Unless Ron Paul is the republican nominee, I'll be voting for the constitution party this November.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> We lost this election.  There are NO GOOD CHOICES at this point.
> 
> We can either
> 
> 1) not vote - a terrible choice- not voting isn't a "protest", its letting them run over you...
> 2) write in Ron Paul- Ron doesn't want us to do this, and in any case, your vote may not even have our vote counted
> 3) vote for Barr - I am not yet convinced that this guy is a reformed neocon
> 4) vote for Baldwin (utterly pointless other than as a futile protest vote- he probably won't even be on the ballot in many states)
> 5) vote for the "lesser evil" of the two guys still running.  Yes, Obama and McCain BOTH SUCK- but to some of us, one may suck slightly less than the other.  Since we have no chance of getting what we want at this point, it may behoove us to try and prevent that which we despise most.  Hence, it is NOT unreasonable to vote for Obama to try and stop McCain (or vice versa- though I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was the last warmonger, er, candidate,  on earth).
> ...


I would do what your username says....vote libertarian and give Bob the benefit of the doubt.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! Unless Ron Paul is the republican nominee, I'll be voting for the constitution party this November.


I would consider voting for Baldwin....if he gets ballot access in more states....like Huckabee, he is a pastor....religions and politics don't mix well...and I don't know what he says about the separation of church and state.

----------


## EastWindRain

> We lost this election. There are NO GOOD CHOICES at this point.
> 
> We can either
> 
> 1) not vote - a terrible choice- not voting isn't a "protest", its letting them run over you...
> 2) write in Ron Paul- Ron doesn't want us to do this, and in any case, your vote may not even have our vote counted
> 3) vote for Barr - I am not yet convinced that this guy is a reformed neocon
> 4) *vote for Baldwin (utterly pointless other than as a futile protest vote- he probably won't even be on the ballot in many states)*
> 5) vote for the "lesser evil" of the two guys still running. Yes, Obama and McCain BOTH SUCK- but to some of us, one may suck slightly less than the other. Since we have no chance of getting what we want at this point, it may behoove us to try and prevent that which we despise most. Hence, it is NOT unreasonable to vote for Obama to try and stop McCain (or vice versa- though I wouldn't vote for McCain if he was the last warmonger, er, candidate, on earth).
> ...


This is not a futile vote if we get to work now. Let's get him on the ballot in every state! All we need is a nod from Ron Paul. Chuck is the man to vote for based on Principle and he is Ron Paul's buddy.

The Ron Paul Revolution needs to now embrace and promote a Ron Paul candidate type named "Dr. Chuck Baldwin". Otherwise no ground will be gained. We still have 4.5 months before the election. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NSTzHnrUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UItJAe_wWQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP3RsacOxC8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkkV5_88WfE

----------


## Fox McCloud

This is truly sad, IMHO--seeing a split in Ron Paul supports like this...I hate to say it, but this could signal an end of the revolution, with only a few of us left helping out the "Campaign for Liberty".

Either way, I haven't fully decided yet, but it's either Baldwin or write-in Paul's name-I haven't fully decided yet.

It's a shame that the CP and LP (especially the LP) didn't unite under one banner for "one hour", so to speak, and not field any candidates against Paul, and instead attempt to get more in their ranks to vote for him in the primaries. I doubt it would have pushed us "over the top", but it probably would have given us at least double to triple the amount of delegates he currently has (around 35).

I could see the CP doing something like that, but the LP has had its head crammed up its own butt for quite a while now.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! Unless Ron Paul is the republican nominee, I'll be voting for the constitution party this November.


I could argue that Chuck doesn't defend the Constitution by his hate speech against homosexual individuals. The point is Alex Jones is a nut-job so I really don't care if he likes Barr or not, and I believe Barr is reformed, he has been working for reform, and Ron even said he believes that Barr believes what he's saying. Either is a much better choice than the other candidates so I really think you're splitting hairs when you compare the two. 

And libertarian4321, you are far from a Libertarian. You think voting for the lesser of two evils is the right way to go? It doesn't make sense to me. So you'd be voting for socialism....global intervention, preemptive war, excessive taxation, more government involvement in every aspect of our lives, and everything else Obama stands for? Why would you vote for those ideas? I thought most of us here were for less of all that? Why not cast your vote for someone closer to the ideals we have been working for?

It's like saying "I want the steak, but I'm going to get the deep fried chicken even though I don't like it and it's bad for me because the steak comes at a higher price"

A vote for Obama is a vote for giving up. A vote for Obama is a vote for socialism. He does not carry any of our ideals or anything close to them. You aren't voting for the lesser of two evils, you are voting for something completely different than what we worked so hard for, and in effect you are making it harder for those of us who are dedicated to reform. Vote in the right direction rather than giving any of those horrific parties ground. It just doesn't add up to me....why would anyone compromise their ideals. 

I hate socialism, big government, mandates, taxes, invasion of privacy, violation of my rights, and being told how to live my life.....so why would I go and vote for Obama?!

And, before some of you jump on the Chuck bandwagon, you might want to look at his party platform aside from his credentials as a Paul supporter. The Constitution party is a little outrageous. I could give you just as many reasons to vote against Chuck as you guys have given against Barr. Both have their flaws, but I support a Libertarian platform over the Constitution party platform. The Constitution party platform basically preaches social policy, and I don't like that. I trust that a Libertarian would just leave me the heck alone.

----------


## EastWindRain

Don't forget that this is a war. We have to fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground. The goal has to be to keep the unit fighting in the same direction, so that it moves forward, little bit by little bit. Giving up and quiting is the worst thing to do, as the problem will not go away, in fact it will only increase. Eventually everyone is going to be forced to have to confront the problem.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Don't forget that this is a war. We have to fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground. The goal has to be to keep the unit fighting in the same direction, so that it moves forward, little bit by little bit. Giving up and quiting is the worst thing to do, as the problem will not go away, in fact it will only increase. Eventually everyone is going to be forced to have to confront the problem.


Amen. All the fair weather supporters are defecting to Obama and we are finding they never stood for liberty to begin with. They weren't willing to fight. This is only the beginning.

----------


## nbhadja

> screw you man, there are only D's and R's on my ballot. I didnt "plan" on voting for anyone until I heard Dr. Paul speak.  Now that I understand more politics, I can see how voting for Obama where I live might help our cause.  I was going to write in Dr. Paul until I read this thread.  I still might cause its all a throw away anyhow.  Nothing is changing short of violent revolution for the next couple years anyways.  Don't be a punk.


Man get a grip and do some research. Obama is just as bad as McCain. 

 I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ack=crosspromo

 As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations .
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ainst_taliban/

Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

He was not in office to vote for the iraq war, but he voted to fund it for over 300 billion dollars.

Obama also will not guarantee a Iraqi troop pullout until at least 2013. http://action.richardsonforpresident...3/obamarecord/

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called  a threat to all of us. 
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...BAMA03.article

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._iraq_funding/

----------


## libertarian4321

> And libertarian4321, you are far from a Libertarian. You think voting for the lesser of two evils is the right way to go? It doesn't make sense to me. So you'd be voting for socialism....global intervention, preemptive war, excessive taxation, more government involvement in every aspect of our lives, and everything else Obama stands for? Why would you vote for those ideas? I thought most of us here were for less of all that? Why not cast your vote for someone closer to the ideals we have been working for?


If you had a higher level of reading comprehension, you'd note that I did NOT say I was going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, not did I say I was voting for Obama (read it slowly this time- use your finger if it helps).

I said IF I decide to go the lesser of 2 evils route, given that either Obama or McCain will be President (sorry, folks, Barr, Baldwin, Nader, Ron Paul, etc are NOT going to be President), I would probably choose Obama- I'll even tell you the major reasons why.  1.  Obama had the sense to oppose the idiotic Iraq war (as a soldier, thats a HUGE deal to me) 2. Obama is far more intelligent than McCain (this guy wasn't terribly bright at 22, and 50 years of rust isn't helping).  3.  McCain seems far more even tempered than McCain- I don't want a hot-head leading the nation (even worse, a hot head who can't remember who he is fighting).

If there was a Libertarian in the race, I'd vote for him.  I'm not convinced that there is a Libertarian running.

BTW, I've been a Libertarian for decades.  I was probably running for office as a Libertarian and holding leadership positions in the Libertarian Party before you learned to tie your shoes (probably about 5 years ago from the tone of your post), so excuse me if I dismiss your snotty remarks as the worthless, junior...

----------


## nbhadja

And once youtube starts working again I will show you links of war monger Obama giving speeches to AIPAC about invading Pakistan and Iran.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> If you had a higher level of reading comprehension, you'd note that I did NOT say I was going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, not did I say I was voting for Obama (read it slowly this time- use your finger if it helps).
> 
> I said IF I decide to go the lesser of 2 evils route, given that either Obama or McCain will be President (sorry, folks, Barr, Baldwin, Nader, Ron Paul, etc are NOT going to be President), I would probably choose Obama- I'll even tell you the major reasons why.  1.  Obama had the sense to oppose the idiotic Iraq war (as a soldier, thats a HUGE deal to me) 2. Obama is far more intelligent than McCain (this guy wasn't terribly bright at 22, and 50 years of rust isn't helping).  3.  McCain seems far more even tempered than McCain- I don't want a hot-head leading the nation (even worse, a hot head who can't remember who he is fighting).
> 
> BTW, I've been a Libertarian for decades.  I was probably running for office as a Libertarian and holding leadership positions in the Libertarian Party before you learned to tie your shoes (probably about 5 years ago from the tone of your post), so excuse me if I dismiss your snotty remarks as the worthless, junior...


What are you talking about. You just beat around the bush, gave worthless reasons, and then said you'd vote for Obama. I don't care how long you've been around. No one with a spine or heart in this movement would vote for Obama. You can vote for who you _think_ will be president. I will vote for someone who will protect our Constitution. Again, there is no way to justify voting for Obama. I would sooner vote a 2x4 into office. It could help the country more than that moron.

I suggest you read the post prior to yours, as the poster brought up some great points with evidence.

----------


## Theocrat

> I could argue that Chuck doesn't defend the Constitution by his hate speech against homosexual individuals. The point is Alex Jones is a nut-job so I really don't care if he likes Barr or not, and I believe Barr is reformed, he has been working for reform, and Ron even said he believes that Barr believes what he's saying. Either is a much better choice than the other candidates so I really think you're splitting hairs when you compare the two.


What "hate speech" did Dr. Baldwin project against homosexuals? 




> And, before some of you jump on the Chuck bandwagon, you might want to look at his party platform aside from his credentials as a Paul supporter. The Constitution party is a little outrageous. I could give you just as many reasons to vote against Chuck as you guys have given against Barr. Both have their flaws, but I support a Libertarian platform over the Constitution party platform. The Constitution party platform basically preaches social policy, and I don't like that. I trust that a Libertarian would just leave me the heck alone.


Like most Americans, you're confusing *libertarianism* with *libertinism*. The Constitution Party does not advocate a platform which allows men and women the freedom to act however they feel without any moral restraint, responsibility, or accountability, which is what libertinism essentially is. Our country was not founded on those principles, either.

----------


## Carole

If I do not write in Dr. Paul (which I think my state does not allow-nor count), then I may choose Baldwin.

My only reason to vote in this election now is to help bring down the Republican party as it stands. I want it to realize that it cannot force bad candidates and bad policies down the throats of good Americans. I could say the same for the Democratic party.

So that leaves me little choice , but to vote for anyone other than the two big government guys. It is not about winning the election this year, but about making a statement.

I wish everyone who disliked the two choices would vote for any candidate other than the two "presumptive" candidates.

----------


## EastWindRain

> *I would sooner vote a 2x4 into office. It could help the country more than that moron.*


A 2x4 would definitely be a superior vote for it would do no more damage. But the NeoCon's will continue to destroy until the whole earth is under their complete control.

----------


## libertarian4321

> What are you talking about. You just beat around the bush, gave worthless reasons, and then said you'd vote for Obama. I don't care how long you've been around. No one with a spine or heart in this movement would vote for Obama. You can vote for who you _think_ will be president. I will vote for someone who will protect our Constitution. Again, there is no way to justify voting for Obama. I would sooner vote a 2x4 into office. It could help the country more than that moron.
> 
> I suggest you read the post prior to yours, as the poster brought up some great points with evidence.


Okay, I get it.  You're trying to show us how the public education system has failed you.

If that was your intent, great job!

I'd read it to you and explain the meaning of the big words if I could, but I can't do that.  You're going to have to read and comprehend without my help.  Try it again.  Use your index finger to help you as you sound out the words.

If you still don't understand, there is nothing more I can do...

----------


## nbhadja

> A 2x4 would definitely be a superior vote for it would do no more damage. But the NeoCon's will continue to destroy until the whole earth is under their complete control.


Don't forget the Neoliberals cause 50% of the damage, the neocons the other 50%.

----------


## EastWindRain

> What "hate speech" did Dr. Baldwin project against homosexuals? 
> 
> Like most Americans, you're confusing *libertarianism* with *libertinism*. The Constitution Party does not advocate a platform which allows men and women the freedom to act however they feel without any moral restraint, responsibility, or accountability, which is what libertinism essentially is. Our country was not founded on those principles, either.


I agree.

----------


## nbhadja

> If you had a higher level of reading comprehension, you'd note that I did NOT say I was going to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, not did I say I was voting for Obama (read it slowly this time- use your finger if it helps).
> 
> I said IF I decide to go the lesser of 2 evils route, given that either Obama or McCain will be President (sorry, folks, Barr, Baldwin, Nader, Ron Paul, etc are NOT going to be President), I would probably choose Obama- I'll even tell you the major reasons why.  1.  Obama had the sense to oppose the idiotic Iraq war (as a soldier, thats a HUGE deal to me) 2. Obama is far more intelligent than McCain (this guy wasn't terribly bright at 22, and 50 years of rust isn't helping).  3.  McCain seems far more even tempered than McCain- I don't want a hot-head leading the nation (even worse, a hot head who can't remember who he is fighting).
> 
> If there was a Libertarian in the race, I'd vote for him.  I'm not convinced that there is a Libertarian running.
> 
> BTW, I've been a Libertarian for decades.  I was probably running for office as a Libertarian and holding leadership positions in the Libertarian Party before you learned to tie your shoes (probably about 5 years ago from the tone of your post), so excuse me if I dismiss your snotty remarks as the worthless, junior...


1. Obama was not in office to vote for or against the war *BUT he voted on multiple occasions to fund the Iraqi war for over 300 billion dollars!!* He never once opposed the Iraqi war in anyway other than empty words.

2. How is he more intelligent? He is for a aggressive foreign policy, unbalanced budget, federal reserve, lobbyist controlled government, for less civil and economic freedom (voted for re-dis of patriot act) etc.

3. McCain is a hot head but it doesn't matter since him and Obama both vote for the same things. It makes no difference if you vote to invade a country while angry or calm. 

McCain= failure
Obama= SAME EXACT THING

----------


## jbuttell

> I get that.  But Obama will win in a landslide.  The bigger the better IMO.  There is still a ton of power in electing a president with a mandate.  Obama will be viewed as the anti-war candidate.  The anti-big business candidate.  The Pro-economy candidate.  If he has this mandate and screws it up, it will be better than if McCain gets the nod and takes  us to Iran immediately with the draft.  Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash.   
> 
> If Dr. Paul endorses then yeah I will definitely vote  for whoever he votes for. 
> 3rd parties just don't work yet.  It will be seen as a protest vote and to be honest, I am not throwing my vote behind someone that ran against Dr. Paul.  The 3rd party leaders, rather than rallying to Dr. Paul waited around for him to fail so they could snatch his support.  Don't want to go into details, but until I hear who Dr. Paul is voting for I'm throwing my weight (lol) along with the rest of the lemmings.



So sad, so very very sad. "Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash."  It seems you underestimate the power of propaganda. Don't you get it? It's ok that Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. It's ok that Obama supports the Patriot Act. It's ok that Obama isn't taking anything off hte table for Iran. It's ok that Obama claims he'd invade pakistan to take out terrorists. It's ok, because it's Obama.  If there were to be a backlash, you'd think it would be happening now. And then there are people like you, who seem to be well aware of this and still vote in these criminals. So sad.

----------


## libertarian4321

> What are you talking about. You just beat around the bush, gave worthless reasons, and then said you'd vote for Obama. I don't care how long you've been around. No one with a spine or heart in this movement would vote for Obama.


ROCK,

Alright, I admit I have a soft spot for the slow witted.  I will type slowly and try to explain one more time, even though its probably a waste of time.

I gave FIVE OPTIONS I/we could take, one of which was "vote for the lesser of 2 evils".  I also said that IF IF IF (note the "IF") I CHOSE THAT OPTION that I believe Obama is the lesser evil.

