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

[erowe1]

The war with Libya DID happen and the war with IRAN did not.
Yet you only brought up one of these wars .... the one that has NOT taken place.
So while you dont excuse it, you surely took time to NOT highlight it either.

But we're talking about electing the next president, and all the things that will happen, and have not yet happened, whoever that may be.

 

[LibertyPA]

The argument to NOT vote for Romney is mostly based upon his foreign Policy. This is especially important because the President is the Commander in Chief, and can bring the troops home on his 1st day in office period. I am not going to vote for a guy who will start WW3. I will only vote for someone who will bring the troops home and stop trying to be the policeman of the world. In this sense, Romney is an even BIGGER warmonger than Obama.

In every other sense, economic, civil liberties, etc, I dont see any significant differences between Obama and Romney (they both totally suck, support NDAA/PatriotAct, are keynesians,etc) I would rather vote for Johnson... who has a chance to get 5%, represents about 90% of what I believe in as a Libertarian Conservative, and seems like the best way for me to clearly give the middle finger to the GOP since they screwed Ron Paul.

Obama promised to bring all the troops home in 6 months -- he did NOT keep to his word and did no such thing. I understand there is a good chance Romney will try to start a war with Iran, but there is a chance that Iran raises a white flag and no war takes place. Yet if you care about Foreign Policy, can you defend the war in Libya that Obama has thrown us into? Again I must say, of these two "Warmongers" running for office, only one has actually put our troops into War and it wasnt Romney

As for giving the middle finger to the GOP - I'm wondering if a vote for Johnson does that. Clearly the GOP didn't listen 4 years ago when people did this in protest of McCain...and here we are with another horrible choice in Romney....so maybe this isnt the right way of giving them the finger. What do you think, is there anything else that can be done aside from the 3rd party vote?

 

[LibertyPA]

If that's your biggest worry, you're better off hoping that Obama wins, and the House stays Republican. Deadlock is better than a GOP president and a GOP house. Obama has made it clear that he can't work with a GOP House - that means government can't do much to hose us.

WOW....This has been said before but not in such a way as you have said it. It actually made me laugh - and you are correct. Obama cannot work with a GOP congress (unless they change the rules and start Bills in the Senate -- and yes I know this has happened before). But I like your thoughts here. The more government can stall, the better we are. Very good point!

 

[LibertyPA]

But we're talking about electing the next president, and all the things that will happen, and have not yet happened, whoever that may be.

Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

 

[erowe1]

Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

So, since Romney has never been president before, that makes him less likely to start a war with Iran than Obama, despite any evidence to the contrary?

 

[anaconda]

Skewing things how...meaning voting 3rd party and putting Obama in office?
Isn't that exactly what happened 4 years ago....and GOP came back with an even worse choice (if that is possible) in Romney. Can you see there being a risk of getting two left wing choices in 2016?

Skewing things to make the GOP loss as devastating as possible (I have decided this means voting for Obama). There is not only a risk, but a tremendous likelihood that we will have two left wing candidates in 2016 (just like we always do). Short of Rand and about 3 or 4 others, they are all left wing on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully we can keep growing the liberty movement and open some eyes to the wide spread corruption. I am hoping that Rand can sway lots of red state rank and file voters, and sell his platform as the most "patriotic" one. If Rand is to make an impact, he will have to capture the casual low information conservative voter as well as others. We have to stop thinking that we have to educate everyone at the Mises Institute before getting their vote. We need to start selling liberty like sex, dog food, and Pepsi.

 

[acptulsa]

Obama promised to bring all the troops home in 6 months -- he did NOT keep to his word and did no such thing. I understand there is a good chance Romney will try to start a war with Iran, but there is a chance that Iran raises a white flag and no war takes place. Yet if you care about Foreign Policy, can you defend the war in Libya that Obama has thrown us into? Again I must say, of these two "Warmongers" running for office, only one has actually put our troops into War and it wasnt Romney

Don't go disingenuous on us now. You were the one talking lesser of evils in the first place, and you know damned well the governor of Massachusetts has little opportunity to declare war on anyone but the unfortunate fools of Massachusetts. And some of those have given their lives for the state, when tiles of the massive, astoundingly expensive and notoriously corrupt Big Dig have fallen on their cars and crushed them.

