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

[jmdrake]

Doesn't matter which one wins, we still get screwed.

Exactly. We can neither afford more socialism nor more war. Romney is slightly more likely to give us more war. Obama is slightly more likely to give us more socialism. Both spell disaster for the USA. The best we can hope for is that one wins the popular vote and the other wins the electoral vote so that whoever wins lacks a clear mandate to govern. Beyond that.....I don't care anymore....

 

[georgiaboy]

PA only lets people registered with the party vote in the primary, so I could not vote -- but if I remember correctly, I think the Republicans (not conservatives) in PA voted for Romney.....so why do you think they would change now? And i only ask that because you say the conservatives have the power to change the GOP and while I would be happy to do that - change both Dem and Repub......but can you explain how voting 3rd party will be sure to get the change you, or I, or we want?

By denying GOP enough conservative votes when they nominate liberal candidates, hopefully the GOP will suffer loss after loss, and realize that the real formula to winning is to nominate actual conservative candidates.

Based on the uproar against TARP, the other bailouts, and the pre-emptive wars, and seeing the tea party victories in 2010, etc., I believe real conservatism is not only philosophically and pragmatically right, but it is actually the majority view of US voters and is a winner.

The key is only voting for actual conservatives, else logging a protest, so that, through loss, the GOP will find its way back to its conservative principles and candidates.

For years I voted straight GOP ticket, thinking that just by voting R I was gonna get smaller gov't. Didn't happen; actually got worse. It has been said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

My insanity cure has been to vote the candidate, not the party. That one decision fills me with renewed purpose every day and make me realize just how much each of our one votes do count. That, and this little r3volution I stumbled upon back in 2007.

 

[rpfocus]

This is starting to get a bit scary....when people question your points or ask questions in general -- you instantly assume its some consiracy theory. I'm sorry you live such a paranoid life, but I am simply a person coming here to ask question and hope to get answers. Not a hidden spy trying to secretly corrupt you after I fully admit my way of leaning my vote to romney this year. Haha...Are you this good at cracking all of the 3rd grade puzzles you attempt? LOL

I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. This is a troll thread and your intention to persuade us to vote for your guy is quite obvious. Since yesterday, you have 91 posts all on the same troll thread, you obviously have no interest in any other discussion that doesn't involve a bump to said troll thread. Whether you call it "Just Asking Questions" or I call it "Annoying Message Board Trolling" is irrelevant as the intention and effect are the same.

You state that your intention is to find out why we're not doing 'all we can to get Obama out of office'. The answer is because your guy is certainly no better. Romney is a warmonger (which is interesting in that he ducked the draft and ran to France during Vietnam, and none of his 5 sons have served), and a vote for him is basically signing on to a war with Iran. Not to mention the blatent disrespect and dishonesty shown to Ron Paul supporters during the primaries.

I will no longer assist you in your attempt to troll this forum. Goodbye.

 

[acptulsa]

I don't believe it's a conspiracy at all. This is a troll thread and your intention to persuade us to vote for your guy is quite obvious.

I don't think so. I've seen a whole lot of troll threads around here. And they all have certain things in common. They don't elicit our best arguments for our cause. And when those arguments do appear, the trolls either ignore them and spam away (either in that thread, or in one or two or three new ones instead) hoping to bury them, or they attack them as ruthlessly as they can.

I don't think this is an unhealthy thread.

If you want to see trollish behavior, look up 'tennman'. Speaking of which, isn't Collinz from Tennessee..?

 

[Warmon]

In a word, YES.

The following quote is from an article posted on the Gun Owners of America website:
http://gunowners.org/mittromney-2012.htm

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't think so. I've seen a whole lot of troll threads around here. And they all have certain things in common. They don't elicit our best arguments for our cause. And when those arguments do appear, the trolls either ignore them and spam away (either in that thread, or in one or two or three new ones instead) hoping to bury them, or they attack them as ruthlessly as they can.

I don't think this is an unhealthy thread.