I then said I had not yet decided which option I would choose- that I might vote for Barr, Obama, Baldwin or even write- in Ron Paul.

ROCK, the good news is, I'll make my own choice- I won't hold the fact that you are rude, annoying, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer prevent me from voting Libertarian (if I determine that Barr is not a LINO).

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Okay, I get it.  You're trying to show us how the public education system has failed you.
> 
> If that was your intent, great job!
> 
> I'd read it to you and explain the meaning of the big words if I could, but I can't do that.  You're going to have to read and comprehend without my help.  Try it again.  Use your index finger to help you as you sound out the words.
> 
> If you still don't understand, there is nothing more I can do...


It's convenient how you ignore my entire post to resort to personal attacks. Very nice.

And in response to your last post, there shouldn't be an if for Obama. Not even a second thought. I don't get how you could even consider someone like that. I mean, at least Barr and Chuck line up with a lot of Ron's positions on the issues, which are pro freedom. Obama can't even stick his foot in the door there!

----------


## libertarian4321

> 1. Obama was not in office to vote for or against the war *BUT he voted on multiple occasions to fund the Iraqi war for over 300 billion dollars!!* He never once opposed the Iraqi war in anyway other than empty words.
> 
> 2. How is he more intelligent? He is for a aggressive foreign policy, unbalanced budget, federal reserve, lobbyist controlled government, for less civil and economic freedom (voted for re-dis of patriot act) etc.
> 
> 3. McCain is a hot head but it doesn't matter since him and Obama both vote for the same things. It makes no difference if you vote to invade a country while angry or calm.


Sure, I'll answer these.

I know Obama wasn't in the FEDERAL Senate at the time (he was an officeholder), but he DID have the sense and courage to openly oppose the war- something lacking in most Americans, in Congress or otherwise.

I base the intelligence bit on a couple of things.  One, Obama finished at the top of his class at the doctoral level at one of the tops schools in the country.  McCain barely graduated at the baccalaureate level.  Honestly, if McCain's father and grandfather hadn't been Admirals, he probably wouldn't have even been admitted to the USNA (a good school, but hardly Harvard).  Also, he just seems quicker mentally- with McCain, it sometimes seems like the wheels are spinning a little too hard even when dealing with simple questions- thats just my impression- I could be wrong (but I don't think I am).

Finally, I just don't want an irrational hot head given the ability to start wars (even worse, a senile hot head).  Obama, on the other hand, seems pretty cool under pressure- I have seen no evidence of the kind "blow ups" that are pretty much routine for McCain.  Until I see evidence otherwise, I will assume McCain is FAR more likely to act impulsively and violently.

I'm not fan of Obama, but I feel he is less likely to do something SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS to this nation than McCain...IF I choose to vote for the "lesser evil", at this point, it would be Obama.

----------


## Knightskye

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


So, you'd rather vote for a liberal Democrat than a conservative, liberty-minded candidate?  Umm... why were you supporting Ron Paul in the first place?

----------


## familydog

> I know Obama wasn't in the FEDERAL Senate at the time (he was an officeholder), but he DID have the sense and courage to openly oppose the war- something lacking in most Americans, in Congress or otherwise.


I think I'll just restate the opinions of many here and suggest that while it is great Obama opposed the war to begin with, it didn't take that much courage to do it representing a district that agreed with him about it in the first place.

----------


## libertarian4321

> It's convenient how you ignore my entire post to resort to personal attacks. Very nice.


Junior, you responded to my first post with aggressiveness and ignorance.  If you'd responded civilly, I'd have responded civilly, as I have with the other folks here.

I'll admit I have little tolerance for ignorance or snotty children- I guess its a character flaw of mine (I never said I was perfect).

BTW, I didn't ignore your post- I explained my points clearly.  Again, if you can't read/comprehend, I'm not an elementary school teacher, I can't help you.  See your local HS for adult ed classes...

----------


## libertarian4321

> I think I'll just restate the opinions of many here and suggest that while it is great Obama opposed the war to begin with, it didn't take that much courage to do it representing a district that agreed with him about it in the first place.


Perhaps it didn't take a huge amount of courage, like it did for Ron Paul.

Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama) over a guy who GETS IT WRONG (McWar) every time...

----------


## familydog

> Perhaps it didn't take a huge amount of courage, like it did for Ron Paul.
> 
> Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama) over a guy who GETS IT WRONG (McWar) every time...


Ron Paul represents a pretty conservative district. Many of his constituents don't agree with him on foriegn policy. Barack Obama's district while he was in state government agreed with him on the war. You can't compare the two.

While foreign policy is a big issue, it is not the only one. I fail to see how Obama is better than McCain on the economy or civil liberties.

----------


## newbitech

> So sad, so very very sad. "Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash."  It seems you underestimate the power of propaganda. Don't you get it? It's ok that Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. It's ok that Obama supports the Patriot Act. It's ok that Obama isn't taking anything off hte table for Iran. It's ok that Obama claims he'd invade pakistan to take out terrorists. It's ok, because it's Obama.  If there were to be a backlash, you'd think it would be happening now. And then there are people like you, who seem to be well aware of this and still vote in these criminals. So sad.


No, In fact I understand this headline, "Has the GOP lost its viability? 49% of registered Republicans vote Democrat."  If you are trying to influence propaganda with your vote by voting 3rd party you are kidding your self.  Thats not what I want to do, but you underestimate my reasoning.  None of what you said about Obama is ok.  I GET THAT.  But look what happened to the repubs when Bush deserted his party.  It opened the door for Dr. Paul.  There is backlash happening now in the repub party and I'd like to see that continue to set the table for 2010.  I think its more sad that Year after Year 3rd parties continue to fail at getting anything accomplished other than fattening up the leaders resumes and bank accounts. 

If you don't appreciate my reasoning and me posting the thought process of the people who will put Obama in power thats fine.  Ron Paul said himself that his campaign competed with none other than Obama's campaign for the youth vote.  You think that those young people are going to vote 3rd party when their primary or secondary choice is still on the ballot?  You got a lot of convincing to do their and not a lot of time to do it.  I for one would rather hand Obama an overwhelming upset over McCain than try to further splinter and fracture the electorate with the 3rd party nonsense.  Or, I could do what I planned on doing all along and waste my vote by writing in Ron Pauls name.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

If you are voting for Obama...you were NEVER a true Paulite.  TONES

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> What "hate speech" did Dr. Baldwin project against homosexuals? 
> 
> 
> 
> Like most Americans, you're confusing *libertarianism* with *libertinism*. The Constitution Party does not advocate a platform which allows men and women the freedom to act however they feel without any moral restraint, responsibility, or accountability, which is what libertinism essentially is. Our country was not founded on those principles, either.


I posted a link in the thread earlier where he rants against homosexuals. For people who claim Barr can't convert, it's funny that you think Baldwin can. The things he said showed more than a distaste for homosexual individuals...it was malicious. He's said some things I don't particularly agree with, but that's not my issue. I can look past that. My issue is the Constitution party platform. I did generalize broadly by saying they advocate a social policy, and I believe they do. Let's be honest, they are based heavily on religiously influenced moral ideas, and I don't like that being preached to me. It's very evident on their website.

I do not support libertinism. One should be held responsible and accountable for one's acts. Now, let me elaborate. I feel like the Constitution party has ideas on how individuals should act. For example, they dislike pornography, therefore their interpretation of the Constitution ends up being a ban against pornography. I don't think it's acceptable for them to dictate a social policy like that. They also have a moral thing against gambling. They also seem to support the drug war. Again, an example of telling people what they can and cannot do with their body. They also define marriage according to the Bible. What happened to religious freedom? All men are created equal? Another example of them contradicting themselves. _They_ Believe what their God says should apply to everyone, therefore it's ok for them to impose this on others. These seem like minor things, but they really irk me. I think their party is for a religious and like minded group.

I do support libertarianism. Let people make their own decisions. It is not your place impose your will on them. Let them choose religion, who they will marry, what they do to themselves, etc. etc. as long as they don't hurt anyone else (to be quick and general).

You see where I'm coming from? This is why I prefer the Libertarian party to the Constitution party.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

so ...you are going to follow the herd of young people who vote on trends?  Pitiful.  whatever..but the Obama forum is that way   <--------------------------->   TONES

----------


## pahs1994

> Alex Jones *DOES NOT SUPPORT BOB BARR*! Alex Jones supports Dr. Chuck Baldwin.


LOL i like Barr a little more now

----------


## SLSteven

> Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama)...


I can't think of anything he has gotten right.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Junior, you responded to my first post with aggressiveness and ignorance.  If you'd responded civilly, I'd have responded civilly, as I have with the other folks here.
> 
> I'll admit I have little tolerance for ignorance or snotty children- I guess its a character flaw of mine (I never said I was perfect).
> 
> BTW, I didn't ignore your post- I explained my points clearly.  Again, if you can't read/comprehend, I'm not an elementary school teacher, I can't help you.  See your local HS for adult ed classes...


Again, no comment on the content of my posts. Just foolish, arrogant remarks. You didn't explain yourself, you didn't respond to any of my criticisms, and you clearly didn't read my posts.

I'm snotty, I'm stupid, I'm uneducated, etc. etc. Listen, buddy. I don't care how old you are or how smart you think you are. The fact of the matter is I was never naive enough to even consider voting for Barack Obama. You don't know me, what I do, my education, or how I live. But I can tell you one thing, and it's evident from my posts. I love freedom and I won't compromise it for anything. And, I know one thing from your posts; you've considered doing the opposite. That's where we are different. Don't preach to me, buddy. I will not compromise my ideals. You've stated you could. That's enough for me. I'll leave it at that.

Steven, thank you for illustrating my point before I posted. Libertarian4321 just said Obama got it right. We all know he hasn't, and I don't know what libertarian4321 has been reading. He should change his screen name, do some research, and stand down from his attack on me. Libertarian4321, you should waltz on over to the Obama forums and talk about preemptive war, big government, socialized health care, and higher taxes. Clearly, the man has it right.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

I don't think you understand what libertarianism really means rock.  I wouldnt' say that the libertarian party condones all of that or condemns it ..the point is the 10th amendment.  Most of those issues you mentioned are not listed in the constitution, therefore it is left to the states and to the people.  The Federal government needs to keep hands off.  Now,  if those issues are left to  the states and to the people where they belong,,, the people will decide on them..and you might not like it so much.  THAT's the point ...allow the people to decide.  You also can not force people to accept gay marriage  or porn  or whatever.  TONES

----------


## pahs1994

> No, In fact I understand this headline, "Has the GOP lost its viability? 49% of registered Republicans vote Democrat."  If you are trying to influence propaganda with your vote by voting 3rd party you are kidding your self.  Thats not what I want to do, but you underestimate my reasoning.  None of what you said about Obama is ok.  I GET THAT.  But look what happened to the repubs when Bush deserted his party.  It opened the door for Dr. Paul.  There is backlash happening now in the repub party and I'd like to see that continue to set the table for 2010.  I think its more sad that Year after Year 3rd parties continue to fail at getting anything accomplished other than fattening up the leaders resumes and bank accounts. 
> 
> If you don't appreciate my reasoning and me posting the thought process of the people who will put Obama in power thats fine.  Ron Paul said himself that his campaign competed with none other than Obama's campaign for the youth vote.  You think that those young people are going to vote 3rd party when their primary or secondary choice is still on the ballot?  You got a lot of convincing to do their and not a lot of time to do it.  I for one would rather hand Obama an overwhelming upset over McCain than try to further splinter and fracture the electorate with the 3rd party nonsense.  Or, I could do what I planned on doing all along and waste my vote by writing in Ron Pauls name.


My problem with your reasoning to vote for Obama is that it will send the message to republicans that we want an even more liberal Republican running in 2012 than McCain is!!! By showing all of our votes going to Baldwin or Barr they would see that we want more Libertarian individuals like Dr Paul and not socialists like Obama.

If people keep voting for the lesser of two evils we will keep getting one of the two evils. (If that makes any sence)

----------


## SLSteven

> My problem with your reasoning to vote for Obama is that it will send the message to republicans that we want an even more liberal Republican running ...


Exactly!

----------


## libertarian4321

> Ron Paul represents a pretty conservative district. Many of his constituents don't agree with him on foriegn policy. Barack Obama's district while he was in state government agreed with him on the war. You can't compare the two.
> 
> While foreign policy is a big issue, it is not the only one. I fail to see how Obama is better than McCain on the economy or civil liberties.


I wasn't comparing Obama to Paul.  What Ron Paul did (voting against the war that his party was pushing) obviously took more courage than what did (opposed the war while a state senator).  I was comparing Obama (opposed the war) to McCain (neocon warmonger).

On the economy, I don't expect anything out of either- though McCain's "I don't know much about economics" bit is hardly encouraging.

On civil liberties, they both voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization, but Obama tried  to amend it to make it less onerous (he failed).  McCain, I believe, went right along with the Republicans and pushed for reauthorization of the act.  

Another thing I didn't mention before.  I don't think McCain has a lot of character.  Yes, I know, he was a POW 40 years ago (its in all his ads), but since then, he has done some things I find personally disagreeable.  Little things like dumping his injured wife and 4 kids to marry a rich "trophy wife" half her age- that may not matter to some people, but to me, it says the guy is a scum bag.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I don't think you understand what libertarianism really means rock.  I wouldnt' say that the libertarian party condones all of that or condemns it ..the point is the 10th amendment.  Most of those issues you mentioned are not listed in the constitution, therefore it is left to the states and to the people.  The Federal government needs to keep hands off.  Now,  if those issues are left to  the states and to the people where they belong,,, the people will decide on them..and you might not like it so much.  THAT's the point ...allow the people to decide.  You also can not force people to accept gay marriage  or porn  or whatever.  TONES


I know what it means, but it's so technical I didn't want to get specific. The thing is you can not force someone else to believe what you believe. Stay out of someone else's life....stop imposing your will on them. You don't have to marry a gay person, so don't try to control their life. That's also a matter of rights....I think it's similar to segregation but that's just me. You can watch nudie flicks, but someone else doesn't have to. Just because they think it's morally wrong doesn't mean they can control you. You might not like drugs, but it doesn't mean you can dictate what other people do with their bodies (prohibition never worked). 

We have our liberties. I think what I just mentioned is very in line with the Constitution. I don't think the state government or federal government has the right to interfere with that. They are your choices, your lifestyle. That's just how I interpret it, though. It's really difficult to explain on the internet in a forum chat, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Your business isn't anyone else's business and I think that's clearly outlined in the Constitution. You are entitled to your liberties and your way of life as long as your not going out and infringing on other's rights.

"Libertarianism is a label used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which prioritize _individual liberty and minimize the role of the state_." I think that coincides with what I just said pretty well, unless I have a comprehension problem (libertarian4321 will argue that I do haha).

Gay marriage isn't infringing on another's rights. Nor is pornography or drug usage, so I don't see why the CP has a problem with it. I don't do those things, but I can't run another's life. I think that's where the split is. Individual liberty. To each his own.

----------


## SLSteven

Rhetoric aside, there is little evidence Obama is intent on ending the war.  It is easy for him to claim that he would have voted against it if he had been in position to do so.

----------


## fr33domfightr

It seems from the online struggle here that perhaps there needs to be a debate between Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.  I know both would much rather debate John McCain, but it might help solidify our votes and at the same time give them some debating experience.  Anyone have any ideas about how to make this happen?

In this thread, I saw some mention of the "Draft."  It is my understanding that Democrats are more likely to want a Draft than Republicans.  I had to register (with the Selective Service) when Jimmy Carter was in office.  And I recall not to long ago when Rep. Charlie Rangel (Democrat) was calling for a draft.

Edit: I think bringing back the draft in hopes of getting politicians kids in the Military is the wrong reason for bringing it back.  I think it's much better to be voluntary.  If people don't support a war, they won't be enlisting.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia from Rangel:

" Rangel has repeatedly called for the government to bring back the draft. According to Rangel, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way." "


First, let me say, I cannot vote for McCain or Obama, that goes without saying.

If Obama gets the majority of the votes with a smaller percentage to McCain, with very little third party votes, what do you expect the Republicans will think??  They'll think, "we need to move more to the left."  Now, if there is a substantial third party vote, enough for McCain to win had he garnered those voters, what do you think they would do?  They'd move more to the right to pick them up, and hopefully win in the future.

That's why I'm inclined to support Bob Barr.  Since I'm not a Libertarian, his purity isn't as important to me.  I feel he would pull many more Republicans toward him, reducing McCain's votes.  In the end, I expect Obama will win (if he doesn't blow it before November), but if Barr gets a lot of votes, the Republicans will ask themselves "where did our votes go," and I want them to know they went to a Libertarian.  Then, hopefully, they'll start changing their ways.


FF

----------


## syborius

voting for Ron Paul!

At least I will go to bed that night with a smile on my face.