At least Obama has the good grace to talk peace before he then flip flops and takes us into undeclared police actions. And at least (unlike the last R Team president) he settles for police actions instead of full fledged wars. This is no area in which to try out the saddle of the high horse.

Not my intent at all.

Well, maybe a little, eh? But you weren't logged in when I typed that a troll had arrived, so no, I wasn't talking about you.

 

[angelatc]

Haha, no you are talking about things people have done and said in the past and how they may act in the future based on the past.

So I ask you, in the past, which of these two have sent troops into war? I will answer for you ... Obama!

Which one threatened a nuclear first strike on Iran? Not Obama.

 

[LibertyPA]

So, since Romney has never been president before, that makes him less likely to start a war with Iran than Obama, despite any evidence to the contrary?

It makes Obama the only one to have sent our men and women into war (between the two).
And you keep ignoring this point. It's as if you're okay with what Obama did just because someone else, down the line, may do something worse. I guess it was okay when Obama forced through Obama Care too -- but lets blame Romney if he keeps portions of the bill -- because after all its Romney's fault and we can just forget all the problems Obama caused.

Should we forget this too??


or does this count because Obama is telling us about his "future" plans after we forget all the harm he has caused his country in the past.

And I dont mean to suggest you should like Romney or even vote for Romney -- but I do find it to be unfair to suggest Romney is the Big Bad War Guy when Obama actually sent us to war!!!

 

[LibertyPA]

Skewing things to make the GOP loss as devastating as possible (I have decided this means voting for Obama). There is not only a risk, but a tremendous likelihood that we will have two left wing candidates in 2016 (just like we always do). Short of Rand and about 3 or 4 others, they are all left wing on both sides of the aisle. Hopefully we can keep growing the liberty movement and open some eyes to the wide spread corruption. I am hoping that Rand can sway lots of red state rank and file voters, and sell his platform as the most "patriotic" one. If Rand is to make an impact, he will have to capture the casual low information conservative voter as well as others. We have to stop thinking that we have to educate everyone at the Mises Institute before getting their vote. We need to start selling liberty like sex, dog food, and Pepsi.

But you live in Cali -- the state is going Obama anyway.
This is a perfect chance for you to write-in someone or vote 3rd party....why wouldnt you do that?
or, based on your picture, do you support left wing people in the white house?

 

[LibertyPA]

Which one threatened a nuclear first strike on Iran? Not Obama.

So a threat is more serious to you than an ACTUAL war?

 

[LibertyPA]

Don't go disingenuous on us now. You were the one talking lesser of evils in the first place, and you know damned well the governor of Massachusetts has little opportunity to declare war on anyone but the unfortunate fools of Massachusetts.

Yes I know he has less chances -- I'm simply saying this is getting very over looked.

OBAMA SENT US TO WAR!!!
and some people talk about Romney sending us to war as if it already happened...blaming him already and forgetting to blame Obama.
I am not trying to defend Romney IF!!!!, yes IF, he sends us to war. But I sure want to blame Obama for already sending us to war.

 

[LibertyPA]

(dup. post)

 

[devil21]

So a threat is more serious to you than an ACTUAL war?

Yes I know he has less chances -- I'm simply saying this is getting very over looked.

OBAMA SENT US TO WAR!!!
and some people talk about Romney sending us to war as if it already happened...blaming him already and forgetting to blame Obama.
I am not trying to defend Romney IF!!!!, yes IF, he sends us to war. But I sure want to blame Obama for already sending us to war.

