Everytime I read one of your posts... I think to myself "She can't possibly top this one for outright stupidity" and everytime I'm wrong.
Baldwin Or Barr - Poll
- Thread starter Razmear
- Start date
Everytime I read one of your posts... I think to myself "She can't possibly top this one for outright stupidity" and everytime I'm wrong.
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
Baldwin is looking at around 1% nationally. Cynthia Mcsomethingoranother from Green Party is unpopular among the environmentalists who are voting Obama anyways...Apparition
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 377
I'm still not sure.. I'll wait and see what happens.
I like Baldwin personally a lot better... but I do also think that getting the LP more exposure would be more beneficial since I do not believe that Barr will win the presidency anyway.
Ron Paul is the first candidate I have ever been FOR.
The rest have been purely against, and I have no problem saying that I voted for Badnarik in 04 and Nader in 2000.
I just strongly urge everyone to take in the facts, and do what you think is right. =)
I like Baldwin personally a lot better... but I do also think that getting the LP more exposure would be more beneficial since I do not believe that Barr will win the presidency anyway.
Ron Paul is the first candidate I have ever been FOR.
The rest have been purely against, and I have no problem saying that I voted for Badnarik in 04 and Nader in 2000.
I just strongly urge everyone to take in the facts, and do what you think is right. =)
1.) I prefer Ron Paul over the two listed above.
2.) I prefer Bob Barr over Baldwin, as much as I admire Baldwin and his support for Paul.
3.) What good is voting for Baldwin if he will be on fewer state ballots, let alone excluded from your state's ballot?
For these reasons, I will be voting for Barr.
As for Barr's past and how he's not 1,000,000,000% libertarian, that is another issue, which is not as big of a deal as some critics have made it out to be. Since 2003, Barr has been pushing for smaller government, changing our disaterous foreign policy, restoring the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the privacy of citizens, among other libertarian ideas.
Some have labeled Barr as a neoconservative, disguising himself as a libertarian. Let's see if this adds up and makes sense:
He was enemy #1 of the libertarians and is defeated by them. Rather then reinforcing his beliefs, he took a step back and researched libertarian principles. After educating himself with these principles, he joined the Libertarian Party, a small and insignifcant politcal party, in comparison to the Democrats and Republicans. (Brace yourself, here it comes...) Now, he is going to try to launch a campaign to get into the White House, via a third party, against all odds, and during this time he is bringing to light the truth behind the dangerous neoconservatives that have hijacked the libertarian-conservative movement, and then once elected into office as the President of the United states, he is going to apply his secret neoconservative beliefs out in the open, which he just warned the American people to be on the look out for...
Wait a second, what? Isn't that extremely self-defeating? (All the while, he is bringing national attention to the libertarian philosophy and even garner a record number of voters to switch to the Libertarian Party ticket.) This is somehow... neoconservative? Am I missing something?
2.) I prefer Bob Barr over Baldwin, as much as I admire Baldwin and his support for Paul.
3.) What good is voting for Baldwin if he will be on fewer state ballots, let alone excluded from your state's ballot?
For these reasons, I will be voting for Barr.
As for Barr's past and how he's not 1,000,000,000% libertarian, that is another issue, which is not as big of a deal as some critics have made it out to be. Since 2003, Barr has been pushing for smaller government, changing our disaterous foreign policy, restoring the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the privacy of citizens, among other libertarian ideas.
Some have labeled Barr as a neoconservative, disguising himself as a libertarian. Let's see if this adds up and makes sense:
He was enemy #1 of the libertarians and is defeated by them. Rather then reinforcing his beliefs, he took a step back and researched libertarian principles. After educating himself with these principles, he joined the Libertarian Party, a small and insignifcant politcal party, in comparison to the Democrats and Republicans. (Brace yourself, here it comes...) Now, he is going to try to launch a campaign to get into the White House, via a third party, against all odds, and during this time he is bringing to light the truth behind the dangerous neoconservatives that have hijacked the libertarian-conservative movement, and then once elected into office as the President of the United states, he is going to apply his secret neoconservative beliefs out in the open, which he just warned the American people to be on the look out for...
Wait a second, what? Isn't that extremely self-defeating? (All the while, he is bringing national attention to the libertarian philosophy and even garner a record number of voters to switch to the Libertarian Party ticket.) This is somehow... neoconservative? Am I missing something?
Last edited:
PhantomPhoenix
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5
Barr, by far. Baldwin is a theocrat interested in banning porn, for goshsakes. At least Barr, though once a very neoconny figure, seems to have genuinely seen the error of his ways.
Similar threads