No army can stop an idea who's time has come.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> It seems from the online struggle here that perhaps there needs to be a debate between Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.  I know both would much rather debate John McCain, but it might help solidify our votes and at the same time give them some debating experience.  Anyone have any ideas about how to make this happen?
> 
> In this thread, I saw some mention of the "Draft."  It is my understanding that Democrats are more likely to want a Draft than Republicans.  I had to register (with the Selective Service) when Jimmy Carter was in office.  And I recall not to long ago when Rep. Charlie Rangel (Democrat) was calling for a draft.
> 
> Here's a quote from Wikipedia from Rangel:
> 
> " Rangel has repeatedly called for the government to bring back the draft. According to Rangel, "There's no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm's way." "
> 
> 
> ...


I see where you're coming from. I would vote for Barr over Chuck because of the platform. Remember, it's more than just one man. The candidate is simply the vehicle for delivering the ideals of the platform. Sure, he's made mistakes and some people can't get over it, even though Paul said he could do well. I think he's changed. He's not running on a Barr platform, he's running on a Libertarian platform.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I wasn't comparing Obama to Paul.  What Ron Paul did (voting against the war that his party was pushing) obviously took more courage than what did (opposed the war while a state senator).  I was comparing Obama (opposed the war) to McCain (neocon warmonger).
> 
> On the economy, I don't expect anything out of either- though McCain's "I don't know much about economics" bit is hardly encouraging.
> 
> On civil liberties, they both voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization, but Obama tried  to amend it to make it less onerous (he failed).  McCain, I believe, went right along with the Republicans and pushed for reauthorization of the act.  
> 
> Another thing I didn't mention before.  I don't think McCain has a lot of character.  Yes, I know, he was a POW 40 years ago (its in all his ads), but since then, he has done some things I find personally disagreeable.  Little things like dumping his injured wife and 4 kids to marry a rich "trophy wife" half her age- that may not matter to some people, but to me, it says the guy is a scum bag.


I don't think you've looked at Obama's voting record. It's a lot of "I think."

It's probably better McCain doesn't know much about the economy. Do you think the president is supposed to control it? Let the people run the economy...the government is just supposed to give them a stable currency, which is clearly defined in our Constitution.

----------


## EastWindRain

> It seems from the online struggle here that perhaps there needs to be a debate between Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr.  I know both would much rather debate John McCain, but it might help solidify our votes and at the same time give them some debating experience.  Anyone have any ideas about how to make this happen?


That would be great to see a debate between Chuck Baldwin & Bob Barr.

----------


## newbitech

> So, you'd rather vote for a liberal Democrat than a conservative, liberty-minded candidate?  Umm... why were you supporting Ron Paul in the first place?


I support Ron Paul because he believes in peaceful revolution and revolution is what this country needs.

----------


## EastWindRain

> I see where you're coming from. I would vote for Barr over Chuck because of the platform. Remember, it's more than just one man. The candidate is simply the vehicle for delivering the ideals of the platform. Sure, he's made mistakes and some people can't get over it, even though Paul said he could do well. I think he's changed. *He's not running on a Barr platform, he's running on a Libertarian platform*.


Which is why I think he is a phony. You can't believe someone, if they are promoting ideas which they do not harbor.

----------


## Eleutheros

I really don't know what all the wahoo is all about.  

Frankly, I'm writing in Ron Paul purely on general principle.  Whether or not they count the vote is irrelevant to me.  Personally, it makes a statement that I will not surrender my vote to candidates whose views and issues run counter to my personal beliefs.  I refuse to turn my ballot into a lottery ticket or a racing form.

For those of you who are getting swayed by Ron Paul discouraging you to write him in are truly missing the point of the true nature and essence of the voting process.  You already know that the elections process is flawed; why compound the issue by compromising what you truly believe in for the sake of appeasing an already badly corrupted system?

I'm voting for Ron Paul.  Period, case closed, the end.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Who threw gay marriage into the political arena in the first place?  Everyone had their freedom to be with whoever they wanted, now it has become a political issue and not in the favor of gay folks.  States are now amending their constitutions to reflect "one man one woman" PER the VOTES of the people.  That is the way it should work.  Gay couples have the freedom to go to a gay church and have a ceremony, wear rings, live together and everything they want to do can actually be covered by contracts.  One CAN claim the other on tax if they provide more than 50% of their support.  There can be contracts made stating that if one is ill the partner IS allowed to visit in the hospital..there are living wills.  These seem to be the things that gays are concerned about.  They can purchase real estate together or open a bank account...just about anything anyone else can do.  I don't quite understand why they are so adament about "marriage" in the legal sense of the word.  Heck...it's just more dough for the divorce lawyers... TONES

----------


## nbhadja

> I wasn't comparing Obama to Paul.  What Ron Paul did (voting against the war that his party was pushing) obviously took more courage than what did (opposed the war while a state senator).  I was comparing Obama (opposed the war) to McCain (neocon warmonger).
> 
> On the economy, I don't expect anything out of either- though McCain's "I don't know much about economics" bit is hardly encouraging.
> 
> On civil liberties, they both voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization, but Obama tried  to amend it to make it less onerous (he failed).  McCain, I believe, went right along with the Republicans and pushed for reauthorization of the act.  
> 
> Another thing I didn't mention before.  I don't think McCain has a lot of character.  Yes, I know, he was a POW 40 years ago (its in all his ads), but since then, he has done some things I find personally disagreeable.  Little things like dumping his injured wife and 4 kids to marry a rich "trophy wife" half her age- that may not matter to some people, but to me, it says the guy is a scum bag.


So Obama opposes the Iraqi war by voting to fund it for over 300 billion dollars???????????

----------


## newbitech

> so ...you are going to follow the herd of young people who vote on trends?  Pitiful.  whatever..but the Obama forum is that way   <--------------------------->   TONES


nope not following the herd, just pacing it.  Obama becoming president is not going to send our country over a cliff like McCain would.  We aren't going to change anything this election, that much is clear.  If you can't understand how a Ron Paul supporter would consider voting for Obama, thats fine.  You might want to find out why Dr. Paul thinks he could have captured the youth vote away from Obama, and you might want to find out why people would have a hard time deciding on the two.

Sure they are polar opposites in every way, I get that.  But unless Dr. Paul throws his endorsement behind one of the other two alt candidates to McCain, you aren't going to easily be able to win over that vote, especially by sending people away because you don't understand.

----------


## libertarian4321

> I'm snotty, I'm stupid, I'm uneducated, etc. etc. Listen, buddy. I don't care how old you are or how smart you think you are.


You started off attacking me (based upon you're completely missing the point of my first post).

You showed that you have a major reading comprehension problem right from the beginning.  You completely misunderstood my post.  Then, rather than re-read my post as I suggested, you continued to rant based on your incorrect first reading -either that, or you re-read it and still failed to comprehend straight forward English.

Look, son, I have enough college degrees to know you're uneducated- even community colleges would expect you to have basic reading comprehension skills before they would admit you.  You so completely misinterpreted my first post that I can only assume you haven't completed high school.

The only other possibility is that you are drunk or using drugs- if that is the reason you can't comprehend, I withdraw my previous statement.

I'm sure you'll keep on ranting, and completely miss the point of my original post.  

I wish I could help you.  I've been volunteering with an adult (assuming you are an adult) literacy group for years, and I've helped a lot of people.  If I could, I'd take the time to teach you better reading skills, but I'm afraid I can't do that online.

Don't despair, though, the world will always need garbage men...

----------


## pahs1994

Barr and Baldwin need to work some issues out and run a Barr/Baldwin ticket. 
I put Barr first because the LP has been around longer.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

That makes no sense.  If you vote for obama...you will get status quo.  You must be voting for him because you like to be associated with a "winner".  Ron Paul was trendy...now Obama is trendy.  It seems to be a popularity contest with you kids...like voting for the quarterback for prom king and the head cheerleader for prom queen.  This is much more important than following the crowd.  TONES

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Too bad that Barr/ Baldwin thing couldn't have happened.  TONES

----------


## libertarian4321

> So Obama opposes the Iraqi war by voting to fund it for over 300 billion dollars???????????


Okay, follow me on this.

BOTH McCain and Obama (and almost everyone else) voted to fund the soldiers AFTER the war was underway.  

When the issue of STARTING THE WAR was in question, though, Obama opposed the war, and McCain endorsed it.

As a candidate, McCain has essentially called for neverending war in Iraq and seems gung ho about starting a war in Iran to boot.  Obama has said he would have most troops out in 18-months.

If you think thats "the same" then there's nothing more for us to discuss, is there?

----------


## pahs1994

> nope not following the herd, just pacing it.  Obama becoming president is not going to send our country over a cliff like McCain would.


With one our country dies from WWIII. With the other it will be the huge economic collapse, Or possibly a combination of the two.  
I will be Voting 3rd party.

----------


## nbhadja

> Okay, follow me on this.
> 
> BOTH McCain and Obama (and almost everyone else) voted to fund the soldiers AFTER the war was underway.  
> 
> When the issue of STARTING THE WAR was in question, though, Obama opposed the war, and McCain endorsed it.
> 
> As a candidate, McCain has essentially called for neverending war in Iraq and seems gung ho about starting a war in Iran to boot.  Obama has said he would have most troops out in 18-months.
> 
> If you think thats "the same" then there's nothing more for us to discuss, is there?


Obama voted to fund the war MULTIPLE TIMES INCLUDING AFTER IT STARTED!
Obama will also not guarantee a pull out by 2013.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Barr and Baldwin need to work some issues out and run a Barr/Baldwin ticket. 
> I put Barr first because the LP has been around longer.


Last night, around 7:45 PM EST, I briefly saw something on the "trailer" on MSNBC saying something about Ron Paul joining Barr on the LP ticket.   I saw it once, then it never showed up again.  I assume it was an error.

Did anyone else see it, or know anything about it?

----------


## nbhadja

Obama also will not guarantee a Iraqi troop pullout until at least 2013. http://action.richardsonforpresident...3/obamarecord/


Obama's comments represent a direct response to attacks launched by aides to Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, who have pointed out that despite Obama's antiwar rhetoric, *he has voted along with Clinton for some $300 billion in war funding since entering the Senate in 2005.*

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar..._iraq_funding/


The war started in 2003.

----------


## EastWindRain

It doesn't matter whether or not Obama or McCain get the Presidency. America gets screwed just the same. You people should not get hung up on this. What matters is how many votes the third party system can get. This way next time around the people will have more faith in the 3rd party system, if they can see that it made huge gains in the 08 election. Then they will start to take 3rd parties seriously.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Obama voted to fund the war MULTIPLE TIMES INCLUDING AFTER IT STARTED!
> Obama will also not guarantee a pull out by 2013.


Well, yeah, he voted to fund it after it started.  Not much need to fund a war that isn't being fought yet, lol.

Again, if you think a guy like McCain, who gleefully votes for to start the war, wants to continue the war indefinitely, and seems bent on pushing for yet another war, is "the same" as a guy who opposes starting the war, but agrees to fund the troops after they are already in battle, there really isn't much chance we can have a rational discussion.

----------


## newbitech

> That makes no sense.  If you vote for obama...you will get status quo.  You must be voting for him because you like to be associated with a "winner".  Ron Paul was trendy...now Obama is trendy.  It seems to be a popularity contest with you kids...like voting for the quarterback for prom king and the head cheerleader for prom queen.  This is much more important than following the crowd.  TONES


why don't you go back and read all my comments in this thread?  I made it clear what my decision making process is.  I am sorry that it makes no sense to you why people do the things they do.  I tried to explain, but you would rather guess based on your own understanding and not have an open mind and share in constructive thought process and decision making. 

We get the status quo until the CPL starts bearing fruit.  This means we need people running on Ron Paul's platform which is Republican, not 3rd party and not useless write-ins.  You can call me kid when you freeze time for about 30 years.  

And one more thing, some good advise that might not be totally relevant but good advise non the less.

I was once told long ago by an ex girlfriends father two things that I carry with me to this day.

1.) Every once in a while its good to step outside and spell the air.  
2.) If you want to change the system, you have to become a part of the system and change it from the inside out.

----------


## libertarian4321

> Ron Paul was trendy


If only that were true, we might be happily heading to St. Paul to nominate the first decent Republican nominee in decades- Dr. RON PAUL!

----------


## sidster

> I don't care.  I'm writing in Ron Paul, that will be the ONLY contest I vote in, and this will be the last time I EVER vote.
> 
> Only registered so I would have this one opportunity to vote for the man, and that's what I mean to do.


Same here. I will be writing in "RON PAUL".  It is my vote. There isn't
any other person who is running who has inspired me so.

----------


## nbhadja

> Well, yeah, he voted to fund it after it started.  Not much need to fund a war that isn't being fought yet, lol.
> 
> Again, if you think a guy like McCain, who gleefully votes for to start the war, wants to continue the war indefinitely, and seems bent on pushing for yet another war, is "the same" as a guy who opposes starting the war, but agrees to fund the troops after they are already in battle, there really isn't much chance we can have a rational discussion.


I hate McCain, he is just as bad as Obama.

And what are you talking about??

IF YOU OPPOSE A WAR YOU DO NOT VOTE TO FUND IT FOR 300 BILLION DOLLARS while your country is 9 trillion dollars in debt!!! That seems like a top priority for Obama. 

The only difference between Obama and McCain is that McCain admitted he was supporting the war while Obama lied and said he was not while he actually was supporting it by voting to fund it for 300 billion dollars.


You think Obama does not want to invade Iran or Pakistan????

----------


## anaconda

If you vote for Obama or McCain then you have wasted your time campaigning for Ron Paul. 

Your vote must go to someone else. Vote Libertarian, Constitution. The Republicans will be pissed off and ready to start changing their platform for 2010 when they see the Paul vote going elsewhere. and when they see the Paul Revolution growing in leaps and bounds by 2010.

Don't sell out your vote to this corrupt and laughable false choice.

----------


## SLSteven

I urge people to not be lured into the Obama versus McCain frenzy that everyone will be pushing.  We need to stand out from the crowd and support liberty.

----------


## newbitech

> It doesn't matter whether or not Obama or McCain get the Presidency. America gets screwed just the same. You people should not get hung up on this. What matters is how many votes the third party system can get. This way next time around the people will have more faith in the 3rd party system, if they can see that it made huge gains in the 08 election. Then they will start to take 3rd parties seriously.


the problem I have with that is it goes against what Ron Paul was trying to accomplish.  Ron Paul did not advocate 3rd parties because the don't work.  He was and is trying to restore the republic through old school Republican values.  If we had a functional republican party in 2010, we could start picking up political power immediately (relatively) rather than waiting another 20 years to start have success with the 3rd party factions.  If we bring people back to a true Republican form of government by 2010, the various 3rd party factions will have to unite and continue convincing traditional voters to look at the issues and choose a weaker organization to run the country and make the laws. 

Especially if Obama's first 2 years show some turn around like I suspect it will.  Then we will be arguing against him from no less than 3 THREE platforms.  Libs, Repubs, and Constitutionals.  Thats not going to work, we will need a united front to defeat the elites in 2010.

----------


## anaconda

Third parties will work if they are big enough. The Revolution stands to become formidable in size. My concern about trying to take over the Republican Party is that it is rampant with corruption and the rank and file are sheeple who don't understand the Constitution or the intent of the Founders. To make matters worse, rank and file Republicans never question their party elite. They blindly condone everything their administration does. These are not the kind of people that make good activists. 

Let them come to us. They will NEVER win another election without our vote if the Revolution gets just a wee bit bigger, and this is inevitable if we don't give up the fight.

More and more Democrats will defect to the Revolution, too. Especially when they experience the horrific disillusionment that is inevitable with an Obama administration. After about 18 months people who voted for him will be going..."I've made a terrible mistake..."

And McCain is so pathetic that it doesn't even deserve comment.

I say we wait until RP tells us to vote Republican, through the CFL. You know, it can be an election by election decision. As in, who will the CFL endorse?!! Won't that be cool. Dems and Reps will be freedom-izing their platforms so they can get our endorsement. This is another reason why it's important for the Revolution to try to consolidate our vote. I would actually prefer that RP endorse someone and then we all vote accordingly.

----------


## libertarian4321

> You think Obama does not want to invade Iran or Pakistan????


Correct.  I don't think every politician is a warmonger- just those who seem to gleefully clamor for war (e.g. Bush and McCain).

----------


## EastWindRain

This reminds me of the song played in the first two minutes of the film called "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" available on Google Video. The words are as follows. (I don't know who the author is or the name of the song)



Bankers whispered to Politicians "Socialism will make you rich".
60 years behind the throttle, the new world was right on track.
The United Nations army, will enforce their Global Plan.
Rosenfeld to Clinton, their traitors every man.

Congress sold out the country, our treasury is broke.
You can't redeem America with Federal Reserve Notes.
*The ballot box quite working,* the Cartridge Box is Freedom's key.
It all over about the fighting, the fat lady is about to sing.