When you consider that Romney's entire foreign policy advisor team is comprised of the same idiots from GWB's administration that dragged us into multiple wars, no I don't view a threat as being any different than actual war. It's perfectly reasonable to expect those same idiots will be appointed to Romney's cabinet if he wins. Those people have already shown they have no qualms with lying straight into the faces of the American people and sending their kids to die over those lies, while passing the huge debt bills to those kids that do happen to survive. So in political reality, what you have in this election is two administrations that HAVE undertaken actual war. The only difference is the puppet face at the front of those wars.

 

[A. Havnes]

Welcome to the forum, LibertyPA! Despite some of these posts, I've decided to take you at your word, that you're not here to influence voters, nor are you an operative for the Romney campaign. You want a discussion, so I'll engage you in that.

First of all, why don't you feel that Romney would be a better alternative than Obama? You keep saying, essentially, that he might not simply strip away a few clauses of Obamacare and call it good, and will instead get rid of the whole thing; might not start WWIII, despite his war-mongering foreign policy advisers; and will take away less freedom than Obama, despite the fact that he supports NDAA, the TSA, the Patriot Act, and the wiretapping of mosques and churches.

Are you saying that maybe he won't make good on his campaign promises? Or are you saying that his stance against SOPA (which he could flip-flop on any second) is enough of a reason to make his brand of evil worth voting for?

My personal reasons for voting third party this election, provided I don't just write in Ron Paul's name, are these:

1. I really don't know what to expect of Romney once he's in office. He flip-flops on so many issues that I can't tell you for sure what he'll do. However...

2. His record during his time as governor stands against him. In fact, his record at Bain stands against him, too. Heck, his answers at the debates stand against him!

3. He relies too much on lawyers, going so far as to use them as advisers on Constitutional matters. If you think Obama's over-dependence on the teleprompter is bad, wait until you have a president with an over-reliance on lawyers.

4. A Romney win could shift conservative thought, making it difficult for another Republican to run against him in four more years. If Romney wins this election, then you can bet that no one will run against him in 2016, and I'm not likely to vote democrat to get him out of office. As much as it pains me to say it, Obama can only last four more years, and he's the devil I know.

5. This one is purely emotion-based, but even though I've heard that Romney can be a nice, charitable guy, his true colors came through at the RNC convention. Well, during the entire primary, actually. Disappearing buses? The prophetic teleprompter? Stripping Maine of a number of duly elected delegates? I'm sorry, but even if Romney himself didn't call for these actions, he certainly didn't condemn them, which leads me to...

6. He obviously doesn't want my vote. Why should I vote for a man who doesn't seem to want my vote to begin with? Actions speak louder than words, and his actions have shown that my vote isn't import to him. My views aren't important to him, and might even be incompatible with his. I figure, if Romney doesn't care about my vote, then I shouldn't feel obligated to vote for him.

 

[erowe1]

It makes Obama the only one to have sent our men and women into war (between the two).
And you keep ignoring this point. It's as if you're okay with what Obama did just because someone else, down the line, may do something worse. I guess it was okay when Obama forced through Obama Care too -- but lets blame Romney if he keeps portions of the bill -- because after all its Romney's fault and we can just forget all the problems Obama caused.

Should we forget this too??


or does this count because Obama is telling us about his "future" plans after we forget all the harm he has caused his country in the past.

And I dont mean to suggest you should like Romney or even vote for Romney -- but I do find it to be unfair to suggest Romney is the Big Bad War Guy when Obama actually sent us to war!!!

I'm not ignoring it.

Every president we've had for a very long time has gotten us into a war. This will continue with every president we continue to have for a long time. But as these wars go, Libya's on the small end of the scale. I see plenty or reason to expect that a Romney administration turn the level of belligerence more up to the level it was under the last Republican president we had.

 

[angelatc]

So a threat is more serious to you than an ACTUAL war?