If you want to see trollish behavior, look up 'tennman'. Speaking of which, isn't Collinz from Tennessee..?

Well, I think it still could be a troll thread, given that he resorted to the "you guys are just paranoid conspiracy theorists for claiming I have alterior motives (even when I clearly do)" argument. He's just clearly not a pro at playing gotcha, and his attempt to guilt us into supporting Romney because we should hate Obama more, is clearly backfiring, hence why he's given up at this point.

Not that anyone here is going to be persuaded to vote for Romney if they haven't already, but I don't think bumping this thread is a bad thing. It can only make republican-onlookers see that it's not about us not being "team players", it's about how badly we've been screwed over, ignored, cheated, disenfranchised, all at a time when they claimed that we were no threat to the nomination, by the guy who now wants our vote.

People aren't that stupid, or at least not those who are here.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

Things to consider, since the original-poster seems a bit thrown off by many responses here. Let me fill you in on the past 5 years here:

• This is not a Libertarian Party community board. In fact, many here (not all) have a disdain for the Libertarian Party, their enacted principles, and their decisions (see: Bob Barr 2008).
• While many here (certainly not all) might consider themselves libertarians; there is a big distinction between the capital "L" (party) and lowercase "l" (philosophy) and most on this board consider it important to distinguish this.
• This is certainly not a Gary Johnson forum, even though there happens to be some folks here who consider him the best remaining ballot option and will vote that way for the general election.
• This is a Ron Paul forum, which should be obvious. An affinity for Ron Paul is really the only single thing that most (almost all) the people here have in common.
• As soon as the Republican primary ended, and it was clear Ron Paul would not be the nominee, this forum has had a barrage of threads pushing Gary Johnson (and to some extent Obama or Romney). Some of these are honest appeals and useful discussions, but some are basically spambots. Regardless, there is a general atmosphere of annoyance that has developed because of this.
• Ron Paul, his delegates, and his community were not treated well throughout the Republican Primary or at the conventions. Our people were cheated and sometimes even physically beaten. As you can imagine, especially for those who participated, a disdain towards Romney and the GOP establishment has been amplified.
• Not all people here, but most of us do not see Romney as the lesser of two evils, not even marginally. The climate here is not the "do anything to get Obama out of office" mindset that you find in other Republican circles. No, Obama is not popular here either. On average, the sentiment is that Obama and Romney are the same and work for the same globalist & corporatism interests. Any apparent minor difference is rhetoric: a dog and pony show not based on principle. Even within this fabricated rhetoric, both Romney and Obama will hit some positives: Romney sometimes claims to want to deal with taxes and a more free market -- Obama sometimes claims to want to limit US foreign wars and protect civil liberties. All these issues, on both sides, are technically appealing to us; however evidence and history have shown that these claims are not true. Both candidates, in equal action, have gone against any such concern in virtual totality. Hence, many of us see two different brands of poison.
• Principles! On a forum dedicated to Ron Paul, you should not be surprised to find people who value principle at a high stake. Romney has proven to not have a track record of principled behavior and consistency.
• Please remember the issues that Ron Paul emphasizes, and do not be surprised if those issues are the most important to people on this forum. This is includes:
  • reforming monetary policy and disempowering the Federal Reserve system.
  • changing the bankrupt and immoral philosophy of empire building, undeclared wars, and international-meddling.
  • seriously and aggressively balancing the budget and solving the US debt, including cuts on all fronts.
  • limiting the federal government's involvement to CONSTITUTIONAL levels.
  • stressing individual natural rights and property rights: not collective rights, not "government given" fake rights.
  • minimizing the collusion between big business and government by removing the tools from the government: such as food and energy subsidies, industry regulations written by big companies, bailouts / corporate welfare, etc.
• The above issues generally go equally ignored by Romney and Obama, and equally ignored by most politicians in general.
• It is false to assume that people voting for 3rd party (or writing in Paul) would otherwise vote for Romney or Obama: especially within the microcosm of this forum. Many people here, like most of the country, simply wouldn't vote at all if presented a two option ballot. There are many people who really do not care who wins between the two, not because they don't care in general, but because they do care in general.