They stole our silver, they stole our gold.
They took our steel, they took our coal.
They stripped our trees and robbed the road
And sold our jobs to Mexico. 

Congress sold out the country, our treasury is broke.
You can't redeem America with Federal Reserve Notes.
The ballot box quite working, the Cartridge Box is Freedom's key.
It all over about the fighting, the fat lady is about to sing.

You can call me a right wing wacko, I read the writings on the wall
I also read the bible, God's saddle is about to fall. (They sold out!)

The ballot box quite working, the fat lady is about to sing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92072459&hl=en

----------


## acptulsa

> Totally right.  I remember how Bush was elected on the "no nation building" thing.  Man, that really tied his hands.
> 
> You go show these people.  You'll make a huge statement by voting for Obama.


Don't know whether to laugh or cry.  Maybe I'll just quote for truth.

----------


## Alex Libman

I agree, writing in a candidate is pointless, especially one who isn't even running.  I've supported Mary Ruwart for LP nomination as an idealist protest vote, and now I'm supporting Bob Barr.  He's the most (small-l) libertarian candidate on the ticket.  If someone even more libertarian would run (at least in my state, since there's no time to mount a nation-wide campaign from scratch), I'd support that person instead.  Baldwin is far, FAR too theocratic for me. 

So...  Bob Barr FTW!

----------


## Kade

> *The point is, McCain and Obama are owned by the same people.*  Voting for either one of them is keeping yourself in the trap.  They will both take this country to the same destination.


What are you talking about?! Please, I'm begging you folks, stop the insanity.

----------


## TruckinMike

Stand back here comes another swing...




> I should throw my support behind the complete opposite of what is in power now. That means I vote for Obama.


How do you say  "thats the most ridiculous quote I've ever seen on this forum" -- without offending the person that said it? I'm trying to be polite.

PS:* DirkNB is right!!*

and kade, I agree, 


> Please... stop the insanity.


TMike

----------


## Kade

> Stand back here comes another swing...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you say  "thats the most ridiculous quote I've ever seen on this forum" -- without offending the person that said it? I'm trying to be polite.
> 
> PS:* DirkNB is right!!*
> 
> and kade, I agree, 
> ...


Trash.

----------


## acptulsa

> What are you talking about?! Please, I'm begging you folks, stop the insanity.


Do you really think that you have more influence with either of them than the K Street lobbyists?  Or do you just dislike the metaphor?

----------


## Kade

> Do you really think that you have more influence with either of them than the K Street lobbyists?  Or do you just dislike the metaphor?


In January, we will have a new president. It will be one of two people. I know what McCain stands for, and to be perfectly honest, even if I am against welfare programs and socialist programs, it is much better than spending money to bail out corporations, expand the executive branch, a continuation of the loss of civil liberties, a continued promotion of a police state, more insane judges, and to continue a cluster$#@! of a war in which trillions of dollars have been spent, (dwarfing magnanimously any "social program" I can think of...)

----------


## acptulsa

> In January, we will have a new president. It will be one of two people. I know what McCain stands for, and to be perfectly honest, even if I am against welfare programs and socialist programs, it is much better than spending money to bail out corporations, expand the executive branch, a continuation of the loss of civil liberties, a continued promotion of a police state, more insane judges, and to continue a cluster$#@! of a war in which trillions of dollars have been spent, (dwarfing magnanimously any "social program" I can think of...)


I'm sorry, I must be dense this morning.  Was the answer to my question in here somewhere?

----------


## Kade

> Do you really think that you have more influence with either of them than the K Street lobbyists?  Or do you just dislike the metaphor?


I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.

----------


## Kade

> I'm sorry, I must be dense this morning.  Was the answer to my question in here somewhere?


And if you are getting your news from the clowns at the Hill, you should probably expand your horizon. Obama doesn't take money from any of the lobbyist, and the ones he gets advice from are mostly the lawyers guild, which I have no problem with personally.

----------


## jmdrake

Here's the deal. Look at alternatives and see who matches your core principles the best. I know, I know "Ron Paul". But he's not running so look again. The plus for Chuck Baldwin is that he doesn't have the baggage of having once supported the Iraq war, the drug war or the Patriot act and that he appeals to conservative Christians. The drawback is that he has no experience in government (maybe that's a plus?) and he puts off some non religious libertarian types. The plus for Bob Barr is that he has experience and he did come out against the war in Iraq, the drug war and the Patriot act when those things were still popular. (Unlike some of the dems who had to wait until the opinion polls shifted to complain.) The drawbacks are he supported those things once (although he did at least push for the sunset of the Patriot act) and the libertarian party itself puts off some conservative Christians. While I personally like Cynthia McKinney for having more guts than almost anyone in congress on standing up the to Bush administration with clear articulate arguments, she's definitely big government and not a good fit for most RP supporters.

Really, in some ways the presidential race is irrelevant. No matter who wins it's unlikely to be a pro liberty candidate. We have better shots in congressional races and I hope the bulk of our resources go there. But we can win an important symbolic victory. Someone mentioned in one blog comment about not voting to keep the turnout "low". But what kind of message does that send? That we simply aren't "thrilled" with John McCain? There are a LOT of republicans who aren't thrilled with McCain who do NOT share RP's values! The pundits could spin low turnout as simply "Christian conservatives aren't happy with McCain's stand on social issues" or "Many republicans are voting for Obama". A vote for Barr or Baldwin sends a stronger message. It gives a head count of conservatives who are against this stupid war. Our message will not get out from staying home. It likely wouldn't have gotten out from a write in campaign either. But if on election night Barr and Baldwin get a combined 10 percent that WILL receive a lot of coverage especially that amount is more than the margin of victory. That would send a much stronger message than any march or rally could ever do.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.


I want your rose colored glasses.  Do they come in a baggie?

I suppose you feel the same way about the Clintons.  Come on down to this neck of the woods some time--preferably to Arkansas--and find out what they got up to before they exploded on the national scene.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What are you talking about?! Please, I'm begging you folks, stop the insanity.


Read _Tragedy and Hope_ by Carroll Quigley.  Quigley was Bill Clinton's long-time mentor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley

He talks all about the Republican and Democratic parties being controlled at the top, by the same group of people.  They just switch off parties when we get mad at the other.  Giving us the belief that something is going to change.  Of course, it doesn't.

----------


## Kade

> I want your rose colored glasses.  Do they come in a baggie?


Could you try not insulting me? You're not going to run into as many people in your life like me, who is more open and willing to understand where you are coming from, and you seem to want to close that door by being a prick.

I'm here because I don't disagree with the RP movement. Do you understand that?

That I have to battle nonsense daily, in the protection of what I deem liberty, should be a point of acceptance and understanding, not a linchpin for mockery and flames. 

You can say "You don't get it" and I can respond all day the same... I think we do both get it, and in the end, I've made my decision, in mine, and in liberties best interest, to not elect another Republican Neo-Con to office.

----------


## acptulsa

> Here's the deal. Look at alternatives and see who matches your core principles the best. I know, I know "Ron Paul". But he's not running so look again.


We really, really need to not let them split our vote.  We can convince people that third parties/independents are viable, and we can probably do it _this year,_ but *not* if we split our vote.

We can't perform a pincers movement.  It won't be effective.  We have to pick one and rally.  We must demonstrate our numbers.  And you can accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat if you must, but we must also monitor the November election.

It has become a game of numbers.  We must demonstrate that we can break this benchmark, that benchmark, and the "I don't want to throw my vote away" crowd will be drawn by the gravity of the greater and growing mass.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.


K street is irrelevant.  Obama is influenced by Bilderberg, the CFR, the Trilatteral commission and AIPAC.

http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel...r-aipac-speech
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsSt...d=47760&cat=14

Obama supports universal healthcare which will bankrupt the last profitable sector of the economy.

Obama supports Al Gore's greenhouse scaremongering agenda which will bankrupt the entire nation in one fell swoop.

Obama wants to pretend the NAU doesn't exist while actually PRAISING the NAFTA superhighway all while claiming to be "kinda sorta" against NAFTA.

Obama links Iraq needs to be "stabilized" before we can withdraw.  (That's the Bush/McCain position).

Obama supports illegal immigrant amnesty.

While I do NOT want a John McCain presidency Obama will beat him by a landslide without the 1 million votes Ron Paul got in the primary.  If the only news on election night is how much Obama beat McCain by the liberty agenda will not have been helped and worse it may be seen as a "mandate" for change will have trouble sleeping with.  On the other hand if there is a strong libertarian party / constitutionalist party showing it puts BOTH "major" parties on notice and will stand as a springboard for other efforts.  Look at what happened with Ross Perot.  As much as people like to laugh at him, the reform party DID eventually get a governorship out of its efforts.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## LibertyEagle

Kade,

You're right.  You shouldn't be mocked.  I personally think it's wonderful that you're over here.  

To get a really good understanding of what this whole movement is REALLY all about, it would probably be best to read some of the books that Ron Paul recommended.  That would give you a clearer picture.  You have that list, right?

----------


## nbhadja

> And if you are getting your news from the clowns at the Hill, you should probably expand your horizon. Obama doesn't take money from any of the lobbyist, and the ones he gets advice from are mostly the lawyers guild, which I have no problem with personally.


*In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records.
*http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...d_obamas_rise/


You wanna talk more facts?

----------


## SnappleLlama

> I suppose you feel the same way about the Clintons.  Come on down to this neck of the woods some time--preferably to Arkansas--and find out what they got up to before they exploded on the national scene.


LOL...I actually spent a significant portion of my childhood in Arkansas, and I can still remember the antics of the Clintons when Bill was Governor.  Granted, I was just in elementary school at the time, but it's hard to forget stories about Bill's numerous "lady friends" and him ducking out of restaurants because Hillary was on the way...

----------


## Kade

> Read _Tragedy and Hope_ by Carroll Quigley.  Quigley was Bill Clinton's long-time mentor.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
> 
> He talks all about the Republican and Democratic parties being controlled at the top, by the same group of people.  They just switch off parties when we get mad at the other.  Giving us the belief that something is going to change.  Of course, it doesn't.


I read _Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time_, and much of it contained the same information that several of my favorite authors have spoken and written about through the last 50 years, including Russell and Phillips. 

He makes excellent points about religion and sexuality, (The role of Christianity) which is something both Russell and Phillips discuss openly, but Professor Quigley also is a closet "socialist" by this movements generalizations.

He believes strongly in centralized "compassion" and intellectual progression. I also believe that the controlling interests in many of the parties have been notably the same money supplies. 

His term, "Inclusive Diversity" is remarkably similar to the style of implied pluralism championed by Dr. Allan Lichtman. 

I also believe one of the BIGGEST CHAMPIONS of liberty, is actually one of these money lenders, a person who spends his own personal wealth to promote the ideals of Karl Popper, someone who, because of this role, is so wildly misunderstood, that even the mention of his name would probably get me banned....

I would like to see if anyone knows who I am talking about....

----------


## acptulsa

> You can say "You don't get it" and I can respond all day the same... I think we do both get it, and in the end, I've made my decision, in mine, and in liberties best interest, to not elect another Republican Neo-Con to office.


The last part I do get.  However, to say that Obama is a liberty-minded man of the people with _no contact with lobbyists_ and no contact with the CFR (even though his wife is a member) is pushing the argument a bit past credulity.

And, no, I have no faith in his ability or willingness to do significantly better than the G.O.P.  Look at how many times he's pushed back his troop withdrawal date.  I'm not flaming you because I'm mad at you.  I'm sick of the soft soap.  Been listening to it for forty-five years and haven't detected a truthful statement yet.  We can and must do better than play the ball in their ping pong game--

What, mad at us?  Go over there!

What, mad at us now?  Go back over there!  We'll be here when you get mad at them again!

How many decades must we endure this mularky before we wise up?  Why are we hollering about revolution?  Because the powers that be suck.  We won't fix that by playing the misdirection game they dreamed up for us.  Nor will we fix it by focusing on our divisions rather than the strength we can have when unified.

It's about power, people.  Do we want the people to have it?

----------


## Kade

> *In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records.
> *http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...d_obamas_rise/
> 
> 
> You wanna talk more facts?


_
Obama did in fact raise $1.2 million from PACs for his 2004 U.S. Senate race.  Obama did not pledge to refuse money from lobbyists or PACs during his previous campaigns._

Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?

----------


## Aratus

gotta agree with Kade...  for mcCain is topheavy with lobbyists and now has karl rove on his team...

gotta agree sorta SteveMartin... if all the 3rd parties come together and have a tacit agreement, we might 

get interesting debates... the idea of an idealistic summit throwing a gauntlet down to the big two!!!

----------


## jmdrake

> We really, really need to not let them split our vote.  We can convince people that third parties/independents are viable, and we can probably do it _this year,_ but *not* if we split our vote.


No.  You don't get it.  Whether the vote is "split" or not is irrelevant.  Neither Bob Barr nor Chuck Baldwin has a snowballs chance in hell of actually WINNING!  The only think that's important *is the combined total of the votes from BOTH candidates!*  And the vote will be "split" regardless based on the reasons I already gave.  Some simply are NOT going to vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.  And a write in Paul campaign simply isn't viable.  Look at it this way.  Would you rather have an 7 percent vote for Barr or a clear 10 percent vote for people who picked a pro liberty candidate?  The 10 percent has the larger impact.  The last thing we need is for RP supporters to say "I can't vote for Barr" or "I can't vote for Baldwin" and choosing to "strategically vote" for Obama or McCain or deciding to "not vote".




> We can't perform a pincers movement.  It won't be effective.  We have to pick one and rally.  We must demonstrate our numbers.  And you can accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat if you must, but we must also monitor the November election.


If you've been paying attention to the infighting over Barr and Baldwin you should know that "picking one and rallying" simply will NOT happen.  Not unless Ron Paul decides to formally endorse one.  And even in that case there's no guarantee that everyone will go along.  Again consider Ross Perot.  The death of the Reform Party came when he chose to pick Pat Buchanan and Jesse Ventura balked at the idea.

No, the only way forward is to stop the "cat herding" and make it clear that people should support which ever candidate THEY like best but PLEASE stick to principles.  (IMO that rules out Obama, McCain and others).  

Also as someone who questions 9/11 I wouldn't dream of calling you a "tin foil hatter".  But I don't think that election fraud will be needed to keep a liberty minded candidate from winning this year.  The odds are simply too high against that.  Oh there may be election fraud favoring McCain over Obama or Obama over McCain.  A liberty candidate might even benefit as Pat Buchanan did in 2000 when votes that should have gone to Al Gore in Florida where shifted to him.  (Pat Buchanan even acknowledged on national TV that there was no way that many people legitimately voted for him in that precinct.)  But in the end no third party candidate will come close enough to actually winning.  But we can get our combined numbers up high enough to be noticed IF we avoid cat herding.




> It has become a game of numbers.  We must demonstrate that we can break this benchmark, that benchmark, and the "I don't want to throw my vote away" crowd will be drawn by the gravity of the greater and growing mass.


The only way to break that benchmark is if people feel they can vote their conscience.  If people think that HAVE to vote for Barr some either won't vote or will choose McCain or Obama.  Same if people think that HAVE to vote for Baldwin.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## acptulsa

> Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?


Ummm...   Because you didn't google those few words before making a flat statement that was, at best, "misleading"?

----------


## nbhadja

> _
> Obama did in fact raise $1.2 million from PACs for his 2004 U.S. Senate race.  Obama did not pledge to refuse money from lobbyists or PACs during his previous campaigns._
> 
> Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?


So you really think Obama takes no money from lobbyists??
Go look at his campaign records, it alone will prove you wrong.

I have that tone because I can never understand why Ron Paul supporters could think that Obama is actually good. He is the same as McCain. He is for amnesty, for policing the world, for the federal reserve.

----------


## Kade

> Kade,
> 
> You're right.  You shouldn't be mocked.  I personally think it's wonderful that you're over here.  
> 
> To get a really good understanding of what this whole movement is REALLY all about, it would probably be best to read some of the books that Ron Paul recommended.  That would give you a clearer picture.  You have that list, right?


I do have that list. 

Right now, I'm reading:

Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto
Popper's Open Society and It's Enemies part II
Dimitrakos' A Vision of Liberty
and I just finished Nabokov's Speak, Memory: A Memoir

I sent Ron Paul a reading list. 

He didn't get back to me.

----------


## Kade

> So you really think Obama takes no money from lobbyists??
> Go look at his campaign records, it alone will prove you wrong.
> 
> I have that tone because I can never understand why Ron Paul supporters could think that Obama is actually good. He is the same as McCain. He is for amnesty, for policing the world, for the federal reserve.


I see his campaign records. Can you show me where, since he has declared for President, he has taken money from lobbyist?


I would like to see for myself.

