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

[Odin]

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

I think I already did - on the principle that a corrupt, deceptive, authoritarian regime should be thrown out on their asses. I'll probably say the same thing again in 4 years if Romney is elected but at this moment I hate Obama and what he has done, and he should be thrown out of office no matter what imo.

My main point is what kind of message does it send if that slime ball gets reelected, it's about the worst thing I can imagine, not to mention having to see him on TV for the next 4 years. Idk if I can handle that, seriously I think there's barely anyone more despicable in politics, and he gets a free pass from the media for the most part. At least if Romney is elected the media will hold him accountable, with Obama the media is complicit with his lies and cover ups, and I think that's just disgusting and I hope to god he loses and that has nothing to do with being for Romney, but that I would take practically anyone but Obama.

 

[LibertyPA]

Obama most certainly does not want or promote socialism. He's a solid Keynesian just like Romney.

So taking wealth from the top and sharing it around to others .... thats Keynesian, not socialist?

 

[LibertyPA]

Okay, you keep talk about the faults against Obama, but we're already voting against Obama

That isnt exactly true. People in a swing state voting for 3rd party are, in part, voting FOR Obama....or, at the very least, giving him the win.

 

[LibertyPA]

I think I already did - on the principle that a corrupt, deceptive, authoritarian regime should be thrown out on their asses. I'll probably say the same thing again in 4 years if Romney is elected but at this moment I hate Obama and what he has done, and he should be thrown out of office no matter what imo.

So you'd likely vote for the Dem, in 4 years?

 

[sailingaway]

That isnt exactly true. People in a swing state voting for 3rd party are, in part, voting FOR Obama....or, at the very least, giving him the win.

No, they are not giving legitimacy to either of them. If all refused to vote for bad candidates, we would stop having bad politicians. And it is the ONLY way to get there.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

Fantastic thread guys! Bravo!

 

[brandon]

So taking wealth from the top and sharing it around to others .... thats Keynesian, not socialist?

Yep, absolutely. Socialism is a system where the means of production are completely owned by the public. In socialism there is no wealth to redistribute because all the wealth is owned publicly and paid out equally. Calling Obama a socialist is as offensive to the real socialists as calling Romney a libertarian is to us.

 

[tuggy24g]

Anyone who is thinking about voting for Romney after all Ron Paul did to prove that Romney is just like Obama is not a true Ron Paul supporter. We all know Romney and Obama are similar in a lot of areas. Right now the Libertarian party is vary close to 5% nationally in votes. If we get 5% nationally we could get them over 20million in tax payer dollars that would end up going right to the GOP and DEM. So your vote might be more then in the long run then voting for the lesser of two evils.

 

[LibertyPA]

No, they are not giving legitimacy to either of them. If all refused to vote for bad candidates, we would stop having bad politicians. And it is the ONLY way to get there.

I agree, they aren't giving legitimacy to either.....but they are giving the election to Obama.

 

[devil21]

I have no reason to reply to your false opinions about my initial post.

That's not what I asked you to reply to. I posted twice earlier in this thread on the topic and you ignored them while furiously typing up replies every 2 minutes to other posts that weren't as direct. Reply to my posts before I called your thread out as a research project. Do I need to quote myself? Search "idiots" in this thread if you want to find one of the posts since that's what I called Romney's advisors.

 

[LibertyPA]

Yep, absolutely. Socialism is a system where the means of production are completely owned by the public. In socialism there is no wealth to redistribute because all the wealth is owned publicly and paid out equally. Calling Obama a socialist is as offensive to the real socialists as calling Romney a libertarian is to us.

Socialism cannot happen over night - but Obama is working hard to put us onto that path.
when you say publicly owned - you can sub in "State" or "Govt Owned" and when the government forces some to pay more in taxes (as if they dont own it and its belongs to the government) then turns around and forms social programs such as life long welfare, unending unemployment, grants, etc.

and i would never call romney a libertarian

 

[LibertyPA]

That's not what I asked you to reply to. I posted twice earlier in this thread on the topic and you ignored them while furiously typing up replies every 2 minutes to other posts that weren't as direct. Reply to my posts before I called your thread out as a research project. Do I need to quote myself? Search "idiots" in this thread if you want to find one.

yes you do---please quote the two other posts.
because this post i quoted was also before you called it research

 

[LibertyPA]

Anyone who is thinking about voting for Romney after all Ron Paul did to prove that Romney is just like Obama is not a true Ron Paul supporter. We all know Romney and Obama are similar in a lot of areas. Right now the Libertarian party is vary close to 5% nationally in votes. If we get 5% nationally we could get them over 20million in tax payer dollars that would end up going right to the GOP and DEM. So your vote might be more then in the long run then voting for the lesser of two evils.

I am not understanding this post, but very interested!!
tell me more about this 5% and $20Mil please

 

[devil21]

Im amazed how prolificly you can post in two minutes flat. Notice the three posts above this one. That's amazingly efficient. Looks like a team of posters.

 

[devil21]

What do you have to say about this post in regards to why someone would vote for Johnson instead of Romney?

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.

 

[devil21]

And this one

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

Is it that there's nothing to argue and I don't give you the chance to declare a greater or lesser of evils since both socialism and fascism are both equally evil?

 

[Odin]

So you'd likely vote for the Dem, in 4 years?

It depends, no I am probably going to vote for Gary Johnson as I live in California, but if I lived in a swing state I would have to evaluate it in 4 years time. I doubt Romney will be as bad as Obama has been, but yes if he is corrupt and deceitful and authoritarian like Obama has been then he should be thrown out too. If Hillary is the Dem candidate it would be a hard choice though, pretty much despise her.

 

[TheGrinch]

Nvm. Drunk post

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

People in a swing state voting for 3rd party are, in part, voting FOR Obama....or, at the very least, giving him the win.

This is certainly not true. You are assuming that people who vote third party have Romney as their second choice.

You are FALSELY assuming that many of us see the election like this food analogy:
Let's say I am in a group of 11 people voting on dinner, and the options are:
A) Obama = Feces
B) Romney = Cardboard
C) 3rd party/Write in = Pizza
Now, for some weird reason, I am pretty sure that 5 of the people want to eat feces tonight, and 5 other people want to eat cardboard. Of course, I want the pizza, but I know it has no chance to win. So, according to this false analogy, I would likely vote for cardboard because it is the better pragmatic choice. This is how I believe the OP is presenting the election; and in that paradigm, it is confusing to him as to why anyone would not vote for cardboard as "the lesser of two evils." But this analogy is rooted in a false assumption.

Many of us INSTEAD view the menu as this:
A) Obama = Poison (D)
B) Romney = Poison (R)
C) 3rd party/Write in = Broccoli
Even though I know one of the poisons will win, I would rather not be complicit in the selection of poison. I would rather be recorded as one of the few who voted against poison. I don't care which brand of poison is chosen by the others, why would I? I will do my best to alert everyone that poison is bad and keep fighting until I die from the poison selected by my peers. I will not vote for poison, and yes, in my opinion, both Romney and Obama are different brands of poison. I don't care what they claim on the label.

 

[papitosabe]

I just actually listened to Gary Johnson give a speech for the first time. And OH MY GOD! This guy is a goober. I'm sorry. He just uses RP talking points and tries to put a passionate sound after it. "LIVE FREE, LIVE FREE!" Give me a break. If I can't write in RP in Texas, then I'll still vote for GJ in order to send a message. But jeez, he just sounds like a circlejerk.