This post has gotten too long for my tastes, so I will end it here. I just felt like the thread-starter did not understand this forum and did not have a good grasp of key issues which dominate Ron Paul's philosophy (and hence are popular on RonPaulForums).

 

[TheGrinch]

+rep Paultitics!

So proud that there are so many here who can articulate our message so well, and don't fall into partisan traps and unfounded rhetoric.

 

[DeMintConservative]

Been away lately, but I assume there's been a bunch of these rationalizations being used to try to sway our vote here...

But sorry, after the way Romney and the establishemnt cheated and disenfranchised our people at every turn rather than embracing new members to their party, they have surely lost any possible chance of the vast majority of us even considering voting for Romney.

And regardless, most here wouldn't vote for a corrupt establishment lackey on either side of the aisle in the first place, so there's that....

LOL

I agree. Although I suspect many will still vote for Obama.

Why make up excuses then?

 

[DeMintConservative]

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

For many of these so called "Libertarians"/"conservatives", voting out an incumbent because of his record is only valid when it's a GOP incumbent. Heck, I heard it all the time four years ago and McCain wasn't even an incumbent - but there were lots of "libertarians" claiming "I'll vote for Obama because the GOP needs to be punished for what they did in the last 4 years". Same in 2004. But in years like this one or 2000, that argument stops being valid.

And then they expect the GOP to move towards their direction to conquer their votes. Insanity.

 

[rpfocus]

(Post omitted)

*Standing Ovation*

 

[acptulsa]

For many of these so called "Libertarians"/"conservatives", voting out an incumbent because of his record is only valid when it's a GOP incumbent. Heck, I heard it all the time four years ago and McCain wasn't even an incumbent - but there were lots of "libertarians" claiming "I'll vote for Obama because the GOP needs to be punished for what they did in the last 4 years". Same in 2004. But in years like this one or 2000, that argument stops being valid.

You can't seem to tell a Libertarian from a libertarian. Voting Obama out is valid. We told you how to do it--nominate Paul. We had independents and even disaffected Democrats all lined up to vote for him, but someone was too stupid to nominate him. And Romney's voting record in Taxachusetts, and the actions of him and his crew, are as valid reason not to vote him in as Obama's record is to vote him out.

Just because someone bought an Edsel against our advice is no reason why we need to be over at his house every weekend with our tools.

 

[DeMintConservative]

You can't seem to tell a Libertarian from a libertarian. Voting Obama out is valid. We told you how to do it--nominate Paul. We had independents and even disaffected Democrats all lined up to vote for him, but someone was too stupid to nominate him. And Romney's voting record in Taxachusetts, and the actions of him and his crew, are as valid reason not to vote him in as Obama's record is to vote him out.

Just because someone bought an Edsel against our advice is no reason why we need to be over at his house every weekend with our tools.

Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

I doubt Ron Paul would get to 40% of the vote. There's a reason he couldn't even beat Santorum in a GOP primary. The idea that the majority of RINOs and centrists would vote for Paul is beyond bizarre. The idea that he'd get non-negligible support from liberals is flat out crazy.

We'll just see how Paulite candidates will do vis a vis the top of the ticket.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

They always were a bunch of copycats. But we have the polls to prove it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...eUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/r...a-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012...t-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...a-head-to-head

Oh, and for those who said this was a troll thread. I still think the OP is digesting his food for thought. But the trolls have arrived...

 

[TheGrinch]

Yeah, yeah, that's what the Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman, etc, supporters are all saying.

I doubt Ron Paul would get to 40% of the vote. There's a reason he couldn't even beat Santorum in a GOP primary. The idea that the majority of RINOs and centrists would vote for Paul is beyond bizarre. The idea that he'd get non-negligible support from liberals is flat out crazy.