----------


## Kade

> Ummm...   Because you didn't google those few words before making a flat statement that was, at best, "misleading"?


You missed the point...

----------


## Aratus

not that i want to totally set off or encourage our own SteveMartin, yet he did have the idea of 
a Patriot Summit amoungst the third parties whereby by rational self interest if not game theory... 
we have a way for getting around the traditional idoelogical isolation that is the nomrative norm 
for our current-day political discourse! if there is a tacit agreement to have a string of "favorite" sons, 
he said... whereupon we treat the electoral college like one vast 1800s era political convention... 
we then tacitly cigar chomp and ahead of time agree to consolidate the delegate pools... from
the delegates state by state that are very hard~won from the two mainstream  parties... the gist!!!!

----------


## acptulsa

> No.  You don't get it.  Whether the vote is "split" or not is irrelevant.  Neither Bob Barr nor Chuck Baldwin has a snowballs chance in hell of actually WINNING!  The only think that's important *is the combined total of the votes from BOTH candidates!*  And the vote will be "split" regardless based on the reasons I already gave.  Some simply are NOT going to vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin.  And a write in Paul campaign simply isn't viable.  Look at it this way.  Would you rather have an 7 percent vote for Barr or a clear 10 percent vote for people who picked a pro liberty candidate?


I get it.  I hope everyone does.  My point is that we can't expect the American public to do the math.

Add them together and see what you get.  Well, firstly the public hates doing math.  Secondly they want to be spoon fed.  Thirdly, we don't pose a weight--a movement headed for critical mass--if we can't even get together on our votes.  Say what you want about the unseemliness of the G.O.P. people in "lockstep", it _works._

If we're to get people to stop the business as usual and join us, we have to be worth joining, we have to have some numbers and momentum to convince them we aren't just tilting windmills, we have to appear to be _effective._

I don't think all of that can survive us splitting our vote.  Since it looks like we're going to, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.  But I feel committed to trying to unify this herd of cats behind one.

I don't like either the Baptist preacher or the reformed neocon.  Neither one.  I'll vote for whichever we can actually decide on.

----------


## Aratus

this winter, obama at one point had 10 lobbyists to mccain's 60... as hillary had about 20 or so...

----------


## opal

hi
Another Floridian here.  On the ballot or not.. I'm voting for Ron Paul... period.
I have heard in another forum that if I get an absentee ballot, the chances of a write in being counted are much higher.  I will be requesting an absentee ballot right after the convention.

----------


## pacelli

> You know, it can be an election by election decision. As in, who will the CFL endorse?!! Won't that be cool.


Indeed. This election will either keep people's interest in the CFL or turn people away from it.  The whole point of it is to serve as a long-term campaign to oppose unconstitutional legislation and promote constitutionally-minded candidates. I see a serious problem if the CFL doesn't push a presidential candidate for the general election this year.

----------


## SnappleLlama

> Indeed. This election will either keep people's interest in the CFL or turn people away from it.  The whole point of it is to serve as a long-term campaign to oppose unconstitutional legislation and promote constitutionally-minded candidates. I see a serious problem if the CFL doesn't push a presidential candidate for the general election this year.


I don't think they're going to.  Since Ron Paul is heading the CFL (at least in spirit, if nothing else), he's not going to tell us to do anything.  He hasn't endorsed anyone, and I'm not sure that he will.  He wants US to decide for ourselves who we're going to vote for.  

Then again, this election year has been nothing but surprises, so we'll see what happens!

----------


## pacelli

> I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.


Obama is influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski:




> Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The former national security adviser announced on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital With Al Hunt" that he is supporting the junior senator from Illinois for president.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082402127.html




> Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the People's Republic of China (and the severing of ties with the Republic of China), the signing of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II), the brokering of the Camp David Accords, the transition of Iran to an anti-Western Islamic state, encouraging reform in Eastern Europe, emphasizing human rights in U.S. foreign policy, the arming of the mujaheddin in Afghanistan[2] to fight against the Soviet-friendly Afghan government and later to counter the Soviet invasion, and the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties relinquishing U.S. control of the Panama Canal after 1999.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

----------


## Aratus

ron paul is into an esoteric democracy of the soul...

----------


## IRO-bot

> All News and both parties.
> 
> War is Peace.
> Freedom is slavery.
> Ignorance is strength.


There i fixed your quote.  It was a little incorrect.

----------


## newbitech

> The last part I do get.  However, to say that Obama is a liberty-minded man of the people with _no contact with lobbyists_ and no contact with the CFR (even though his wife is a member) is pushing the argument a bit past credulity.
> 
> And, no, I have no faith in his ability or willingness to do significantly better than the G.O.P.  Look at how many times he's pushed back his troop withdrawal date.  I'm not flaming you because I'm mad at you.  I'm sick of the soft soap.  Been listening to it for forty-five years and haven't detected a truthful statement yet.  We can and must do better than play the ball in their ping pong game--
> 
> What, mad at us?  Go over there!
> 
> What, mad at us now?  Go back over there!  We'll be here when you get mad at them again!
> 
> How many decades must we endure this mularky before we wise up?  Why are we hollering about revolution?  Because the powers that be suck.  We won't fix that by playing the misdirection game they dreamed up for us.  Nor will we fix it by focusing on our divisions rather than the strength we can have when unified.
> ...


I know you don't agree with my logic in this one and you possibly hate me for it, but  I like what you said about the ping pong game.   I think we both agree that the ball is going to the Dems this year.  Right now it does look like a landslide for Obama, but you know as well as I what the GOP is capable of.  

That being said, what kinds of things do YOU think need to happen or not happen between now and 2010 to make that ping pong ball come back to the Repubs who will hopefully have a slate of Ron Paul Repubs courtesy of the CFL waiting to make serious inroads on congress and the senate?

Since I do respect your opinion despite our differences, I would also like you to answer this question, Do You think that CFL ought to endorse candidates from all parties or should CFL stick to the  agenda of Ron Paul's Revolution campaign and encourage people to run on the repub ticket?

----------


## acptulsa

> Since I do respect your opinion despite our differences, I would also like you to answer this question, Do You think that CFL ought to endorse candidates from all parties or should CFL stick to the  agenda of Ron Paul's Revolution campaign and encourage people to run on the repub ticket?


Well, I was independent my whole voting life until this year.  So, what works for me won't work for the majority.  That said, I don't personally give a damn about party labels or affiliations.  An honest politician is hard enough to find without that.

I think we need to grow that ping pong net up to the ceiling, catch the voters on the bounce, and say, "Are you o.k.?  Have you had enough yet?"  Metaphorically speaking.  How exactly to do that in practice?  Finish what we started this year!

And I think an important part of this is to consolidate and post really, really good numbers for one freedom-loving candidate for POTUS.  Maybe I'm wrong.  But I don't think it could hurt.

I think splitting our vote and losing this opportunity to prove that we can be effective would be a far, far, _far_ bigger tragedy than having either the somewhat theistic CP score a win or giving a neocon who claims to be reformed a chance to prove us to be suckers...  We may not like that we're having to choose from the "lesser of evils" like everyone else, but our _most_ evil choice is still less evil than the lesser of _their_ evils!  Right?

----------


## spacehabitats

Like I said before:




> What is a wasted vote? I have been voting in elections for almost 40 years. I have often voted for the loser in the race. I have rarely voted for the winner. But the only times I have ever wasted my vote were when I voted for the candidate who eventually won. Usually I had convinced myself that I was helping to defeat an even worse candidate, but I see now the fallacy in that strategy. In the end I helped to perpetuate the myth that the policies of the status quo were popular. I helped to deceive myself and my fellow Americans that we still lived in a republic based on our right to vote. I could never understand why good, honest men were constantly being weeded out of politics while corrupt, stupid, and greedy politicians flourished. By the time of the actual election, the Republican or Democratic candidate invariably had one or more fatal flaws which rendered them unacceptable. And yet I continued to participate in the sham elections and watched in helpless frustration as my country disintegrated around me.
> 
>   My fellow Americans, I beg of you, please have the courage and wisdom to waste your vote. Only when we risk that can we ever restore our republic. We will ALWAYS be given a choice between two evils. It is a rare and precious opportunity to be able to vote FOR a true patriot. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate I have ever had the opportunity to vote for who is truly worthy of that high office. Hopefully, now that the patriots of America have awakened again we will continue to have such opportunities in the future. But I have vowed never again to knowingly waste my vote on the lesser of two evils.

----------


## Kade

> Obama is influenced by Zbigniew Brzezinski:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082402127.html
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski


Dropping Brzezinski's name doesn't have the desired effect you might wish. I am not entirely convinced of his status as "super evil". So much is taken for advantage on these forums... so much. Time to stop the conspiracy train.

----------


## acptulsa

Thank you for repeating yourself, space.  Worth repeating.

"But I have vowed never again to knowingly waste my vote on the lesser of two evils."

Truth.  On the other hand, we are being tempted to destroy our strength by splitting our vote.  I say even if we look at both Baldwin and Barr and _pick the wrong one to rally around we'll still be voting for a candidate superior to either of the two party candidates!_  Furthermore, the odds that we'll win are low enough that posting twenty percent and losing could be the best thing.  "Look, we damn near got B*** up to a third, and if you'd have joined us we would have won and wouldn't have these problems!"  The grass is always greener--and we need to take advantage of that fact.

But in order for people to remember we're viable in 2012 we need to post a good number this year.  And, no, the typical American can't be expected to remember, "Let's see, Barr and Baldwin--same thing only different--add their numbers together to see what kind of strength the movement has--hmmm..."

We need to knock them over.  Right upside the head.

----------


## pacelli

> Dropping Brzezinski's name doesn't have the desired effect you might wish. I am not entirely convinced of his status as "super evil". So much is taken for advantage on these forums... so much. Time to stop the conspiracy train.


Nowhere did I state my desired effect, nor did I term Brzezinski "super evil".  It is clear that you wish to continue assumptions, therefore, I have better things to do with my time.  Vote Obama if you wish, your vote counts as much as mine.

----------


## Kade

> Nowhere did I state my desired effect, nor did I term Brzezinski "super evil".  It is clear that you wish to continue assumptions, therefore, I have better things to do with my time.  Vote Obama if you wish, your vote counts as much as mine.


But my organization counts a good 45,000x more. 

Regardless, it's obvious you wouldn't have dropped his name if you didn't mean for it to say something.

Why didn't you just drop Obama's name, and then blame him for being a Tom Cruise supporter?

----------


## PaulineDisciple

If Ron Paul isn't on a ticket, you're better off staying at home and reading or re-reading Ron Paul's The Revolution: A Manifesto. I will probably just vote for Chuck Baldwin just to see how he does compared to Ron Paul's 1988 Liberterian bid.

I don't know how I can emphasize this more, we need to think long term, educate yourself and others, run for office, support like minded candidates... repeat ad infinitum.

For my part, I am homeschooling my children to be the next leaders of our country, staying involved in my local political organizations and I am considering running for some office. I suggest that everyone do something similar if you want to do batter next time around.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Okay, follow me on this.
> 
> BOTH McCain and Obama (and almost everyone else) voted to fund the soldiers AFTER the war was underway.  
> 
> When the issue of STARTING THE WAR was in question, though, Obama opposed the war, and McCain endorsed it.
> 
> As a candidate, McCain has essentially called for neverending war in Iraq and seems gung ho about starting a war in Iran to boot.  Obama has said he would have most troops out in 18-months.
> 
> If you think thats "the same" then there's nothing more for us to discuss, is there?


Obama can say anything he wants, but his voting record shows the exact opposite. I can tell you I'm filthy rich and the CEO of a fortune 500 company but it doesn't make it so.

----------


## Kade

> Obama can say anything he wants, but his voting record shows the exact opposite. I can tell you I'm filthy rich and the CEO of a fortune 500 company but it doesn't make it so.


And Bob Barr?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> And Bob Barr?


Barr has changed since he was in congress and worked hard within the Libertarian party. Ron even gave him his blessing.

The fact of the matter is Obama and McCain are both going to spend this country into oblivious different ways...you're basically choosing if you want to get hit by a truck or a bus.

I'd prefer to vote for Barr or Baldwin, even if I don't completely agree with one of their platforms. I believe in freedom and liberty. Barack Obama does not. It does not make sense for my vote to go to him unless I was to compromise everything I stood for.

----------


## EastWindRain

*Ron Paul on the CNN Situation Room: June 16, 2008*
R.P. briefly talks about Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. Duration 6 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqpI-8pDuEY

In my opinion it appears based on the comments below, (3:50 mark) that Ron Paul favors Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr. 



"What do you think about Congressman Barr?", asked Wolf Blitzer.

"Well I think he is running a very important race, and I am encouraging him. I haven't endorsed him. Ah, but he is saying the kind of things that ah I like to be heard and said, and ah I hope he does real well. 

But ah, we also have Chuck Baldwin who runs on the Constitutional Party. His views are very very close to mine. He worked very hard in my campaign. So for me to pick one over the other is not very easy. I hope they both, together, get a lot of votes", answered Ron Paul.

----------


## Kade

> Barr has changed since he was in congress and worked hard within the Libertarian party. Ron even gave him his blessing.
> 
> The fact of the matter is Obama and McCain are both going to spend this country into oblivious different ways...you're basically choosing if you want to get hit by a truck or a bus.
> 
> I'd prefer to vote for Barr or Baldwin, even if I don't completely agree with one of their platforms. I believe in freedom and liberty. Barack Obama does not. It does not make sense for my vote to go to him unless I was to compromise everything I stood for.


The fact of the matter is you can't criticize someone on their voting record alone and say that their "speeches" don't matter afterward if you don't supply the same critique to your horse...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> The fact of the matter is you can't criticize someone on their voting record alone and say that their "speeches" don't matter afterward if you don't supply the same critique to your horse...


You can't compare the two because it's a completely different situation.

Here is the difference-

Bob Barr's voting record was in the past. He's changed and reformed. Currently, he is not saying one thing and doing another. Bob Barr wasn't perfect during his years in congress, but he's not a Republican anymore and he's not in congress anymore. He's joined the Libertarian party and supports that platform.

Obama, even though he isn't even close to this movements views, says one thing votes another. He funds the Iraq war. So, the fact that Obama stands for the opposite of everything we do should be the first sign to stay away, but even if you think he opposes the Iraq war all you need to do is look at his voting record and the other things he's said contradicting it.

----------


## jmdrake

> I get it.  I hope everyone does.  My point is that we can't expect the American public to do the math.
> 
> Add them together and see what you get.  Well, firstly the public hates doing math.  Secondly they want to be spoon fed.  Thirdly, we don't pose a weight--a movement headed for critical mass--if we can't even get together on our votes.  Say what you want about the unseemliness of the G.O.P. people in "lockstep", it _works._
> 
> If we're to get people to stop the business as usual and join us, we have to be worth joining, we have to have some numbers and momentum to convince them we aren't just tilting windmills, we have to appear to be _effective._
> 
> I don't think all of that can survive us splitting our vote.  Since it looks like we're going to, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.  But I feel committed to trying to unify this herd of cats behind one.
> 
> I don't like either the Baptist preacher or the reformed neocon.  Neither one.  I'll vote for whichever we can actually decide on.


LOL on the math comment.  Well maybe RP supporters will gravitate toward one candidate or the other but for the reasons you mentioned it will be difficult if not impossible to get consensus.  Ron Paul won't even endorse one over the other.  I just wish the vitriol we're seeing from some people over this would stop.  

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> LOL on the math comment.  Well maybe RP supporters will gravitate toward one candidate or the other but for the reasons you mentioned it will be difficult if not impossible to get consensus.  Ron Paul won't even endorse one over the other.  I just wish the vitriol we're seeing from some people over this would stop.  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> John M. Drake


I agree with both of you...the problem I have is people here consider Obama. That is what I don't understand. Vote for Barr or Baldwin...I don't care, just not Obama.

----------


## EastWindRain

*Dr. Chuck Baldwin Describes The Battle Americans Face* Duration 4:36
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02802555928305

*Chuck Baldwin is nominated Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party 2008* Duration 33 min - Apr 26, 2008
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...10975074355086

----------


## moostraks

> The right of the slaves to help choose the overseer really ain't worth much.


Well said!!!

----------


## newbitech

> I agree with both of you...the problem I have is people here consider Obama. That is what I don't understand. Vote for Barr or Baldwin...I don't care, just not Obama.


I have some questions floating around here, if you promise to answer them I will promise to consider throwing away my vote some other way.

----------


## zahirakids

> Well, I would love to vote LP and have started researching the candidates there.  The only thing that bothers me about them is that I do not see a LP endorsement of Ron Paul during the primaries.  I might be able to overlook Barr being in the CIA and voting for the Patriot Act, but I really need to see the LP leaning more conservative the way Dr. Paul talks about conservative.  
> 
> Honestly, I might just go against  Dr. Paul's logic and write in for some of the reasons that people here have said.  I just really thought I'd be able to  make a difference with my vote.  Truth is, I am a little disappointed and ready to go back to my old political views, which is  ....


