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

[Odin]

If I was in a swing state I would probably vote for Romney. Since I'm in California, it doesn't matter.

Personally I would like to see Obama humiliated by a landslide defeat on election day, primarily on the principle that a corrupt, dishonest, and nearly totalitarian government deserves to be thrown out on their asses. But for Obama to win would send the message to everyone that you can screw the people as much as you want, lie whenever it suits you, and still be reelected. That would be very damaging imo.

 

[acptulsa]

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...

Well, it heats my emotions up, too. But for good reason. By ignoring the delegates, who are We, the People, he took the republic out of the Republican Party. If he'll do this to his own party, what will he do to the nation? Will We, the People have any voice at all?

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.

And so Ron Paul was--and by the media, too.

"Peace is like a beautiful woman--it's wonderful, but has been known to bear watching."--Will Rogers 1929

Personally I would like to see Obama humiliated by a landslide defeat on election day, primarily on the principle that a corrupt, dishonest, and nearly totalitarian government deserves to be thrown out on their asses. But for Obama to win would send the message to everyone that you can screw the people as much as you want, lie whenever it suits you, and still be reelected. That would be very damaging imo.

I agree. But since Romney did the same thing to Massachusetts, then to the delegates of his own party, I don't see him getting elected as any improvement at all. Neither major party candidate deserves to win. Both would be damaging and sending the wrong message. So, instead of bothering to vote against, I think the only path open is to find someone worth voting for.

 

[Odin]

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

What we're doing to Iran right now (sanctions) is much, much worse than it would be to just bomb their nuclear facilities if they exist.

The Iranian people are already suffering and dying because of the sanctions, their economy is absolutely crippled. I'm not sure if Romney threatened a nuclear strike, I've never heard him say "nuclear," he always says the military option is "on the table," but Obama's not a saint just because he hasn't bombed Iran, just ask the Iranian people. The military option would ironically be a step backward at this point.

 

[RonPaul101.com]

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

In short, Yes We Can.

You are missing half of this two fronted battle. Part 1: Liberty minded candidates are trying to change the GOP from within. Part 2: Actual Libertarians (Gary Johnson this time around) need to keep establishment GOP candidates from winning so that the average GOP primary voter learns that they will only 'pick a winner' when it's one of our guys. Once these voters get sick of Loser John McCain, and Loser Mitt Romney, (or God forbid) Loser Rick Santorum, they may decide that going 8... 12... 16... years without a Republican in the White house is reason enough to vote for Rand Paul in a primary. Most voters are way less complex than those of us on this forum -- they just want their side to win in November. And although that is a terrible reason to vote for anyone, I understand this is a results oriented process.

I am sorry that it seems like this country will have to have President Obama for four more years -- deeply sorry, and I fought very hard to avoid the scenario. However I cannot vote for Romney or Obama. Neither of them even remotely mirrors what I want out of my government. While I admit no candidate would make the perfect President, of those on the ballot I can largely agree with Gov Gary Johnson and I am impressed with his ability to do the right thing while Governor. I also will not vote with a write-in vote or vote for anyone not an actual candidate this Tuesday (I won't write-in someone because they are a hero, an idol, or a crush - I only vote for candidates.) I personally feel that more can be accomplished by voting for Gov Johnson, however I do respect everyone's right to vote how they see fit.

 

[Odin]

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?

Yes but I think people here are already out of that mindset but the nation at large is still in it, and that is reality. It is a two party system, end of. If we wanted multiple parties and true representation we would need to switch to a proportional system.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes but I think people here are already out of that mindset but the nation at large is still in it, and that is reality. It is a two party system, end of. If we wanted multiple parties and true representation we would need to switch to a proportional system.

I've always thought that the Libertarian Party could have a bigger influence in Congress than their numbers indicated by voting with the Democrats on civil liberties issues and with the Republicans on economic issues. Of course, I came to this line of thought before these things became bipartisan efforts. Now I think the LP would restore us to a two party system--the Demopublicans and the Libertarians.

And the best way to break America out of the two party mindset is to show them enough numbers for another party that they realize that if they join us, that will tip them over into strength and relevance. The only difference between too small to be considered and big enough to join is numbers, so why not add to the numbers? An evolutionary vote is still more productive than the usual lesser of evils support of incrementalism. Especially when they've already incrementally moved us this close to tyranny.

 

[Odin]

I've always thought that the Libertarian Party could have a bigger influence in Congress than their numbers indicated by voting with the Democrats on civil liberties issues and with the Republicans on economic issues. Of course, I came to this line of thought before these things became bipartisan efforts. Now I think the LP would restore us to a two party system--the Demopublicans and the Libertarians.

And the best way to break America out of the two party mindset is to show them enough numbers for another party that they realize that if they join us, that will tip them over into strength and relevance. The only difference between too small to be considered and big enough to join is numbers, so why not add to the numbers? An evolutionary vote is still more productive than the usual lesser of evils support of incrementalism. Especially when they've already incrementally moved us this close to tyranny.

