McCain, Obama, Baldwin, Barr, Nader: Who Gets Your Vote?

[newyearsrevolution08]

This one election is not as important as educating the public for the next election cycle starting in 3 years.

Vote for anyone besides mccain or obama and we will be fine. We will end up with obama for sure unless diabold and whoever else is able to convince American that mccain actually beat out obama and with the sheeple in this country it odds are will take less than 2 weeks... sad really.

I think what needs to be looked into is the presidential candidates for the next election while our national delegates do their best pushing CONSTITUTIONAL efforts at the convention.

Look at this election year as the pre-stage to the largest political takeover ever done in American history. We will get our gop back and remove those from office that are AGAINST American and the constitution.

Focus on the delegate efforts at the convention and educating those around you and build up a nice local group that discusses local politics.

Imagine getting the names of potential candidates to run for ALL local positions available in the next 1-4 years. Get everything ready NOW because it will make things easier for you later on.

Save up money to help fund your first marketing campaign and filing fees and so on. We can get great candidates in locally who can help influence the presidential elections in 3+ years time.

We need to get a ton of local office, governors, mayors and so on endorsing OUR candidates. We will end up with more of US then them and soon enough they will have to do something drastic like taking the internet from us or taking up arms but I feel in both scenarios we have plans to deal with them indeed.

If I could vote for anyone up there is would be Ron Paul all the way but other then that it is simply vote for ANYONE besides obama or mccain.

 

[Kludge]

Baldwin should have been named in the LTGoP poll...

 

[sidster]

Baldwin should have been named in the LTGoP poll...

I didn't create letter-to-gop. But I think he got the nomination
after the site was a go.

So I suppose he fits in "Other" category @ 12.4%

 

[Kludge]

I'm a social libertarian. I beleive in some socialist policies.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I guess I dont' understand people voting for someone for president who has never been in politics before, has no voting record and no name recognition and can't get on ballots. It amazes me...TONES

 

[electronicmaji]

I guess I dont' understand people voting for someone for president who has never been in politics before, has no voting record and no name recognition and can't get on ballots. It amazes me...TONES

Are you talking about Baldwin or Barr?

 

[Kludge]

Are you talking about Baldwin or Barr?

Barr is a former senator with exceptional name recognition, friend.

 

[electronicmaji]

IS that all you can do? You are the very definition of a troll. We debated the point and proved our point of view several times. Stop acting like a two year old and accept that people within this movement have different views.

 

[Kludge]

IS that all you can do? You are the very definition of a troll. We debated the point and proved our point of view several times. Stop acting like a two year old and accept that people within this movement have different views.

Social libertarians do not exist.

To claim what is not yours is unjustifiable.

 

[electronicmaji]

I guess I dont' understand people voting for someone for president who has never been in politics before, has no voting record and no name recognition and can't get on ballots. It amazes me...TONES

He has the same amount of experience as Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Truman.

In politics experience really starts becoming a moot point when your dealing with mainstream politicians; experience tends to make them dirty corrupt bastards more than anything else.

 

[Kludge]

He has the same amount of experience as Abraham Lincoln, FDR, or Truman.

In politics experience really starts becoming a moot point when your dealing with mainstream politicians; experience tends to make them dirty corrupt bastards more than anything else.

"Tend" being the key word.

Leaders are to be exceptional. Hence why they are elected to lead the nation.

 

[electronicmaji]

Social libertarians do not exist.

To claim what is not yours is unjustifiable.

You claim they do not exist. I'm proof evident. I beleive in policies that can only be defined as Socially Libertarian. There are large root movements that break of libertarianism.

Anarcho-Capitalism and Paleolibertarianism are not the core of Libertarianism. In fact by a lot of people in the Libertarian communit Ron Paul is viewed as a fringe candidate. Libertarians offshoots are large and very great in number.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't even root itself in Libertarianism. It roots itself from Anarchism; which was mostly practiced by the Anarchists who were a subersive terrorist movement in the USA.