The LP did endorse Paul. Then even mobilized their gotv phone bank to make pre primary calls for him.

----------


## crazyfacedjenkins

> Who threw gay marriage into the political arena in the first place?  Everyone had their freedom to be with whoever they wanted, now it has become a political issue and not in the favor of gay folks.  States are now amending their constitutions to reflect "one man one woman" PER the VOTES of the people.  That is the way it should work.  Gay couples have the freedom to go to a gay church and have a ceremony, wear rings, live together and everything they want to do can actually be covered by contracts.  One CAN claim the other on tax if they provide more than 50% of their support.  There can be contracts made stating that if one is ill the partner IS allowed to visit in the hospital..there are living wills.  These seem to be the things that gays are concerned about.  They can purchase real estate together or open a bank account...just about anything anyone else can do.  I don't quite understand why they are so adament about "marriage" in the legal sense of the word.  Heck...it's just more dough for the divorce lawyers... TONES


I try to tell this to people, and they simply don't understand. Sexuality is just a $#@!ing tool corporations/politicians use to control, humans are so $#@!ing stupid. It's very ironic that most animals don't discriminate against homosexuality, yet humans have such a hard time with it. Some people think we are barely out of the jungle, I think we are taking steps BACKWARD.

----------


## torchbearer

> The LP did endorse Paul. Then even mobilized their gotv phone bank to make pre primary calls for him.


That is not a convenient fact for some on this forum... it doesn't fit into their agenda..ya know - the LP is now controlled by neocon agents. 
The LP sold out.. blah blah blah

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I try to tell this to people, and they simply don't understand. Sexuality is just a $#@!ing tool corporations/politicians use to control, humans are so $#@!ing stupid. It's very ironic that most animals don't discriminate against homosexuality, yet humans have such a hard time with it. Some people think we are barely out of the jungle, I think we are taking steps BACKWARD.


I agree. It's like segregation. Just let people live how they want to live and treat them equally.

http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm Baldwin wrote this. Makes me second guess the man.

----------


## newbitech

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by zahirakids View Post
> The LP did endorse Paul. Then even mobilized their gotv phone bank to make pre primary calls for him.
> 			
> 		
> 
> That is not a convenient fact for some on this forum... it doesn't fit into their agenda..ya know - the LP is now controlled by neocon agents.
> The LP sold out.. blah blah blah


thanks zahirakids.  I wonder who torch is talking about?

----------


## torchbearer

> thanks zahirakids.  I wonder who torch is talking about?


not just one person- i'm hearing this lunacy from several people i used to have respect for...

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> not just one person- i'm hearing this lunacy from several people i used to have respect for...


torch, we may have disagreed on some things, but at least we are rational. Bob Barr winning the nomination suddenly turned into another conspiracy for some people.

----------


## QCB79

well heres how I see it, either Obama or McCain are going to be in office, barr, baldwin, larry, curly or moe dont have a chance in hell. So it's down to these two, I would never in a million years cast a vote for McCain simply by his stance on the middle east, thats as much as I needed to hear from him and I was over him. With Obama, all I see is a one trick pony, all show no go. he promises "change", i'm assuming thats means what will be left of my paycheck after taxes and filling my car with gas. 

Therefore I would be going against my own principals by voting for either of them. I can however vote for RP like minded individuals at local, state and federal levels. Thats the important thing, putting the right people into congress, they are the ones voting on the bills that get pushed into laws, they are the ones voting on our taxes and how the government spends our money. 

Ron Paul was/is a messenger, he knows that, I'm sure he knew it all along. I dont even think he really cared about getting into office but I think he was on a mission to spread the word that with a little info anyone can run for office, everyone needs to get involved and not just say "why bother, things will never change" and when enough people stand up ,decide they arent going to take it and decide to push back we can bring the government back to the people and not just a few out of touch individuals. People needed to hear that message and after 8 yrs of Bush this was the perfect time to broadcast it. 

Before I heard Ron Paul I could have cared less about politics, just like the majority of middle class Americans I figured "why bother, things will never change" but after listening to Dr. Paul I realized things can change if enough people band together and make it happen. 

This election is hopeless as far as a President is concerned, but there are alot of other people running for offices that can really turn the tides in D.C. thats what we need to aim for.

----------


## EastWindRain

Obama is so full of it. Just listen to this 24 minute broadcast where he is kissing as much Zionist ass as he possibly can. (Scroll down 5% and click on the left play button)

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/2008/0...ish-reporters/

----------


## Lisa S

Baldwin would the perfect candidate to wake up the Christians that McCain's wars are not Christian at all.  He speaks very elequently on this subject.  Most don't like McCain and O'bama evenless so maybe a Pastor that explains it's okay to be anti-war and still Christian.  Most Christians have been brainwashed by the republican party.   Maybe, he can wake some up.  I know as much as I love Ron Paul I will vote for Baldwin if he is on the ballot.

----------


## acptulsa

> Baldwin would the perfect candidate to wake up the Christians that McCain's wars are not Christian at all.  He speaks very elequently on this subject.  Most don't like McCain and O'bama evenless so maybe a Pastor that explains it's okay to be anti-war and still Christian.  Most Christians have been brainwashed by the republican party.   Maybe, he can wake some up.  I know as much as I love Ron Paul I will vote for Baldwin if he is on the ballot.


This is the way we need to think if we're to be effective.  We need to take a page from the neocons and say, never mind if it's my idea of perfect.  Will it _work?!_  Just as long as we stick by our core ideals as well as the neocons do and our core ideal is something more noble than gathering 95% of the wealth in the hands of some 2% of the population, we should do fine.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> This is the way we need to think if we're to be effective.  We need to take a page from the neocons and say, never mind if it's my idea of perfect.  Will it _work?!_  Just as long as we stick by our core ideals as well as the neocons do and our core ideal is something more noble than gathering 95% of the wealth in the hands of some 2% of the population, we should do fine.


I take it you didn't read the article I posted that he wrote. He had no problem bashing "gay rights," and making it seem like homosexuals weren't capable of doing anything and they weren't entitled to. He basically dehumanized them in the article, and I think that's horrific.

----------


## acptulsa

> I take it you didn't read the article I posted that he wrote. He had no problem bashing "gay rights," and making it seem like homosexuals weren't capable of doing anything and they weren't entitled to. He basically dehumanized them in the article, and I think that's horrific.


Guilty.

Yeah.  I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for McCain.  I didn't want to have to hold my nose to vote for anyone...

Regardless if it looks like we can win, there are many reasons it would make so much more sense to support the ultimate, most nearly perfect candidate.  But then he went and suspended his campaign...

Dr. Paul, I sure hope you're right and the damned G.O.P. is worth all this!

Even so, if we can vote as a bloc we will do much, much more to attract people to the cause than if we're split and scattered.  In that case, we wouldn't look effective enough to be worth joining.

Maybe it's hopeless to want the cats to stick to the herd.  But, as helpless as a cow is, a stampede is one tremendous force, and as dumb as a jackal is, no lioness can stand against a pack.  A pride of lions, on the other hand, being both strong as great cats _and_ strong because of numbers, is one of the more powerful things nature has ever seen.

A herd of cats.  I guess this movement has always been half "if we accomplished this how powerful would that be" and half "yeah, but how do you pull _that_ off?!"  All I know is it was partly our numbers and partly our individual qualities that got us this far.  Both are impressive enough!  Now, do we maintain this force or dissipate it?

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> I do not expect my vote to count for anything other than a statement.
> For that I could write in Micky Mouse. 
> The LP has no chance of winning.
> The CP has no chance of winning.
> I do not think McCain has any chance, but I will not vote for him.
> I believe that Obama has already got the election sealed, and I will not vote for him.
> 
> I will write in my choice, not because it will do any good, but because it is my choice.


Agreed. Everyone saying to vote LP or CP or whatever else are the ones that dont understand the point. Im not Voting a 2nd or 3rd choice, im not going to vote party over principle. I refuse to vote lesser of ALL the evils not just two. 

This year for the first time in my life I will cast a presidential ballot I can be proud of. I can tell me children i did not back down. I voted MY conscience. I was not swayed by trickery, legal hassles, or sticking to the crowd. i at least will always no that my vote, counted or not.... was MY vote.

Write-In Ron Paul 08'

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Guilty.
> 
> Yeah.  I'm not going to hold my nose and vote for McCain.  I didn't want to have to hold my nose to vote for anyone...
> 
> Regardless if it looks like we can win, there are many reasons it would make so much more sense to support the ultimate, most nearly perfect candidate.  But then he went and suspended his campaign...
> 
> Dr. Paul, I sure hope you're right and the damned G.O.P. is worth all this!
> 
> Even so, if we can vote as a bloc we will do much, much more to attract people to the cause than if we're split and scattered.  In that case, we wouldn't look effective enough to be worth joining.
> ...


Agreed. Again, I think you're just splitting hairs between Baldwin and Barr. For this reason, I think it'd be smarter to vote Barr as we could really make ourselves heard, but to each his own (I think he's reformed, others think it's a conspiracy ). I just can't believe people here would even consider Obama.

----------


## Mister Grieves

> Write-In Ron Paul 08'


+1

----------


## TastyWheat

If Ron doesn't endorse someone (symbolically throwing in the towel) then he's got my vote.

----------


## anaconda

I think RP should endorse Baldwin or Barr so that the powers that be know very clearly where their potential votes went while they continue with these country-destroying platforms of insane corruption.

----------


## 1000-points-of-fright

> This year for the first time in my life I will cast a presidential ballot I can be proud of. I can tell me children i did not back down. I voted MY conscience. I was not swayed by trickery, legal hassles, or sticking to the crowd. i at least will always no that my vote, counted or not.... was MY vote.
> 
> Write-In Ron Paul 08'


*sigh*

You can't.  It would be like saying "I hate burning fossil fuels so I'm gonna drive my nuclear powered flying car".  You don't have a nuclear powered flying car and you don't have Ron Paul as an officially registered write-in candidate.

Writing in a name that isn't an officially registered write-in candidate is truly a wasted vote.  Scribbling his name on a ballot or on a computer screen with a sharpie will do nothing more than make you feel smug and satisfied.  Nobody else will even notice.  It won't get included in the vote totals.  Voting for someone on the ballot will.  So vote for anyone other than the R or D and make sure your displeasure is known that way.

Give up on this idea of writing him in.  Write-in candidacy = Independent run.  RP says he isn't running as an independent.  End of story.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> *sigh*
> 
> You can't.  It would be like saying "I hate burning fossil fuels so I'm gonna drive my nuclear powered flying car".  You don't have a nuclear powered flying car and you don't have Ron Paul as an officially registered write-in candidate.
> 
> Writing in a name that isn't an officially registered write-in candidate is truly a wasted vote.  Scribbling his name on a ballot or on a computer screen with a sharpie will do nothing more than make you feel smug and satisfied.  Nobody else will even notice.  It won't get included in the vote totals.  Voting for someone on the ballot will.  So vote for anyone other than the R or D and make sure your displeasure is known that way.
> 
> Give up on this idea of writing him in.  Write-in candidacy = Independent run.  RP says he isn't running as an independent.  End of story.



Right. Ron has even said he hopes Barr and Baldwin get plenty of votes.

----------


## werdd

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Your getting trapped

Listen to ron pauls recent video on the cover of this page 

"Although the power struggle is very real, behind the scenes the two parties are owned by the same people, and those people have their ends covered either way."

----------


## CzargwaR

I'm most likely voting Baldwin.. but not dismissing Barr yet.. 

100% not voting Obama or McCain

----------


## Shotdown1027

Im voting for Baldwin. He'sone of us, a soldier in the Revolution.

----------


## ProBlue33

I think Ron Paul is sending people a coded message, make your vote count, don't waste it or throw it away on principle.

In states where it's going to go Red by a large margin, by all means, vote for anybody but McCain because, it won't matter, as we saw in the primaries.

BUT if you are in a state that is really close with a ton of electorial votes like Florida circa 
2000, YOU MUST do your American duty and deny McCain by voting for Obama.

I don't giving flying flip if the Bilderberg or CFR backs Obama, the world community will deal better with Obama, and thats worth alot. And if America votes another GOP war monger in, the world community is going think Americans really are the stupidest racist people in the world.

DENY McCAIN 08!

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> I think Ron Paul is sending people a coded message, make your vote count, don't waste it or throw it away on principle.
> 
> In states where it's going to go Red by a large margin, by all means, vote for anybody but McCain because, it won't matter, as we saw in the primaries.
> 
> BUT if you are in a state that is really close with a ton of electorial votes like Florida circa 
> 2000, YOU MUST do your American duty and deny McCain by voting for Obama.
> 
> I don't giving flying flip if the Bilderberg or CFR backs Obama, the world community will deal better with Obama, and thats worth alot. And if America votes another GOP war monger in, the world community is going think Americans really are the stupidest racist people in the world.
> 
> DENY McCAIN 08!


Forgive my French, but Ron didn't say anything like that, moron . Don't try and manipulate people here. Ron said himself, and I will get you the youtube if you like, that he hopes Barr and Baldwin get many votes. He and Obama have nothing in common and he never said, nor would he ever say to vote for him for any reason at all. 

He doesn't want write ins, but he wants us to vote for the candidates closest to liberty; either Baldwin or Barr, and I have the footage and quotes to prove it.

So get lost and anyone else who plans on voting for Obama can get lost too. It's inexcusable.

How about... Deny your idiot logic '08! Vote for a real freedom candidate '08!

----------


## sophocles07

> I don't giving flying flip if the Bilderberg or CFR backs Obama, the world community will deal better with Obama, and thats worth alot. And if America votes another GOP war monger in, the world community is going think Americans really are the stupidest racist people in the world.


So vote Obama because he's black?

I'd just as soon let the American voters put in McCain and end this drawn out misery show of a country.  If we're that pathetic...maybe we deserve hatred.

Not to mention the hatred that comes from our voting in time after time after time the SAME $#@!ING imperialist war machine with different masked entities controlling it.  

Obama would serve as an illusion for the world, and for the citizens of the country.  A light face on the dark reality of what is happening--which is not based in one man and his empty repetition of "change" (which means $#@!ing nothing).

----------


## EastWindRain

I would say that if Ron Paul had to pick out of Barr and Baldwin, he would choose Baldwin because Baldwin's platform is very similar to Paul's. 

So if that is the case, we The Ron Paul and Patriot movement should now be working overtime for Chuck Baldwin. If we worked really hard over the next 4.5 months perhaps the third party could get 10-15 % of the vote? That would make a huge statement. 

Here is the link to the new Chuck Baldwin Forum.

http://www.chuckbaldwinforum.com/



*Ron Paul on the CNN Situation Room: June 16, 2008*
R.P. briefly talks about Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. Duration 6 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqpI-8pDuEY

In my opinion it appears based on the comments below, (3:50 mark) that Ron Paul favors Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr. 



"What do you think about Congressman Barr?", asked Wolf Blitzer.

"Well I think he is running a very important race, and I am encouraging him. I haven't endorsed him. Ah, but he is saying the kind of things that ah I like to be heard and said, and ah I hope he does real well. 

But ah, we also have Chuck Baldwin who runs on the Constitutional Party. His views are very very close to mine. He worked very hard in my campaign. So for me to pick one over the other is not very easy. I hope they both, together, get a lot of votes", answered Ron Paul.

----------


## ProBlue33

> Forgive my French, but Ron didn't say anything like that, moron . Don't try and manipulate people here. Ron said himself, and I will get you the youtube if you like, that he hopes Barr and Baldwin get many votes. He and Obama have nothing in common and he never said, nor would he ever say to vote for him for any reason at all. 
> 
> He doesn't want write ins, but he wants us to vote for the candidates closest to liberty; either Baldwin or Barr, and I have the footage and quotes to prove it.
> 
> So get lost and anyone else who plans on voting for Obama can get lost too. It's inexcusable.
> 
> How about... Deny your idiot logic '08! Vote for a real freedom candidate '08!


This is where a divergence in idealogy comes into play for the American voter that supported Ron Paul. And I keep arguing this in multiple threads, I wish Ron Paul was on the ballot to vote for in 2008 but he won't be. And unlike the primaries where no vote is wasted. The general election is different, because in close states your vote can get wasted on parties that have no chance, as admirable is that is, you don't cause change.

So those that are in states that are in play you have to make a very tough choice.

1)Take the high road, and vote your conscience, but realize you could negate your shot to influence change.
2)Decide to power the change with your vote.

