General Libertarians In Swing States: Can we risk 4 more Obama years by voting for Johnson?

clearly an honorable thing!
and yes, i'm sorry that i assumed you were voting for GJ.
I know you wont vote for either R or D....so are you voting for no one, or write in? (and I dont need to know a name, just curious)

thanks for sharing your words....i have put away the rope I was going to hang myself with if Obama won....you talked me off the ledge. That doesnt make me any more happy about the direction of this country, but it does make me think more seriously about a 3rd party vote in PA

I will probably write in Ron Paul, because at the very least the raw write-in aggregation will be counted as a protest, and hopefully send a message to the powers that be.

It would have the same effect as writing in Mickey Mouse, but at least I will have a clear conscience.

I am glad that you feel better about what was formerly your worst-case nightmare scenario.

I admit that given the near-certainty of total economic collapse by the end of 2014, conservatives are actually better off if Obama gets the blame, because then the unthinking voters will run our way for the rebuilding.

My primary hope is not for either one of the two to win, but for whomever wins that a different party would hold Congress. The very best scenario for all of us would be a legislative logjam.

So if the Congress were going to be Republican we'd be better off with Obama, but if the Congress were going to be Democrat we'd be better off with Romney.

The only hiccup to this line of reasoning would be the potential appointment of justices to the Supreme Court, but my sensitivity to that was dulled by John Robert's lunacy over the PPACA (Obamacare).

So...

My biggest hope is that Congress and the White House is held by opposing parties. Congress is likely to stay Republican, and I hope that Republicans take the Senate also. My secondary consideration is that the left gets the blame for the 2014/2015 collapse so that the voters run our way to rebuild.

Therefore, I am working to put as many of our (Constitutionalist) people in office by the 2014 elections, so that we can be the primary voice for rebuilding following the collapse.
 
This was related to how people were personally attacking me for asking a question and asking for a civil debate.
I introduced myself, I shared my views, I asked questions and asked people to share their opinions if they wanted to join -- and the first few pages are filled with people making comments and personally coming after me. Taht was the reason for this post. Though the founders had passion, I'm sure they wouldnt instantly attack and accuse a new person with being part of a conspiracy theory without first talking with them, or at last taking a moment to intoduce their points.

Please excuse us for being paranoid. One reason is that we've been inundated with people trying to talk us into this lesser of evils business, and not being nice about it. Some of them are indeed trying to get responses from us that they can take to die-hard Republicans and say, look these aren't team players (as if they were being team players when they denied the delegates a voice at the convention). Another is that we've been preaching this for some time now (some of us longer than others). Maybe we don't have lives, or don't seem to. I won't argue that. But with so much at stake, isn't this kind of a late date to bone up on this stuff?

They've kept us so tied up in knots with their divide and conquer game that we've let them incrementally stuff us with corporatism. Somewhere, sometime, we have to set abortion and gay marriage and this and that aside and get together to push the reset button. It must be done, or our children will grow up in something that has no resemblance to the United States at all.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee the states a lot of leeway. They could do most of the stuff the federal government does. We sold independent voters and even disaffected Democrats on this. If Paul had won the nomination, Paul would be thumping Obama right now. He was enormously electable, but all the Fox talking heads were saying just the opposite. Fox set the Republicans up to fail by talking the Republican rank and file out of nominating a principled conservative. It's what Republicans should have expected from the yellowcake uranium journalism of Fox, but you know...

The corporations go to a powerful Washington and do one stop shopping. If the federal government left everything to the states that it should, according to the Constitution, leave to the states, then these corporations that want to buy influence would have to buy fifty state legislatures. That would be far more difficult and expensive, and we could get a nation that isn't run by corporations. If you want to fix problems with your local fire department, you don't want it run out of Washington. Then you have to convince twenty million people that your fire department is more important than abortion, gay marriage, and their local fire departments combined. You can laugh at that, but Homeland Security pays local fire departments to jump through their hoops these days, and I'll bet your local fire department has half a dozen federal grant proposal writers on staff. This should scare you.

Thomas Jefferson said that if one central government were ever to gain control over this nation, it would be the most corrupt government on the face of the earth. This is why the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve much of what Washington does to the states, or counties, or cities, or to the people themselves. They are ignored, and that's a very bad thing.

At some point, Americans have to draw a line in the sand, and say that these side issues are not more important than cutting Washington down to size. We get worried about this silly thing one party is doing, and that silly thing that the 'other' party is doing (as if there were only two parties), and we don't get to the core of the problem. So, the problem just grows.

We have a line in the sand, and here we stand. Not all of us; not yet. But more of us every cycle. Maybe at some point you'll see what I'm saying, and help us get at the heart of the matter. Then we might do something other than just slow half the rampant corruption down a little, no?
 
Last edited:
The only hiccup to this line of reasoning would be the potential appointment of justices to the Supreme Court, but my sensitivity to that was dulled by John Robert's lunacy over the PPACA (Obamacare).

What about Jay bybee and John yoo?