We'll just see how Paulite candidates will do vis a vis the top of the ticket.

He was the only candidate polling neck and neck with Obama, and that was jsut during the primary season when he didn't have as much exposure to reach more voters with truth. The RINOs would do what they're told to beat Obama. How do you think Romney became nominee?

He would have been an absolute rockstar if the corporate media wanted him. Truth is, the neocons and corrupt banksters would gladly lose rather than put an honest man who can't be bought like Dr. Paul on the ticket.

So sorry, but that's absolute crap that "he couldn't beat Santorum, so...". People's first preferrence in a 4-way race does not equate to a lack of support in a 1 man race. Aren't all those Santorum supporters holding their nose for Romney now? WQhy wouldn't they for Dr. Paul, if they weren't told that he's a crazy old unelectable kook?

 

[DeMintConservative]

Head to head general election polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Ron Paul had 2 leads (again, state polls, polls where he's close but not leading and online polls don't really matter)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

2 Leads for Gingrich.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

2 Leads for Santorum.

And this was before

Once Obama would release his millions on RP plans for SS, Medicare, etc., military, the newsletter stuff, his association with Lew Rocwell, etc, he'd be lucky to get to 35%.


I've seen sore losers before, but nothing in the scale of Ron Paul supporters. The idea that you are the only guys who are entitled to vote for you favorite primary candidate and nobody else but that all the others would fall in line is one of the most delusional and arrogant things I ever read. Your logic is "those guys I bash and call names every time would certainly side with me if it was my guy. I can't support their guy, but they would support mine for sure". It's crazy.

Ron Paul couldn't even beat a total nobody like Rick Santorum. You guys should come to terms with that and focus on working to make Ron Paul's ideas more popular instead of fantasizing about a world where Ron Paul ideas are popular enough for him to win a national general election using some childish logic and wishful thinking.

 

[TheGrinch]

Head to head general election polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

Ron Paul had 2 leads (again, state polls, polls where he's close but not leading and online polls don't really matter)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_gingrich_vs_obama-1453.html

2 Leads for Gingrich.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

2 Leads for Santorum.

And this was before

Once Obama would release his millions on RP plans for SS, Medicare, etc., military, the newsletter stuff, his association with Lew Rocwell, etc, he'd be lucky to get to 35%.


I've seen sore losers before, but nothing in the scale of Ron Paul supporters. The idea that you are the only guys who are entitled to vote for you favorite primary candidate and nobody else but that all the others would fall in line is one of the most delusional and arrogant things I ever read. Your logic is "those guys I bash and call names every time would certainly side with me if it was my guy. I can't support their guy, but they would support mine for sure". It's crazy.

Ron Paul couldn't even beat a total nobody like Rick Santorum. You guys should come to terms with that and focus on working to make Ron Paul's ideas more popular instead of fantasizing about a world where Ron Paul ideas are popular enough for him to win a national general election using some childish logic and wishful thinking.

Whatever man, we're working on it. As soon as the establishment and media give him a fair shake, maybe in won't be such an uphill battle. I'm not holding my breath.

So please stop with monday morning QBing trying to make us feel bad about the outstanding efforts that were made with the deck stacked against us. You're right that in the current environment, it's an uphill battle, but Dr. Paul has never been given a fair chance.


In sum, we're not sore losers. We have freaking principles, unlike those who manipulate the elections and give them to bankster candidates before they even start. If you're somehow right that Dr. Paul would lose support if America found out more about his positions in a fair and honest way (which I doubt, because there is a libertarian spirit in all Americans who are being pushed too far and want answers), then well, that's America's problem, not ours...

Sorry, but don't come into our house and shit on us. We've only begun to fight, so again, stop with your monday morning QBing trying to make us feel like our undying support of one of the rare honest men in Washington is something to apologizxe for. Fuck yes I think he could be president, if the deck wasn't stacked against him. So I agree, that's what needs to change.