I think of it more as a promise than a threat. The only hope I see of having the GOP return to its traditional anti-war roots is having a Democrat start wars. Libya was key - there were as many Republicans supporting his right to make the call as there were denouncing it. If a GOP president had done the same thing, all the Republicans would have supported it. And now they can say, "Well, the Democrats did it too!!!"

During the 2007/08 debates, Obama clearly said he was going to go into Pakistan. He did just that. Lots of people were surprised, because they heard only what they wanted to hear. But now, they clearly support him even though ending war was the reason that they voted for him. The GOP isn't even on that page. At this juncture, a GOP candidate who talked about honest diplomacy would be dragged through the streets. By both parties.

ROmney already said he'd consult with his lawyers before going to war. His lawyers aren't my lawyers. I do believe that (even though it's horrible) Obama's foreign policy is better than Romney's.

It's sort of funny - I don't believe what Romney says about getting Obamacare overturned, and I do believe what he says about war. You're sort of the opposite.

But Johnson isn't running on a platform that includes remaking the Middle East in our image. Since I disagree with both Obama and Romney on foreign policy, there's no reason I should vote for either of them.

 

[Todd]

You want the lesser of two evils?

4 years of Illinois Liberal > 8 years of a New England Liberal with an R by his name.


Oh...and name the only candidate who signed in to law a Gun ban.

 

[Dr.3D]

Voting for the lesser of two evils is what we have had for more than fifty years. Isn't it time to break out of that mindset?

 

[georgiaboy]

Isn't there also a risk of dividing the vote of those who favor the Right Wing ideals? That is what sounds to be happening in this election and may for a long time. Those on the left are staying on the left and so when you divide the vote on the right, don't you run the risk of having a Left Wing person in the oval office for decades?

And I don't pose this question as a reason to or not to vote for someone in this election - just a general question to ask for all.

YES!! Yes it definitely does split the vote of those who favor the Right Wing ideals.

The problem is, the nominee for all his fancy talk, does not in legislative or executive action follow through on those ideals - he actually implements Left Wing ideals!

So in fact, those who favor the Right Wing ideals have been duped. Even if their guy wins, practically speaking, a Left Wing person will be in the oval office, and this has been the case for many cycles. Regardless of whether R or D is elected, government continues to grow and grow and grow. Mark my words - whether Romney or Obama is elected, fedgov will continue to grow and grow and grow. You know it; I know it.

Enter our strategy. Vote for those who's walk matches their talk, else write-in someone, or leave that section blank. Go to the booth, vote for what you can elsewhere on the ballot, but vote only for what you support, not what you don't. If every voter across the country did this, we would get somewhere new. Can you see this? Each of our votes really do count, and as more and more of us take this position, the parties and candidates must react or face defeat.

As it is, people get all wrapped up in voting for the team colors, but in the end the winner continues the expansion of gov't on all fronts. We must see this for what it is and do something about it. Continuing to vote for perpetuating this charade is the absolute worst thing to do.

I hoped and prayed that after what happened in 2008, the GOP would shift in our direction and embrace real conservative candidates. I didn't realize the size of the problem. In 2012, we on the forums witnessed first hand the depth and breadth of the corruption within the party, the lengths people in the party will go to to hold power and keep the status quo going.

Nonetheless, our movement has seen its numbers continue to grow. We are winning, getting candidates elected across the country, taking over state and local GOP party apparatuses, and the size of rallies, vote counts, and primary results all increased. Our market share is increasing, we're doing the right things. It's working, despite the obstacles.

We who can see this for what it is have an obligation to do everything we can to change things. We're doing so on every front, from who we vote for and support in campaigns, to becoming active in the party, running for party leadership, running for office ourselves, advocating our positions in media, supporting media that does, educating ourselves and others, pointing out errors and falsehoods where we see them - especially MSM. Oh yeah, and feeling great and having fun embracing our God-given freedom all the while.

Join us!