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

[anaconda]

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?

Because skewing the results in the vote count to Obama is a strategically good move. My avatar is obviously satire, especially when taken within the context of my pro liberty, anti government posts.

 

[LibertyPA]

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.

Wow, so you are saying IF Romney uses the same cabinet and IF a situation presents itself to that cabinet, then they are both the same.
You should know what happens when you assume!
and even still, with all these IF's coming true....you are still brushing over the OBAMA WAR that he sent us into. Focus on that in your next reply please - tell me how wrong it was and how much of a problem it was and let me hear your rant and rave about the War Hungry Obama.....or you can again brush over it and focus back on IF Romney this and IF Romney that.

 

[LibertyPA]

Because skewing the results in the vote count to Obama is a strategically good move. My avatar is obviously satire, especially when taken within the context of my pro liberty, anti government posts.

sorry about the confusion with the picture. my mistake.

 

[LibertyPA]

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.

They cannot both be "Exactly" the same....though I guess they are so close that you dont see much or hardly any differences, at least not on your key issues.
so you aer right, I falsely assumed -- thank you for your post, it was helpful!

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

Wow, so you are saying IF Romney uses the same cabinet and IF a situation presents itself to that cabinet, then they are both the same.
You should know what happens when you assume!
and even still, with all these IF's coming true....you are still brushing over the OBAMA WAR that he sent us into. Focus on that in your next reply please - tell me how wrong it was and how much of a problem it was and let me hear your rant and rave about the War Hungry Obama.....or you can again brush over it and focus back on IF Romney this and IF Romney that.

For someone "on the fence" - you seem certainly defensive of Romney. Are you trying to convince us that Romney is the peace candidate? I'm sure that would go over great with the Hannity crowd... The peace candidate?! The guy who wants to increase the military budget by 2 billion (more money we can't afford)?? Seriously, we know Obama is also a warmonger. Both Obama and Romney are funded and lobbied by the corporations who make money off of wars. This is no secret to us. But to try and paint Romney as a peace candidate is funny.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

They cannot both be "Exactly" the same....though I guess they are so close that you dont see much or hardly any differences, at least not on your key issues.
so you aer right, I falsely assumed -- thank you for your post, it was helpful!

You are right, they are not exactly the same. They have different labels intended to appeal to different people. Perhaps even their fluffer ingredients are different. But eating a jar of blue-raspberry cyanide is not better than a jar of cherry cyanide.

 

[devil21]

Wow, so you are saying IF Romney uses the same cabinet and IF a situation presents itself to that cabinet, then they are both the same.
You should know what happens when you assume!

If it's based on history, then you'll usually assume correctly. Especially when the original history is lies upon lies. Your original argument was that only Obama has waged war. Romney's presumed cabinet also has. Twice. Under false pretenses. Just like Obama's cabinet has.

and even still, with all these IF's coming true....you are still brushing over the OBAMA WAR that he sent us into. Focus on that in your next reply please - tell me how wrong it was and how much of a problem it was and let me hear your rant and rave about the War Hungry Obama.....or you can again brush over it and focus back on IF Romney this and IF Romney that.

Im not brushing over anything. Im telling you why Obama and Romney are the same and a vote for Johnson is the best choice. That was the original question of your thread, was it not? I won't follow your orders to "tell you how" anything was since Im not signing up for your research project. Im just dropping facts that expose your bullshit. If lying about yellowcake, AQ in Iraq or other falsehoods wasn't enough to make you question Romney's CURRENT advisors then you're way too far gone and I know you have no desire to learn answers to the question you asked. You're defensive on basic facts.

 

[devil21]

Stop being HELPFUL to this troll! Haven't you all noticed he appreciates your "help" while not actually changing the tone of his posts?? There hasn't been a single post saying something like you make sense and you're right so Ill vote for GJ.

This isn't an exchange of ideas. It's a fucking research project on how to appeal to Paul activists. Can we get this thing locked please?

 

[Czolgosz]

Stop being HELPFUL to this troll! Haven't you all noticed he appreciates your "help" while not actually changing the tone of his posts?? There hasn't been a single post saying something like you make sense and you're right so Ill vote for GJ.

This isn't an exchange of ideas. It's a fucking research project on how to appeal to Paul activists. Can we get this thing locked please?

Srsly.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

Stop being HELPFUL to this troll! Haven't you all noticed he appreciates your "help" while not actually changing the tone of his posts?? There hasn't been a single post saying something like you make sense and you're right so Ill vote for GJ.

This isn't an exchange of ideas. It's a fucking research project on how to appeal to Paul activists. Can we get this thing locked please?

Sure, this is a research project. Who knows if it is just one person doing their best to make a last minute appeal for Romney, or if it is a coordinated effort to gather intel on us. I kinda hope it is the latter. I would love to see the Romney campaign take this information and try to come up with some hail-mary appeal to Paul supporters and libertarians. It would be hilarious.
So far, the best appeal that the OP can come up with is the fact that Romney hasn't started any wars. It would be ridiculous if Romney came out later this week and all of a sudden was trying to be the peace candidate.
There is no appeal that would bring any more of us aboard.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

Also, I feel that a thread like this is useful because it reminds us of the principles that unite us. In recent weeks, there has been a lot of division here regarding the "GJ vs Write-In vs No-Vote" question - and there will always be some bickering over abortion and gay issues. But, a thread like this brings out the core issues that create this movement. To me, not voting for Obama/Romney is a no-brainer because these principles are now ingrained into my philosophy - But articulating this towards an opposing force creates an opportunity to remind ourselves why this movement exists. The key issues (the issues that we generally find MOST important) are the principles that Romney and Obama continuously violate. Hence, I do not mind at all being part of this research project. It's not like we are giving up our secret strategies. Instead, we are clearly articulating and defending our core principles (which is something that I am always interested in).