 

[devil21]

So my choices are voting for a socialist, voting for a fascist, or voting for liberty.

Tough call! I think I'll vote for fascism. /sarc

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Things to consider, since the original-poster seems a bit thrown off by many responses here. Let me fill you in on the past 5 years here:

• This is not a Libertarian Party community board. In fact, many here (not all) have a disdain for the Libertarian Party, their enacted principles, and their decisions (see: Bob Barr 2008).
• While many here (certainly not all) might consider themselves libertarians; there is a big distinction between the capital "L" (party) and lowercase "l" (philosophy) and most on this board consider it important to distinguish this.
• This is certainly not a Gary Johnson forum, even though there happens to be some folks here who consider him the best remaining ballot option and will vote that way for the general election.
• This is a Ron Paul forum, which should be obvious. An affinity for Ron Paul is really the only single thing that most (almost all) the people here have in common.
• As soon as the Republican primary ended, and it was clear Ron Paul would not be the nominee, this forum has had a barrage of threads pushing Gary Johnson (and to some extent Obama or Romney). Some of these are honest appeals and useful discussions, but some are basically spambots. Regardless, there is a general atmosphere of annoyance that has developed because of this.
• Ron Paul, his delegates, and his community were not treated well throughout the Republican Primary or at the conventions. Our people were cheated and sometimes even physically beaten. As you can imagine, especially for those who participated, a disdain towards Romney and the GOP establishment has been amplified.
• Not all people here, but most of us do not see Romney as the lesser of two evils, not even marginally. The climate here is not the "do anything to get Obama out of office" mindset that you find in other Republican circles. No, Obama is not popular here either. On average, the sentiment is that Obama and Romney are the same and work for the same globalist & corporatism interests. Any apparent minor difference is rhetoric: a dog and pony show not based on principle. Even within this fabricated rhetoric, both Romney and Obama will hit some positives: Romney sometimes claims to want to deal with taxes and a more free market -- Obama sometimes claims to want to limit US foreign wars and protect civil liberties. All these issues, on both sides, are technically appealing to us; however evidence and history have shown that these claims are not true. Both candidates, in equal action, have gone against any such concern in virtual totality. Hence, many of us see two different brands of poison.
• Principles! On a forum dedicated to Ron Paul, you should not be surprised to find people who value principle at a high stake. Romney has proven to not have a track record of principled behavior and consistency.
• Please remember the issues that Ron Paul emphasizes, and do not be surprised if those issues are the most important to people on this forum. This is includes:
  • reforming monetary policy and disempowering the Federal Reserve system.
  • changing the bankrupt and immoral philosophy of empire building, undeclared wars, and international-meddling.
  • seriously and aggressively balancing the budget and solving the US debt, including cuts on all fronts.
  • limiting the federal government's involvement to CONSTITUTIONAL levels.
  • stressing individual natural rights and property rights: not collective rights, not "government given" fake rights.
  • minimizing the collusion between big business and government by removing the tools from the government: such as food and energy subsidies, industry regulations written by big companies, bailouts / corporate welfare, etc.
• The above issues generally go equally ignored by Romney and Obama, and equally ignored by most politicians in general.
• It is false to assume that people voting for 3rd party (or writing in Paul) would otherwise vote for Romney or Obama: especially within the microcosm of this forum. Many people here, like most of the country, simply wouldn't vote at all if presented a two option ballot. There are many people who really do not care who wins between the two, not because they don't care in general, but because they do care in general.

This post has gotten too long for my tastes, so I will end it here. I just felt like the thread-starter did not understand this forum and did not have a good grasp of key issues which dominate Ron Paul's philosophy (and hence are popular on RonPaulForums).

I must say that this is one of the most solid and accurate analyses I have ever seen about the mob which inhabits this realm. +Rep

 

[anaconda]

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.

I empathize completely. But it is a virtual certainty that one of these two buffoons will be President. Skewing the results can make some impact on the political landscape in a positive way. I can live with that.