It's more the way the political system is set up. It's been a two party system since Adams and Jefferson, and it will stay that way I believe. Even though the parties have changed, some have come into and out of existence, it has always been two major parties and that's just how it is going to be because that's how collective psychology works. The nation growing larger has only added to that imo. The only hope is that one of the parties destroys itself and someone else steps into the vacuum.

 

[acptulsa]

It's more the way the political system is set up. It's been a two party system since Adams and Jefferson, and it will stay that way I believe. Even though the parties have changed, some have come into and out of existence, it has always been two major parties and that's just how it is going to be because that's how collective psychology works. The nation growing larger has only added to that imo. The only hope is that one of the parties destroys itself and someone else steps into the vacuum.

Neither party has 'destroyed itself' until you, shall we say, stop feeding the troll.

The time to decide if you're part of the problem or part of the solution is now. Evolution can't happen too soon.

 

[WesSeid]

Again, you are correct. It teaches them no lesson. But voting for G.J. and then giving Obama 4 more years may also not teach them a lesson. In fact, if Obama gets 4 more years and does an even worse job (if that is possible), it may even give the republicans more power and care less about the Libertarian vote because most all people will vote for anyone but another Dem.

Even Rush Limbaugh and other big-government neocon talking heads have said things like shut the Republican Party down if Romney can't even beat Obama and his pathetic record. Simply put, if Romney loses, the Republican Party has a lot of explaining to do. Maybe some people who run the Republican campaigns and RNC might actually get fired! Dare to dream.

The current big-government neocons in Congress won't even stop funding the parts of Obamacare they currently could defund. Boehner and the rest keep robo signing the temporary spending bills that keep funding parts of what is currently Obamacare.

Obama might actually be better than Romney, especially on foreign policy and not increasing spending as much. It sounds crazy, but that's how pathetic Romney is. The guy says he wants to increase military by $200 billion dollars a year. The guy just doesn't get it. At least with Obama in the White House some Republicans might actually fight him on some things.

Guess who in Congress has been voting against the renewal of the Patriot Act and electronic wiretap act lately? DEMOCRATS. not Republicans. Sad but true!

Romney has also signed more gun bans than Obama has and has specifically stated his dumb and ignorant opinion on "assault weapons."

If Gary Johnson gets 5% of the vote, the two-party party is over. If Gary Johnson gets 5% in 2012, everyone here will be kissing his and his voters' feet in thanks come 2016.

If I was in a swing state I would probably vote for Romney. Since I'm in California, it doesn't matter.

I live in a swing state, and Romney and the corrupt RNC can kiss my ass. Gary Johnson 2012.

 

[Todd]

Not voting or Rmoney.

Still deciding if voting for Goode, Johnson or writiing in Ron Paul. Virginia doesn't care about write ins unless they formally registered. Ron Paul did not. It's a toughy.

 

[LibertyPA]

a New England Liberal with an R by his name.

I fully agree with you here. This is as left wing of an "R" as I have seen.
And i thought McCain was about as far left as an "R" could get....didn't think an "R" could actually cross over the mid-line.

But it goes back to an earlier question i asked....people voted 3rd party last election, saying that it would teach the GOP a lesson....and what did the GOP do in return? it selected a guy who sits on the LEFT, slightly, to beat out a guy who is FAR Left - I dont like it!

 

[LibertyPA]

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?

maybe!

The more I am here and the more I chat, the more I am getting torn about what I will do in 6 days.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

But it goes back to an earlier question i asked....people voted 3rd party last election, saying that it would teach the GOP a lesson....and what did the GOP do in return? it selected a guy who sits on the LEFT, slightly, to beat out a guy who is FAR Left - I dont like it!

This is so true. Every other one of the contenders for the nomination (with the exception of Huntsman) was to the right of Romney. And yet none of them even came close to beating him. This notion that Republican voters will nominate a more conservative candidate if they are "taught a lesson" is a false one.

If we want a conservative nominee there is a simple path to that. Run for committee seats!

The more libertarians and conservatives we have in committee seats, the more libertarians and conservatives we will have winning primaries and thus winning in the general election. Candidates like Bills, Cruz, Massie, Amash, Bentivolio, Rand, etc just don't materialize out of thin air. They get there because, in large part, they have the support of the county committees.

 

[brandon]

if PA tightens up before the election I might just vote for Obama. Otherwise, Johnson.

Reasoning: Because fuck the GOP old guard.

 

[WesSeid]

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.

Fun fact: if government stays gridlocked and if spending were frozen, the budget will balance itself in 10 years.

Every other one of the contenders for the nomination (with the exception of Huntsman) was to the right of Romney. And yet none of them even came close to beating him. This notion that Republican voters will nominate a more conservative candidate if they are "taught a lesson" is a false one.