 

[Dr.3D]

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.

This is good... but I would like to add.
If people would stop voting for the two they think will win and instead vote for the one choice they would like to have win, someday when people actually decided to vote against those two, we would actually get something other than those two. This voting for one because we don't want the other is stupid! It doesn't change a thing and never will. If you want something different, vote for something different, not the same thing you have been voting for every time around.

Break the mold and vote outside of the garbage arena. You can never go wrong, voting for what you want, instead of something you don't want, even if you believe you won't get what you want this time. We need more people to vote for someone who isn't crap, so someday, someone who isn't crap will win.

 

[LibertyPA]

For someone "on the fence" - you seem certainly defensive of Romney. Are you trying to convince us that Romney is the peace candidate? I'm sure that would go over great with the Hannity crowd... The peace candidate?! The guy who wants to increase the military budget by 2 billion (more money we can't afford)?? Seriously, we know Obama is also a warmonger. Both Obama and Romney are funded and lobbied by the corporations who make money off of wars. This is no secret to us. But to try and paint Romney as a peace candidate is funny.

If you have been following along, you will notice that i have defended Romney and 3rd party -- as well as pointed out or agreed to flaws.

As for this particulart example, i have read quite a few posts talking about romney being the war guy, and yet until i bring it up, no one has commented about Obama's war. I find that to be unfair, which is why i "defend" romney, though i dont think of it as coming to his defense.

 

[phill4paul]

Stop being HELPFUL to this troll! Haven't you all noticed he appreciates your "help" while not actually changing the tone of his posts?? There hasn't been a single post saying something like you make sense and you're right so Ill vote for GJ.

This isn't an exchange of ideas. It's a fucking research project on how to appeal to Paul activists. Can we get this thing locked please?

I second this proposal. It's time to boot the Rmoney shills.

 

[LibertyPA]

If it's based on history, then you'll usually assume correctly. Especially when the original history is lies upon lies. Your original argument was that only Obama has waged war. Romney's presumed cabinet also has. Twice. Under false pretenses. Just like Obama's cabinet has.

Im not brushing over anything. Im telling you why Obama and Romney are the same and a vote for Johnson is the best choice. That was the original question of your thread, was it not? I won't follow your orders to "tell you how" anything was since Im not signing up for your research project. Im just dropping facts that expose your bullshit. If lying about yellowcake, AQ in Iraq or other falsehoods wasn't enough to make you question Romney's CURRENT advisors then you're way too far gone and I know you have no desire to learn answers to the question you asked. You're defensive on basic facts.

My original argument is that Romney is being associated with WAR, and Obama's name does not get brought up along with a WAR and I find that to be unfair. The posts, until I have said something, only say that Romney is the War Guy. Romney may be very likely to send people to war, but the fact still is that Obama is the only one to do that to date (between the two) and when people post about WAR, they should offer full disclosure and include that point - is what I am saying.

 

[LibertyPA]

Stop There hasn't been a single post saying something like you make sense and you're right so Ill vote for GJ.

This isn't an exchange of ideas. It's a fucking research project on how to appeal to Paul activists. Can we get this thing locked please?

I have said at a few times on here that I am leaning more or accepting more of things that others have said. Though I have only been here a few days, it takes time to push someone to one side or the other. And you dont need to use the language to get the point across - why would this get locked? I have welcomed all ideas, just asking for people to stop making attacks. I reply to most every comment that isnt an attack (though I did reply to your one message that was unrelated). and yet you continue to attack me rather than offer facts, opinions, etc in a polite way.

 

[LibertyPA]

Sure, this is a research project. Who knows if it is just one person doing their best to make a last minute appeal for Romney, or if it is a coordinated effort to gather intel on us. I kinda hope it is the latter. I would love to see the Romney campaign take this information and try to come up with some hail-mary appeal to Paul supporters and libertarians. It would be hilarious.
So far, the best appeal that the OP can come up with is the fact that Romney hasn't started any wars. It would be ridiculous if Romney came out later this week and all of a sudden was trying to be the peace candidate.
There is no appeal that would bring any more of us aboard.

HAHA....."a coordinated effort to gather intel on us"?????? oh my gosh....are you serious?!?!
So people cant just read all your posts....they actually had to start a new forum to gather intel? LOL!!!!!!
I have never seen such unfounded paranoia from a group (not all, thankfully, but there are quite a few of you out there who have made similar posts)....im sorry to hear this is the way you go through life.

 

[LibertyPA]

Can we get this thing locked please?

good idea -- why dont we shut down the 1st Amendment right of the person who isnt 100% in agreement with devil21.

 

[LibertyPA]

You can never go wrong, voting for what you want, instead of something you don't want, even if you believe you won't get what you want this time. We need more people to vote for someone who isn't crap, so someday, someone who isn't crap will win.

Points like this are ones that are "winning me over". Because Romney is not a person I like or want to win. Though I don't fully agree that Romney and Obama are the exact same guy with a different name and face. So when you talk about voting for someone i want, who isnt crap - then that would not be romney.
Thank you for still sharing your thoughts!!

 

[LibertyPA]

I second this proposal. It's time to boot the Rmoney shills.

You also agree to shut out anyone who doesn't 100% agrees with everything you say and want to read/hear? So much for a "sharing of ideas".