Add in the fact that Bush never appointed anyone with an anti-Federalist tilt.

In fact, everyone he appoints was the opposite: the Federalist society.
 
Last edited:
I admit that given the near-certainty of total economic collapse by the end of 2014, conservatives are actually better off if Obama gets the blame, because then the unthinking voters will run our way for the rebuilding.


I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.


And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?
 
Please excuse us for being paranoid. One reason is that we've been inundated with people trying to talk us into this lesser of evils business, and not being nice about it. Some of them are indeed trying to get responses from us that they can take to die-hard Republicans and say, look these aren't team players (as if they were being team players when they denied the delegates a voice at the convention). Another is that we've been preaching this for some time now (some of us longer than others).

That is a point I can understand -- thanks for clearing things up and thank you more for taking the time to right out your thoughts! It was helpful!
 
Great post acptulsa REEEEEP!

I don't like the idea of the congress/president argument either. On certain aspects yes but....

Romney already said he doesn't need congress approval to go to war with Iran -1

Though the House was Republican, Senate Democrat and a Socialistic President, all civil liberty issues were passed like butter. All republicans in the house loved their NDAA, Patriot Act, FISA, CISPA, and Senate had no problem passing them either. So I am not sure how much help this will give us. -4,000
 
I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.


And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?

To my understanding, the odds are they will still control the Senate as things look now, but GOP will still control the House. At one point the SEnate was in play but I don't know if there is time for that to come back.
 
There are a majority of Republican appointees on the Supreme Court now, and it isn't helping. One of the Republican appointees votes with the Democratic appointees when they decide that case will further the corporatist cause. Clearly a Republican that you can't tell from the Democrats (like Romney) is no help. So, stop worrying about it and vote for someone of character whenever and wherever you can find one.

Ron Paul voted against the other 434 members of the House time and time again. And Rand Paul has done that in the Senate. The really nasty stuff always seems to get that bipartisan effort. It isn't the Rs and the Ds that make the difference, it's the men and women of character and principle. We can't afford to just look at the jerseys any more before we throw the ball. Too many of the guys in Republican jerseys are as likely to run for the Democrat's goalposts.

As voters, we must do better.

Don't believe that the politicians can completely destroy the nation in four years. Rome didn't burn in a day. This nation has even survived failed currencies before.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, this nation is bigger than Washington, D.C. And if you don't believe it, I'll be happy to show you a map!

We can't afford to have faith in either major party any more. But by the grace of God, we can still have faith in this great nation.
 
Last edited:
Though the founders had passion, I'm sure they wouldnt instantly attack and accuse a new person with being part of a conspiracy theory without first talking with them, or at last taking a moment to intoduce their points.

Your point is summed up in the thread title you wrote. It is obvious you think that a vote for Johnson could give the election to Obama. You are assuming too much. Most people that are voting for Johnson would be voting for Obama if Johnson wasn't a option. Yeah, Ron Paul is a Republican, and many of the people on this forum are Republicans, but a equal or greater amount of his supporters are either Democrat or Independent. Johnson's supporters lean more to the Democrat side than the Republican side.

Your question should have been, "Can we risk 8 years of Romney by voting for Johnson?"

BTW, you also picked the wrong forum to ask your question. Most here are voting for Ron Paul!
 
Last edited:
I heard people say this after bush -- he put us in a bad spot and we should elect Obama so he gets the blame. But, thanks to the help of the U.S. Media, the blame stays on bush for all the problems and Obama gets praise for all he does right (if anything).

I'm not sure I trust 4 more years to fall at the feet of Obama....I do think Bush will get the blame and the general public relate him to a conservative, even though he isnt.

It's an awful stretch at this point to keep blaming Bush, and while the media keeps pushing it, it seems only the radical partisans are buying it anymore. Another 2 years and that will be even less likely.

This biggest thing we could have done in 2008 to avoid this, would have been to own up to the Bush disaster. Republicans by and large failed to own up to our own failure in 2009-- so we lost the moral high ground to argue for Obama's culpability.

Going forward, we still have the opportunity to reclaim the high ground. When they attempt to blame Bush, we say, "yes, Bush was a horrible mistake because of X, Y, Z, but Obama is horrible because of A, B, C, and has done nothing but make the problem worse. These are Obama's policies that have led to the current collapse...

The important part is that if you want to break away from the 'blame the other party no matter what' mentality, you have to claim the moral high ground. Bush was legitimately awful, so you maintain the moral high ground by acceding to it.

It has worked brilliantly for me.

And to your Sup. Court comment --- you just talked me off the ledge, no need to bring up John Robert's and put me back on it! :(

I don't argue like most people. Most people like to just overlook data points that do not help their case. If I manage to win an argument I want it to be logical not rhetorical.

My point was that I don't think a Republican President will help that much. Our best hope is a Republican US Senate, and that Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas can hold out another four years. Scalia and Kennedy will be 80 in 4 years.

how likely do you think it is that the Dems no longer control the senate after this election?

The odds were good up until Richard Mourdock went foot-in-mouth and now with the liberal media making hay, I'm guessing it's just slightly better than 50/50 that Republicans take the Senate.