No! Those other candidates didn't beat Romney because Ron Paul knocked their asses out!

Even after one of the debates a news guy made a comment like, "Ron Paul has been a one-man wrecking crew, knocking out Bachmann, Cain..." etc.

Ron Paul WAS a one-man wrecking crew. But we all know the supposed behind-the-scenes happenings on why he never really went after Romney.

edit: rereading your post, we might be on a little different specifics of the subject. However, there is still this to consider: a lot of Republicans still think McCain only lost because Obama was sort of a once in a lifetime, right place, right time, kind of candidate. If Romney loses against Obama's horrible record, questions will have to be asked. Even Rush Limbaugh is already asking them and saying if Romney can't beat Obama's pathetic record then shut down the party.

 

[LibertyPA]

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.

As there are not many people here to offer up a discussion with me, I must first start by saying THANK YOU. I am happy you decided to make a post. I took time to read through what you wrote and would like to reply.

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.

I think he is smart enough to know that if he gets elected, it is mainly because the American citizens do not like ObamaCare. If, somehow, the Repub's take the Senate, and congress overturns ObamaCare, and it comes across Romney's desk - there is no way he can veto it. He would almost kill his chances at one term. And then, once he signs the bill to overturn ObamaCare, I can only hope that the Repubs in congress would not put forth Romney Care - because it is their choice to do it, not Romney. And even though Romeny was supporting the altering of Obama Care into Romney care awhile ago -- I do believe he (and the GOP) is smart enough to know he must just overturn ObamaCare fully if he wants ANY chance to run for a second term.

As for the war, I dont think he will start WWIII....and again, Obama is not doing a good job with Libya....I will, for now, give the "war issue" a push because I think Obama is doing major things wrong in foreign policy.

Patriot Act and all other items you included upset me -- and upset me a lot!! But those are not reasons I am voting for Romney....because Obama is for those items too. So again this is a vote AGAINST Obama, not for Romney.
And....I must say, since I have been here chatting, I am becoming more torn about what I will actually do with my vote.

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...

Again, this is the exact same as the Flip-Flopping Obama....so while I don't like what I am hearing from Romney, Obama is no better and in my opinion...worse!

As much as it pains me to say it, Obama can only last four more years, and he's the devil I know.

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.

Thank you again for welcoming me and taking the time to message me....of all you wrote, #6 hit home with me more than any of the others. You make a great point here. Why should I give a vote to a guy who doesn;t go out of his way to excite me about voting for him?!? And I don't have an answer here for you -- but I can tell you that not only does Obama want my vote...he spits in the face of my vote and lets it be known that he not only doesnt want it but is happy that i am not giving it to him.
Again though, you make a great point here - and it is one I will give very much thought to.
Once more, thank you again for offering your thoughts! I hope to hear from you again soon!!

 

[devil21]

This is so true. Every other one of the contenders for the nomination (with the exception of Huntsman) was to the right of Romney. And yet none of them even came close to beating him. This notion that Republican voters will nominate a more conservative candidate if they are "taught a lesson" is a false one.

The media (both partisan sides) spent a lot of time working to convince GOP voters that Mitt, with all of his obvious faults, was the only "electable" candidate in the GOP primary and that his nomination was basically a foregone conclusion. How many headlines told the rest of the candidates to drop out and concede to Mitt for the sake of "party unity"? Very few, outside of the sizable Mormon population, really wanted Mitt to be the standard bearer for the GOP. Give those same voters a conservative candidate WITH media support and the narrative changes dramatically.

If we want a conservative nominee there is a simple path to that. Run for committee seats!

The more libertarians and conservatives we have in committee seats, the more libertarians and conservatives we will have winning primaries and thus winning in the general election. Candidates like Bills, Cruz, Massie, Amash, Bentivolio, Rand, etc just don't materialize out of thin air. They get there because, in large part, they have the support of the county committees.

This is ongoing.

PS - I wonder why LibertyPA ignores my posts on this thread? Maybe they make too much sense.

 

[LibertyPA]

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.

Yes, I realize they are both left wing -- one more than the other.
But electing the one SO FAR Left is frther away from my ideals -- and thats what a 3rd party vote does in a swing state.

as for joining you ---- its a thought. All I can tell you is, for now, im still hanging around here!

 

[LibertyPA]

If I was in a swing state I would probably vote for Romney. Since I'm in California, it doesn't matter.

Personally I would like to see Obama humiliated by a landslide defeat on election day, primarily on the principle that a corrupt, dishonest, and nearly totalitarian government deserves to be thrown out on their asses. But for Obama to win would send the message to everyone that you can screw the people as much as you want, lie whenever it suits you, and still be reelected. That would be very damaging imo.

Please tell me more about why you'd vote FOR romney if you lived in a swing state.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

This is ongoing.

I hope so. Other than people I already knew here in my county and the adjoining one, I don't know of anyone new that will be running for committee next year.