It's that simple

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> This is where a divergence in idealogy comes into play for the American voter that supported Ron Paul. And I keep arguing this in multiple threads, I wish Ron Paul was on the ballot to vote for in 2008 but he won't be. And unlike the primaries where no vote is wasted. The general election is different, because in close states your vote can get wasted on parties that have no chance, as admirable is that is, you don't cause change.
> 
> So those that are in states that are in play you have to make a very tough choice.
> 
> 1)Take the high road, and vote your conscience, but realize you could negate your shot to influence change.
> 2)Decide to power the change with your vote.
> 
> It's that simple


People like you are idiots. If you're voting for Obama you were never a freedom fighter in the first place. You can't twist it to make Obama seem favorable because he stands for nothing we've been fighting for. Your vote is wasted if you vote for a communist and your vote is wasted if you vote for a facist.

People, let me restate this. OBAMA HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH OUR MOVEMENT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO VOTE FOR HIM. It's not denying McCain.....the founding fathers never meant for a vote to be a strategic blocking vote. If you, or anyone else here votes for Obama I say we should all voteban you from the forums, and you can all go circle jerk in the Obama forums. What do you say, guys? Get rid of the baggage we don't need, eh?

Ron has said himself vote for a freedom candidate, yet you still want to vote for a borderline communist. He's never once said it's "strategically smart" to vote for Obama. So, I don't care if the mods tag me for this but $#@! OFF. You and all the Obama lovers need to $#@! off and go circle jerk in the Obama forums because you are wrong here. This is a campaign for liberty, not a campaign against the other guy. We don't need you and we don't want you. We've been working our asses off to restore our Constitution, and I'm willing to bet 50 bucks you didn't do jack and just sat on your ass in front of the computer. If you fought you wouldn't be saying "go vote for Obama." Get lost, traitor.

And by the way, Ron said he couldn't endorse one over the other in the case of Baldwin and Barr. To me, it sounded like he liked Barr but couldn't choose because Chuck was so involved in the campaign and it would almost be traitorous.

----------


## SnappleLlama

Yeah, I'm not "down" with voting _against_ anyone.  I'll cast my vote for Ron Paul, and that's that.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

> Yeah, I'm not "down" with voting _against_ anyone.  I'll cast my vote for Ron Paul, and that's that.


I was going to write him in until he said not to, so I'll vote for one of the candidates he's given his grace to.

----------


## EastWindRain

Again it looks like Ron Paul favors Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr. 


“I don’t think too many of them will vote for John McCain,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of support for Chuck Baldwin. He worked real hard for our campaign, *so it’s going to be real hard for me to say I’m for Bob Barr*," stated Ron Paul. 

http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=79d3d6fe371c8819

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


Lesser of two evils, sure thats a new concept...

----------


## newyearsrevolution08

Just remember people it is YOUR vote not Ron Paul's.....




> Again it looks like Ron Paul favors Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr. 
> 
> 
> I dont think too many of them will vote for John McCain, he said. I think theres a lot of support for Chuck Baldwin. He worked real hard for our campaign, *so its going to be real hard for me to say Im for Bob Barr*," stated Ron Paul. 
> 
> http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=79d3d6fe371c8819

----------


## EastWindRain

> Just remember people it is YOUR vote not Ron Paul's.....


Ron Paul is the leader.

----------


## RideTheDirt

Personally, I _REALLY_ want to know what Paul is going to announce in ST. Paul. I am leaning towards Baldwin; but I don't think he is a very strong Candidate.I'm not sure why; but Bob Barr just doesn't convince me.His past makes me think he is full of $#@!. Then again, a lot of people change.I just do not know what to do at this point. I will by November though.

*The one thing I do know is; I will NOT be voting for McCain or Obama.I would rather shoot myself in the foot.*

----------


## Original_Intent

> Again it looks like Ron Paul favors Chuck Baldwin over Bob Barr. 
> 
> 
> “I don’t think too many of them will vote for John McCain,” he said. “I think there’s a lot of support for Chuck Baldwin. He worked real hard for our campaign, *so it’s going to be real hard for me to say I’m for Bob Barr*," stated Ron Paul. 
> 
> http://thefacts.com/story.lasso?ewcd=79d3d6fe371c8819


I really appreciate the way Ron Paul will not step out and endorse someone outright.

He knows that even among us, his loyal followers, there are too many people who are lemmings and will go with the "Ron Paul endorsed this guy so I am voting for this guy."

I include myself in this group - if RP endorsed someone I would say the odds are 99% that I would vote for that person. What I think that Ron Paul wants and has wanted throughout his campaign is for people to quit being lazy, quit letting other people (including himself) do your thinking for you, get educated and then make the best decision you can. That is why he is all about educating people and NOT about building a "cult of personality" around himself or anyone else.

I have been leaning Baldwin from the point where it became apparent that RP will not be on the ballot. Seeing the above quote from RP strengthens my feeling that he is the guy I will pull the lever for in November.

Please do not "not vote". That's a victory for the powers that be, it is a form of learned helplessness that just is a surrender to the power elite. It is you saying "I can't make a difference anyway, so I will do nothing."

Please do not vote for candidate X to keep candidate Y from winning. If you do you have just bought into the smoke and mirrors "two party" Republicrat lies, they have most of the American people looking at politics as a college sport where you may not know much beyond what team you support.

Find the best man you can and support him as best you can, regardless of his odds of actually winning. This is the only "message" that you can send that will be received and understood. Any other decision and as far as I can tell you will just be guaranteeing more of the same in 2012 and beyond...

----------


## JulioForPaul

If I write in "Ron Paul" in Texas will it count?

----------


## pcosmar

> Here is what Ron says: "I dont think thats very productive. Supporters can do it, of course, but in most of the states it wont count. And if they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"


I don't see anywhere in that where Ron Paul says NO. DON"T WRITE IN.
That is not what he said.

----------


## DAFTEK

Why cant the mods ban Obamanized idiots on this forum? F-n loosers, TRADORS! Vote vor Barr, Baldwin or just stay the fuk home trolls!

----------


## pacelli

> Personally, I _REALLY_ want to know what Paul is going to announce in ST. Paul.[/B]


I suspect he'll probably announce that the Campaign for Liberty is already producing videos and interviews, has a full team of bloggers, and will continue to spread the message of liberty and promote liberty-minded candidates.  Maybe they'll have a DVD, t-shirts, and bumper stickers by then as well.  

Remember, he refers to it as a rally, with music acts and speeches. After getting our hopes up throughout this past year, I think it promotes mental health to keep the bar low for St Paul.

----------


## RideTheDirt

> I suspect he'll probably announce that the Campaign for Liberty is already producing videos and interviews, has a full team of bloggers, and will continue to spread the message of liberty and promote liberty-minded candidates.  Maybe they'll have a DVD, t-shirts, and bumper stickers by then as well.  
> 
> Remember, he refers to it as a rally, with music acts and speeches. After getting our hopes up throughout this past year, I think it promotes mental health to keep the bar low for St Paul.


I know this but he has been talking about a big announcement...I don't like speculating on things Paul will do. I also believe the CFL will be a great tool once it gets into high gear, and really starts helping us inform the masses.
The Revolution is well underway.

----------


## anaconda

> a vote for either Barr or Baldwin is anything BUT a "throw-away" vote. The more people who can be convinced to stop voting for the lesser of two evils, the more we might find ourselves having truly CONSTITUTIONAL candidates presented. Isn't this at least part of the point of the entire last year and a half of support for Paul? Why throw THAT away??!


Thank you!...I am so weary of the "lesser of two evils" illogic. The only wasted vote is one cast for the military/industrial/banking/media complex candidates. There were only three in this election cycle that were not part of this cabal: Paul, Kucinich. and Gravel.

----------


## thomaseusin

Writing in for Ron Paul may give the good doctor's ideas good exposure. Imagine, having the largest write-in candidate ever in history. I bet that'll get some headlines!

A few more people will hear about him, and may gain some interest to his ideas, as I have at the start of this revolution, one person at a time. It started with a brouhaha, resulting in curiosity, ending in political apathy.

----------


## Kade

> Why cant the mods ban Obamanized idiots on this forum? F-n loosers, TRADORS! Vote vor Barr, Baldwin or just stay the fuk home trolls!


LOL.

This is the true spirit of liberty! These are the kind of people I want voting!!!


Bat$#@!.

----------


## The_Orlonater

I think everybody should vote LP, to be honest. I like both the Barr and Baldwin, but to be honest. Barr has a better chance of spreading the message. I know he was an EX-neocon, but still. I don't want  Obama winning. McCain practically has absolutely no chance. Vote Barr. We might have a good chance this year, convert people!

----------


## mconder

I was planning to write him in unless he ask us not to. Now I am not.

----------


## JKap

*Misleading title.* Ron Paul did not say "no"--in fact he said that his supporters could do it.

----------


## JKap

How can anyone be sure that a given vote for a ballot-qualified candidate will be counted in secret?

The integrity of the vote has been compromised by Stalinist-style elections which employ black-box electronic balloting and counting systems running proprietary software. 

I'd rather that my vote have the meaning that I intend for it rather than what someone else tells me it will have. I encourage everyone to vote according to their own independent thought, principles, judgment and conscience. I encourage everyone to write-in Ron Paul regardless of whether it will "count" or not.

----------


## acptulsa

> How can anyone be sure that a given vote for a ballot-qualified candidate will be counted in secret?
> 
> The integrity of the vote has been compromised by Stalinist-style elections which employ black-box electronic balloting and counting systems running proprietary software.


I argued during the primaries that we could stand to keep our own tallies of our own voting at our local meetups and if the total doesn't come up to our own count, see how many would be willing to swear they voted as they said they did.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> How can anyone be sure that a given vote for a ballot-qualified candidate will be counted in secret?
> 
> The integrity of the vote has been compromised by Stalinist-style elections which employ black-box electronic balloting and counting systems running proprietary software. 
> 
> I'd rather that my vote have the meaning that I intend for it rather than what someone else tells me it will have. I encourage everyone to vote according to their own independent thought, principles, judgment and conscience. I encourage everyone to write-in Ron Paul regardless of whether it will "count" or not.


Pfft, I respect your dignity, but we'll never get what we want in Washington. At least Barr, offers something pretty good. I'm not passing it up and writing in Ron Paul is a dumb idea.

----------


## JKap

_"Pfft, I respect your dignity, but we'll never get what we want in Washington. At least Barr, offers something pretty good. I'm not passing it up and writing in Ron Paul is a dumb idea."_

Very juvenile of you.

I wouldn't vote for Barr if Ron Paul endorsed him. He's an ex-CIA neocon who voted for the U.S.A./Viet Dinh "Patriot" Act and engineered war. No different from O-bomb-a/McAIPAC in my book.

As for everyone else, I wouldn't trust any candidate or supporter who tells you that voting for Ron Paul is a "bad idea."

----------


## ARealConservative

> _"Pfft, I respect your dignity, but we'll never get what we want in Washington. At least Barr, offers something pretty good. I'm not passing it up and writing in Ron Paul is a dumb idea."_
> 
> Very juvenile of you.
> 
> I wouldn't vote for Barr if Ron Paul endorsed him. He's an ex-CIA neocon who voted for the U.S.A./Viet Dinh "Patriot" Act and engineered war. No different from O-bomb-a/McAIPAC in my book.
> 
> As for everyone else, I wouldn't trust any candidate or supporter who tells you that voting for Ron Paul is a "bad idea."


I find that wasting my time is a bad idea.  If I take the time to vote, I want someone to tally it, not discard it.

----------


## JKap

> I find that wasting my time is a bad idea.  If I take the time to vote, I want someone to tally it, not discard it.


How can you be sure that you're not "wasting your time" voting for a ballot-qualified candidate when the election is corrupted with black-box, Stalinist-style electronic balloting? Where is the evidence that it's not "wasting your time" and your vote is "counted" using proprietary software in secret?

All that I am doing is encouraging people to exercise their own independent thought, principles, judgment, and conscience and vote for the best candidate--Ron Paul.

----------


## Dianne

I just hung up from a political phone survey.   The first question was who will you vote for, McCain or Obama.    There was no "other" option.

The second question was if Barr and Nader were on the ballot along with McCain and Obama, who would you vote for.    Baldwin and Paul were never mentioned of course and there was no way in the survey to get it in.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> _"Pfft, I respect your dignity, but we'll never get what we want in Washington. At least Barr, offers something pretty good. I'm not passing it up and writing in Ron Paul is a dumb idea."_
> 
> Very juvenile of you.
> 
> I wouldn't vote for Barr if Ron Paul endorsed him. He's an ex-CIA neocon who voted for the U.S.A./Viet Dinh "Patriot" Act and engineered war. No different from O-bomb-a/McAIPAC in my book.
> 
> As for everyone else, I wouldn't trust any candidate or supporter who tells you that voting for Ron Paul is a "bad idea."


Great call me juvenile, back into the name calling game, how mature.

It's a wasted vote, I don't want Obama and McCain. If we don't vote third party we will have Obama ,or McCain as president. I know Barr was a neo-con before, but don't you want more neo-cons to be ex-neo-cons? Seriously, he has good ideas. He ain't Ron Paul for sure, but he's our best option. People actually notice his coverage and might listen to him. Chuck Baldwin is practically unheard of, I'd prefer him, but I don't think he's going to be on the ballot in every state. Bob, probably might.

----------


## MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2

> Neocons are Republicans who support the President and want nothing but to remain in power. Barr is no longer Republican, he no longer supports the president, and he obviously doesn't crave an electoral win. I suggest everyone cut him some slack before calling him a neocon.


When he does something for the cause of liberty, I'll cut him some slack.  His lifetime track record is horrible.  HORRIBLE.  His most major accomplishment as a libertarian is showing everyone that libertarians will forgive a horrible track record for no good reason.  Might as well open up the party to any neocon with a name.

His record is so bad, he's not even believable.

----------


## JKap

> Great call me juvenile, back into the name calling game, how mature.
> 
> It's a wasted vote, I don't want Obama and McCain. If we don't vote third party we will have Obama ,or McCain as president. I know Barr was a neo-con before, but don't you want more neo-cons to be ex-neo-cons? Seriously, he has good ideas. He ain't Ron Paul for sure, but he's our best option. People actually notice his coverage and might listen to him. Chuck Baldwin is practically unheard of, I'd prefer him, but I don't think he's going to be on the ballot in every state. Bob, probably might.


Your collectivist "we" bothers me. I am encouraging every Ron Paul supporter to exercise their own independent thought, principles, judgment and conscience regarding their most revered constitutional right to vote for whomsoever they choose.

----------


## EastWindRain

Chuck Baldwin supporters come on over to 

http://www.chuckbaldwinforum.com/index.php 

and get your butts in gear. There is a lot of work to do. If you do nothing the NeoCon Zionists will win again. Fight with all your might, your country and lives depend on it. There is still time. The majority of the people do not want to vote for Obama or McCain. This election is so available for a third party victory. Seize it now.

----------


## Time for Change

Ok...this has been bugging me for a long time.

HOW EXACTLY DOES ANYONE PLAN TO WRITE IN A NAME ON A TOUCH SCREEN COMPUTER?
A Machine that is going to "shift" the votes the way they are intended to go, regardless of the count.

Think about it people.
His name won't even be on the ballot, and there is NO place for a write-in.
Period.
Ain't happening.

..We are much smarter than this.

I am just as pissed off about this election and the scum the media has chosen to lead us into national bankruptcy as anyone, but this thinking is not rational.

I switched from democrat FOR RON PAUL.
I was apparently never a democrat, because I favor conservatism, but I never paid enough attention to know I was wrong.
NOW that I have heard, researched and learned...I have a completely NEW perspective of politics and the predetermined leaders that get "Elected" every cycle.
I will leave that alone for now.

I have toyed with several options:
vote McNuts to stop the Osama Welfare MachineVote Barr, because he sounds a lot like Dr Paul (suspiciously so)Vote Nader, just to be an assOr any other third party to make a statement.

The problem I have is that even though all of us are united behind the revolution, when the gears were shifted, we did not sync.
Too many of us are moving in different directions to be decisively effective.
We will end up simply diluting the vote if we do not find unity and work our asses off to maintain that unity and use the grassroots to effectively CHANGE this god forsaken system.

If we look at this reasonably:
We all know that we are facing 4 to 8 years of bad leadership from a puppet president, because in reality, the media is not going to allow any third party to gain any traction, let alone anyone with the nuts to contest the currently turning wheels of "Progress"
I should have said second party, because as it stands now, there is no major separation in mindset, other than a slight perspective shift in welfare.
McHandout supports it from "Across the aisle", Osama lives for allowing better benefits for those "Oppressed" people that don’t get paid enough for breeding and watching TV while attaining the 300 pound weight division.

So what do we do?
I cannot effectively deliver my thinking at this point, but I will soon.