Right now, Republicans taking the Senate is our best and brightest hope. Not only can they logjam the White House, they can also block horrible SCOTUS appointments.
 
Proof Romney & Obama are more alike than different.

Say NO to ROBAMNEY & YES to HONEST RON FOREVER!!

Dave Garry posts:
Let's compare Obama's and Romney's stances on the issues:

Mitt Romney ----- Barack Obama

Pro NDAA ----- Pro NDAA
Pro Patriot Act ----- Pro Patriot Act
Pro Agenda 21 ----- Pro Agenda 21
Pro TSA ----- Pro TSA
Pro Carbon tax ----- Pro Carbon tax
Pro Individual Mandate ----- Pro Individual Mandate
Pro Abortion ----- Pro Abortion
Pro Endless Undeclared Wars----- Pro Endless Undeclared Wars
Pro Occupation----- Pro Occupation
Pro Torture ----- Pro Torture
Pro Assassination ----- Pro Assassination
Pro Drone Strikes ----- Pro Drone Strikes
Pro Aid to Israel and Dictatorships ----- Pro Aid to Israel and Dictatorships
Pro Drug War-----Pro Drug war
Pro Banker Bailouts ----- Pro Banker Bailouts
Pro Federal Reserve ----- Pro Federal Reserve
Pro IRS and IMF ----- Pro IRS and IMF
Pro Corporatism ----- Pro Corporatism
Pro NAFTA ----- Pro NAFTA
Pro Illegal Immigration ----- Pro Illegal Immigration
Pro North American Union ----- Pro North American Union
Pro Gun Grab ----- Pro Gun Grab
Funded by Goldman Sachs ----- Funded by Goldman Sachs
Lies to You ----- Lies To you

Hmmm...seems I'm having difficulty here coming up with differences...they appear to be the same candidate. Help me out, people.

Read more: Ron Paul and Gary Johnson’s supporters are not a “nonfactor” in this election | Washington Times Communities
 
Think I may vote for Soetoro, to maximize smack down to the GOP, and help Rand for 2016. Also, spoiling the parity within the false left-right paradigm upsets their apple cart. They need to keep it relatively close year in and year out, and we are making it difficult for them. There are a number of voting strategies, but this time I think I like the one that inflicts the most injury to the false two party system. A vote for Soetoro is is doubly damaging to the GOP (it's not only a vote withheld from Mittens - it's also one added to his rival) and undermines the false dog-and-pony show in a more dramatic way than a vote for a liberty candidate. For now..

Another consideration is that if Gary Johnson gets 5% nationally then the LP gets 50 state ballot access in 2016:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2021656/pg1

It's one week away and RP has not endorsed (as far as I know - I haven't checked in much lately). I would likely have voted for whomever he would have endorsed.
 
Last edited:
Think I may vote for Soetoro, to maximize smack down to the GOP, and help Rand for 2016.
Yeah, but then you are partially responsible for the results. At least with my NOBP vote, I can let my children know that I was not responsible in any way for what has happened. I can sleep a little easier knowing I voted for the person I want to be President. Not giving my vote for some tyrant for "strategic" pruposes.
 
Say NO to ROBAMNEY & YES to HONEST RON FOREVER!!

Two that stood out to me -- you are saying Romney supports Cap And Trade?
and also supports Illegal Immigration?


I agree they are very similar and I agree they are both liars.
But these two points above stood out to me -- updated info to explain those both would be helpful, thanks!
 
Obama's record is pure failure and an easy way to prove that is because he hasn't said a word about his record (at least not a true word) all year

When you're voting for someone to rob and enslave you, would you rather them fail or succeed? I'd rather them fail.
 
When you're voting for someone to rob and enslave you, would you rather them fail or succeed? I'd rather them fail.
Good point. Romney may be slightly better at making government run more efficiently, but an efficient government should scare the hell out of you!
 
what does "least evil" mean?
he caused the worst problem for this country since the Depression!

(note that Obama forgot about the problems Carter caused when he talks about the problems Bush caused)

Carter caused the worst problem since the Depression? What problem was that?
 
I am not sure about the Keynesian economics = Romney Economics, but I am willing to listen to you explain more. Isn't Keynesian similar to what was seen with The New Deal?? I am not sure how FDR and Romney relate on the economy. Obama and FRD relate though.

Romney is definitely a Keynesian just like Obama and FDR.
This spring, when asked if he would cut spending, he said:
"Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5 percent. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I'm not going to do that, of course,"

In 2008 he also criticized McCain for proposing spending cuts, saying that cutting spending is not stimulative for the economy.
 
as a non swing state vote -- I love seeing you vote for G.J. and that is eactly what I would do too!
And I do love steak! Though you cant get steak at D.Q. and at the moment, thats where we are located, inside the doors of D.Q. (at least that is why I'm torn)

So, I'm likely not voting GJ - prolly RP write-in for me.

D.Q. does have hamburgers, btw. :P
 
Back
Top