In fact the biggest terrorist attack in the history of the USA before 9/11 was commited by Anarchists.

They're not exactly of the best repute.

Even Minarchists can't stand Anarch-Capitalists.

And Minarchists don't equal liberarians either.

And we're not even beggining to get into the Voluntarists; the Libertarian Socialists; the Beltway-Libertarians, The Geo-Libertarians, or the Neo-Libertarians.

 

[Kludge]

Anarchism is the purist form of libertarianism, and RPH can tolerate me just fine

A Social Libertarian is a misguided liberal associating himself with libertarianism because he idea of a normal liberal is the authoritarian socialists heading the Democrat Party.

 

[electronicmaji]

Anarchism is the purest form of insanity.

A Social Libertarian is a realistic Libertarian looking for actualy govermental systems that will work and do the best for all citizens involved while providing freedom of choice for everyone.

 

[Kludge]

Anarchism is the purest form of insanity.

A Social Libertarian is a realistic Libertarian looking for actualy govermental systems that will work and do the best for all citizens involved while providing freedom of choice for everyone.

 

[hypnagogue]

I don't trust Barr and I don't like Baldwin's party or past at all. Neither are going to win. They're both protest votes and so I'm going with the one who will likely draw the most support. I think it's obvious that's Barr.

EDIT: BTW I'm severely tired of people feeling clever by posting snarky pics in lieu of arguments. Bad show imo.

 

[LinuxUser269]

blimp

 

[Kludge]

EDIT: BTW I'm severely tired of people feeling clever by posting snarky pics in lieu of arguments. Bad show imo.

After a while, the same rhetoric of I'm right and you're wrong gets old. If it's to continue, I demand entertainment.

Besides, all marketers know that if he's wrong, I'm right. I sympathize with you, and will post song lyrics instead.

 

[WRellim]

Barr is a former senator with exceptional name recognition, friend.

You really don't even have a clue about Barr, do you?

He was NEVER a Senator (neither State Senator, nor Federal).

He was ever and ONLY a Congressman from one district in Georgia (4 terms for 8 years total, I believe). He lost that office when it was redistricted from it's previous gerrymandered condition.

He did TRY to run as a Senator in 1992 (his only attempt at even a state-wide campaign) and failed top make the grade even at a primary level.

So his total electoral success is that he was able to win an election (during the 1994 "Republican Revolution" when GOP'ers won around the nation because of people's dissatisfaction with Clinton) and held his seat for 3 more re-elections (again not hard, as over 90% of congressmen retain their seats on re-election bids).

Not a whole heck of a lot of "electoral" success there.

Not a lot of adminstrative experience to speak of (he never held an administrative or "executive" office, and never ran more than a tiny private law practice, and while he was "President" of a legal foundation, he lasted less than a year in that spot so it didn't give him a chance to do more than dip his toes into the water --- ergo no real adminstrative experience outside of government either). In fact his only "administrative" office of any significance was his appointment (under Reagan) as a U.S. Attorney for Northern Georgia -- and by all accounts (Federal judges and other attorneys), he was not exactly considered a resounding success in that role, and left it after 4 years.

So not exactly the best qualified guy there. No administrative or executive experience to speak of, no statewide race successes, and prior to the lead spot on the LP ticket he has never run for a nationwide office or on a third party ticket -- (versus Baldwin was previously the VP slot for the Constitution party in 2004, both third party AND national ticket).

Hmmm... who's qualified? The former "Senator" who was never a Senator -- but who has such great "name recognition" that even one of his supporters doesn;t realize he wasn't a Senator?


Personally, I think (other than DOMA and the Clinton impeachment) his MAIN name recognition comes from the Borat "wife-cheese" bit... and that wasn't something to base a Presidential campaign on.

 

[pcosmar]

No Question.

I don't think Barr or Baldwin have a chance. Even though I disagree with Baldwin on some points, I think he is the more honest of the two.
I suspect that Obama will win the election.
I will stand by Ron Paul, if only as a statement.