In the mean time, we should:
pull together to be certain that we elect responsible and HONEST representatives to assist us in stopping the inevitable irrationality, regulation and outright theft that will come from the executive offices.Make all necessary personal budgetary cuts and lifestyle changes to assist us in surviving this storm-a-brewin.maintain all our alliances with our revolution brethren...discreetly...because this internet revolution will be constricted very shortly (look it up)plan, plan, plan...just in case we actually do have a SHTF situation upon us we need plans in place to assure the survival and health of our loved ones

----------


## LibertyEagle

Vote your conscience when choosing who to vote for as President.  The same thing you were doing when you chose to support Ron Paul.  Who do you think is the best person on the ticket?  That is what I am going to do.  Everyone has to make up their own minds.

As far as what we as a movement can do together... I would hope we would realize that the race for the President is only one small thing.  There are tons of other offices to fill with liberty-minded candidates.  Not to mention a lot of people out there that we have to educate, in terms that they understand and in ways that hit home for THEM.  

In my opinion, it's going to require all of us to get very involved in our local communities and state governments.  For some, that is going to mean running for office of one sort or another (from dog catcher on up), for others it will be figuring out how to attract people to local meetings in your town or home, to discuss liberty-minded issues or books, others it may be to get very versed in Robert's Rules of Order and do whatever is necessary to infiltrate the hell out of the GOP.  Finally, for others it may be to support those who are doing these things.  I'm sure I've left off a ton of things.

To me, the most important thing is that we don't splinter over this presidential election.  We may choose different candidates, but we are all on the same team.  Most of us knew that it was a pipe dream for us to win the presidency and fix this thing from the top down.  Even if Ron would have won, he couldn't have done it alone.  Mainly because he wouldn't be a dictator..... he would follow the Constitution.  But still, we all know it would have been a WONDERFUL start and we wanted to try our best to make it happen.  Unfortunately, we're back to reality now, but Ron has given us something very wonderful.  He has awakened a lot of us up and brought us together.  Finally, for a number of us, we see that there is another option.  One that isn't just the same 'ol BS dished out every time by the Dems and the Repubs.  It is something well worth fighting for and even though it won't be easy, if we play our cards right and if God shines upon us, we can win this thing.  (Note:  Yes, I believe in God, so please allow me the individual liberty to believe as I choose, if you believe otherwise).  Regardless, we have no other option than to work like hell and give it all we've got.

Together, we can do this.

----------


## amy31416

> Vote your conscience when choosing who to vote for as President.  The same thing you were doing when you chose to support Ron Paul.  Who do you think is the best person on the ticket?  That is what I am going to do.  Everyone has to make up their own minds.
> 
> As far as what we as a movement can do together... *I would hope we would realize that the race for the President is only one small thing.*  There are tons of other offices to fill with liberty-minded candidates.  *Not to mention a lot of people out there that we have to educate, in terms that they understand and in ways that hit home for THEM. * 
> 
> *In my opinion, it's going to require all of us to get very involved in our local communities and state governments.*  For some, that is going to mean running for office of one sort or another (from dog catcher on up), for others it will be figuring out how to attract people to local meetings in your town or home, to discuss liberty-minded issues or books, others it may be to get very versed in Robert's Rules of Order and do whatever is necessary to infiltrate the hell out of the GOP.  Finally, for others it may be to support those who are doing these things.  I'm sure I've left off a ton of things.
> 
> *To me, the most important thing is that we don't splinter over this presidential election.*  We may choose different candidates, but we are all on the same team.  Most of us knew that it was a pipe dream for us to win the presidency and fix this thing from the top down.  Even if Ron would have won, he couldn't have done it alone.  Mainly because he wouldn't be a dictator..... he would follow the Constitution.  But still, we all know it would have been a WONDERFUL start and we wanted to try our best to make it happen.  Unfortunately, we're back to reality now, but Ron has given us something very wonderful.  He has awakened a lot of us up and brought us together.  Finally, for a number of us, we see that there is another option.  One that isn't just the same 'ol BS dished out every time by the Dems and the Repubs.  It is something well worth fighting for and even though it won't be easy, if we play our cards right and if God shines upon us, we can win this thing.  (Note:  Yes, I believe in God, so please allow me the individual liberty to believe as I choose, if you believe otherwise).  *Regardless, we have no other option than to work like hell and give it all we've got.*
> 
> Together, we can do this.


Great post LE. Agreed.

----------


## Up Front

> Most states won't even count them.  Here's his quote:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/021556.html





It does not matter whethere they count them or not WRITE HIS NAME IN.

There is no other person to vote for...period

----------


## Up Front

or DO NOT VOTE AT ALL

----------


## Time for Change

How do you write in a name on a touch screen computer?

Somebody, anybody?

It cannot be done.

It is a waste of time to consider such a foolish option (no offense directed toward anyone here)

"I'm gonna write in somebody who is not on the ballot, who outright told me not to do so"
WTF people.

Ron told us to support liberty candidates, so we should get busy and determine who our local liberty candidates are and get busy "Marketing" them.

Clock is ticking...

----------


## SnappleLlama

> How do you write in a name on a touch screen computer?
> 
> Somebody, anybody?
> 
> It cannot be done.
> 
> It is a waste of time to consider such a foolish option (no offense directed toward anyone here)
> 
> "I'm gonna write in somebody who is not on the ballot, who outright told me not to do so"
> ...



You can request a paper ballot for a write-in.  I wrote to my local elections office and that's the response they gave me.

----------


## The_Orlonater

> Your collectivist "we" bothers me. I am encouraging every Ron Paul supporter to exercise their own independent thought, principles, judgment and conscience regarding their most revered constitutional right to vote for whomsoever they choose.


Just because I want a lot of support to go to Barr? A pro-liberty candidate would be nice. I'm trying to be friends with you guys and talk peacefully? I don't care if it's "collectivist."

----------


## Time for Change

> You can request a paper ballot for a write-in.  I wrote to my local elections office and that's the response they gave me.


Let me preface this with the fact that I had panic attacks when the media played their games, and more when he ended his bid for office.
I am a tried and true RP supporter, and always will do whatever is necessary for liberty.  
SO please do not misinterpret my comments as not being a true RP supporter.

The question is...regardless of the fact that *the vote is cast for a person WHO IS NOT RUNNING...*

Will they count the vote?

Judging by past fiasco...Likely NOT.

So what is the point of this decision?
I understand the principle, and wish it could make some kind of difference, but it cannot change the fact that Ron is NOT RUNNING.

What purpose will that vote serve, knowing that masses of people who have never voted in their lives will be swamping the polls to vote for a person based solely on 1/2 of his racial afiliations?
A person who stands ready and eager to enact further economically crippling social programs with favoritism toward only one group of people, while robbing the other groups to pay for it.

Do you really want to negate any potential to defeat his ignorant bid to lead our nation into further financial trouble? 
Additionally, consider the collectivist mindset associated with this man.
He openly supports additional racial divide, judging by his past and present comments and associations.

So, that said, what can come of casting a vote for a person who is not even running for office?
Might as well vote for Mickey Mouse; as, the result will be the same.

----------


## Eleutheros

> So, that said, what can come of casting a vote for a person who is not even running for office?


The simple fact and satisfaction that you voted for who you felt should be best qualified and not settling for "the lesser of two evils" should be more than sufficient.

When you vote based on principle, not only do you treat your ballot as a ballot and not as a lottery ticket or racing form, but in some respects, the outcome should be irrelevant.  You are only responsible for who YOU vote for, not who someone else votes for.

ETA: I'd vote for Mickey Mouse myself if I thought he was most qualified (and I've seen my share of elections where Mickey Mouse would've been the better choice over who was on the ballot).

----------


## Time for Change

I would be better able to comprehend the logic if RP was running on another ticket, or running at all for that matter and would cast my vote for him without hesitation.

How can one maintain good conscience knowing full well that they are voting for a person not even in the race, that is where it does not add up.

So you are saying that a vote on principle, not logic, is good enough and you are fine with the increase in taxes that will result?
The increase in irresposible spending is ok, because you voted on principle for somebody who is not running?

I can't wrap my head around that one.

It's your right to do so, and I respect your right to do so, but I truly wish you would rethink the end result.
No matter what though, even though we disagree, I've still got your back! 
We are family (extended) after all

----------


## LibertyEagle

Play nice, folks.

----------


## newbitech

> Play nice, folks.


Awe what happened to all's fair in love and war?

----------


## EastWindRain

All those thinking of voting for Obama had better listen to this broadcast first. 

Listen Here

Transcript here

----------


## qh4dotcom



----------


## QueenB4Liberty

I voted for Nader.

----------


## DAFTEK

> Old thread but I think it needs a bump now


Agree, i have noticed many who say they will vote for RP... duhhh maybe write in, and that goes against RP's wishes..

----------


## Printo

Barr or Baldwin, we'll see what happens come the 4th.  The good doctor wants a nationwide protest of the 2 major parties, so I think we can all get behind that idea & vote for one of the big 4 third party candidates.  I think though that only Barr & Baldwin are the ones that vaguely represent our views.  I dont get the Nader love.

----------


## TruthAtLast

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


I love the people who think somehow that Obama is any different than McCain meaning Obama will just close all of our bases and not continue to police the world.  He is going to keep the 30,000 PERMANENT troops in Bagdad in a base the size of the Vatican. And as he draws down troops from Iraq, he will redeploy them to Afghanistan and prepare for a possible conflict with Pakistan to go after Bin Laden, or a confrontation with Iran.  He will also keep spending massively on troop buildups to counter the rise of Russia.

Then there are the people who think McCain is any different from Obama in that he isn't a socialist even though he voted for the stimulus package, the bailout, has a socialist health care plan, and now wants to bailout mortgages and wants another stimulus package.  He is NO conservative. He doesn't care about the Constitution. He will continue the welfare state.  He will do just about the same things as Obama. The ONLY way that McCain is slightly lesser of two evils is just that it wouldn't give the FAR left marxist liberals complete power over a filibuster-proof Congress and the Presidency.

Both of these guys are THE SAME!  This party loyalty and comparisons between the two is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's a distraction. The elites are supporting and control both! They are both members of the CFR. Why don't people realize it?!

If you can't vote on principle and someone you actually believe in, don't bother voting.  This isn't about picking the winner.  If there is EVER going to be a change in this country where we break the power of the two party system, let it start here.  Let it start with your personal decision NOT to support evil -- even the lesser of the two.

I am concerned that Ron Paul doesn't think a write in will count because in California Baldwin isn't on the ballot. So my choice is really just Barr or Nader.

I guess its Barr then.

----------


## mczerone

> I love the people who think somehow that Obama is any different than McCain meaning Obama will just close all of our bases and not continue to police the world.  He is going to keep the 30,000 PERMANENT troops in Bagdad in a base the size of the Vatican. And as he draws down troops from Iraq, he will redeploy them to Afghanistan and prepare for a possible conflict with Pakistan to go after Bin Laden, or a confrontation with Iran.  He will also keep spending massively on troop buildups to counter the rise of Russia.
> 
> Then there are the people who think McCain is any different from Obama in that he isn't a socialist even though he voted for the stimulus package, the bailout, has a socialist health care plan, and now wants to bailout mortgages and wants another stimulus package.  He is NO conservative. He doesn't care about the Constitution. He will continue the welfare state.  He will do just about the same things as Obama. The ONLY way that McCain is slightly lesser of two evils is just that it wouldn't give the FAR left marxist liberals complete power over a filibuster-proof Congress and the Presidency.
> 
> Both of these guys are THE SAME!  This party loyalty and comparisons between the two is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's a distraction. The elites are supporting and control both! They are both members of the CFR. Why don't people realize it?!
> 
> If you can't vote on principle and someone you actually believe in, don't bother voting.  This isn't about picking the winner.  If there is EVER going to be a change in this country where we break the power of the two party system, let it start here.  Let it start with your personal decision NOT to support evil -- even the lesser of the two.
> 
> I am concerned that Ron Paul doesn't think a write in will count because in California Baldwin isn't on the ballot. So my choice is really just Barr or Nader.
> ...


I can only add that Anyone who is afraid of voting for Barr shouldn't be: since he has no chance at winning, you are only supporting the Libertarian party by inflating their vote totals.  Barr may stick with the party, but he probably wont win the nomination again.

I'm interested to see how Barr's totals compare in states where Baldwin is or isn't on the ballot.  I hope that splitting the vote doesn't keep the popular vote total below 5%.

----------


## RickyJ

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin tomorrow. I know I will feel great about it and will be voting for the same person Ron Paul is voting for president.

----------


## ArrestPoliticians

I don't agree with Baldwin on everything but I trust him. He will get my vote.

----------


## speciallyblend

ron paul does not dictate who i vote for. he is a human being not god

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

Here is Ron Paul's statement:

Posted by Lew Rockwell at June 16, 2008 03:47 PM

Here is what Ron says: "I don’t think that’s very productive. Supporters can do it, of course, but in most of the states it won’t count. And if they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"


Here is what is so consistant about Ron Paul.  He never says "Do not write in"  or "vote for this person"...he merely gives his opinion.  He is a true freedom lover and practices it.  He has always said "I don't want to run your life".  I know in my heart, that if I told Dr. Paul I was voting for McCain and why I made that decision, he would not hate me.  That is why I love him so much.  Tones

----------


## escapinggreatly

It'd be kind of strange to write in a vote for a guy who specifically asked you not to do so.
__________________

*The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes.*

----------


## klamath

It is called the draft Paul movement He might just have to be dragged kicking and screaming up to the podium to give his inaugural address..




> It'd be kind of strange to write in a vote for a guy who specifically asked you not to do so.
> 
> 
> __________________
> 
> *The Melting Pot Project: Proportional Representation. New Parties. Intern Jokes.*

----------


## driller80545

> Here is Ron Paul's statement:
> 
> Posted by Lew Rockwell at June 16, 2008 03:47 PM
> 
> Here is what Ron says: "I dont think thats very productive. Supporters can do it, of course, but in most of the states it wont count. And if they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"
> 
> 
> Here is what is so consistant about Ron Paul.  He never says "Do not write in"  or "vote for this person"...he merely gives his opinion.  He is a true freedom lover and practices it.  He has always said "I don't want to run your life".  I know in my heart, that if I told Dr. Paul I was voting for McCain and why I made that decision, he would not hate me.  That is why I love him so much.  Tones


Bump (me too)

----------


## OferNave

I'm starting to agree with Stefan that "the hood ornament doesn't matter":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB6uQcGo60I

----------


## qh4dotcom



----------


## qh4dotcom

Bump

----------


## blocks

CA SOS confirms Dr. Paul's write-in certification
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elec...s_writeins.pdf

Sorry Dr. Paul, but I'm not gonna listen to you on this one.

----------


## Dorfsmith

> CA SOS confirms Dr. Paul's write-in certification
> http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elec...s_writeins.pdf
> 
> Sorry Dr. Paul, but I'm not gonna listen to you on this one.



Awesome!!!! They just mentioned it on KFI radio in Los Angeles. I will be contacting all my friends in California.

----------


## dr. hfn

vote 3rd party or never complain again

----------


## qh4dotcom

Old thread but I think it needs a bump now

----------


## Soccrmastr

> im voting for obama then.  sorry but I won't make  the mistake of letting McCain control the world.  I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go  with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.  
> 
> 3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.


this is the same argument that people used against voting for Ron Paul, and it's why he lost. You are a hypocrite and should just leave these forums please.

----------


## qh4dotcom

bump

----------


## free.alive

We don't need to be mere sycophants and act only with his consent. 

Do your own thing people, for your own reasons. Isn't that what's at the root of all this anyway?

----------


## newbitech

> this is the same argument that people used against voting for Ron Paul, and it's why he lost. You are a hypocrite and should just leave these forums please.


nope not the same argument.  Dr. Paul was running for the Repub nod and wanted nothing to do with 3rd parties.  

I think you are late to the party any ways on this argument.  I posted on 06-16-2008, 05:54 PM.  Almost 5 months ago.  

Nice of you to show up just to tell me to leave.  Maybe if we treated each other a little better rather than trying to make this little movement such an exclusive click Dr. Paul's message would have gained a little more traction.

Face it, Dr. Paul never had a chance of winning this time around.  Maybe if we get our $#@! together and stop acting like cry babies and fighting each other we will have a better shot of success in 2 years. 

Anyways, let me get you up to speed regarding the comment you quoted.  Dr. Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin.  So I guess you can stop worrying about who I am voting for.

----------


## newbitech

> We don't need to be mere sycophants and act only with his consent. 
> 
> Do your own thing people, for your own reasons. Isn't that what's at the root of all this anyway?


A leader is not a leader when no one follows.  If I was only doing my own thing, I would never have gotten involved in the first place.  I care about the future of the country and I am looking for some solid leadership to get behind.  Dr. Paul continues to show that leadership and if he thinks Baldwin is the best person on the ballot, well I think I will throw my vote behind that.

Otherwise, it makes no difference who I vote for.  I vote for the same reason I post on these forums.  Because I can.

----------


## Menthol Patch

I will probably write in Harry Browne.

----------

