Gary Johnson Vote Gary Johnson and not Obama,Romney or write in Ron Paul

[The Free Hornet]

Besides, of course I know that neg reps count as an attack. Why would they allow neg reps here unless it were the case that using them were against forum rules?

Neg reps are fine, using them to spew ad hominems is not:

08-29-2012 05:30 PM erowe1
Thread: Vote Gary Johnson and...

You have no idea what you're talking about you mindless lemming.

+ Be respectful of others users.
+ No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
+ No posting of anyone's personal contact information.
+ Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.

Also, do you have a source from the campaign regarding the electoral college strategy?:

+ Controversial informational claims should include a verifiable source of the information or note that the information is "unverified".

 

[erowe1]

Also, do you have a source from the campaign regarding the electoral college strategy?:

No. What the campaign wants is irrelevant. It's what SA wants that counts here. And she wants the electoral college strategy. Therefore, so do I. If anyone wants to come in here and agree with the official campaign, they're asking to get banned.

 

[Athan]

Just hear me out first...

I endorse and approve this message regardless how much the poster hates grammar. Vote for a Liberty presidential candidate in November! Vote for Gary Johnson!

 

[The Free Hornet]

No. What the campaign wants is irrelevant. It's what SA wants that counts here. And she wants the electoral college strategy. Therefore, so do I. If anyone wants to come in here and agree with the official campaign, they're asking to get banned.

You should have looked for a source or a quote where SA pushes the electoral college strategy (?) when you were busy sending this rep:

08-29-2012 10:02 PM erowe1
Thread: Vote Gary Johnson and...

Either they're fine or they aren't. Idiot. If you don't want people to know I think you're an idiot, don't tell them. If you do tell them, it's on you, not me.

I already know what you can suspect somebody of without a shred of evidence. "idiot" and "mindless lemming" are each less insulting.

 

[ZenBowman]

The RNC will not learn anything from a small bloc voting for GJ, in fact they will blame the inevitable Obama win on all of us regardless.

NOBP for me

We want them to blame us. We want to play spoiler.

That said, either writing in Paul or voting Johnson has the same effect, so vote your conscience.

 

[erowe1]

You should have looked for a source or a quote where SA pushes the electoral college strategy (?)

I linked it earlier in the thread.

 

[The Free Hornet]

I linked it earlier in the thread.

There is no link that is, "a source or a quote where SA pushes the electoral college strategy".

This is what you linked to:

I was going to say Tampa, but you know what? Yeah, ever. That is what this subforum is for, pushing Ron's campaign. Look at the mission statement for the forum. In THIS subforum don't trash Ron's chances. In Massie's don't trash his, etc etc etc.

People aren't here for you to come coopt to other purposes, those in THIS subforum are specifically here for Ron.

Can you do better than that? Again, this is what you claim,

No. What the campaign wants is irrelevant. It's what SA wants that counts here. And she wants the electoral college strategy. Therefore, so do I. If anyone wants to come in here and agree with the official campaign, they're asking to get banned.

Do you expect to be taken seriously supporting that position with the middle quote?

 

[erowe1]

There is no link that is, "a source or a quote where SA pushes the electoral college strategy".

When she said that, it was in answer to a question about the electoral college strategy. If she wants to come out and change her position, that's up to her. I'll support her whatever she says. I wouldn't dare to go against her.

 

[erowe1]

Do you expect to be taken seriously supporting that position with the middle quote?

Being taken seriously is definitely a problem I'm up against here. And I'm not sure how best to deal with it. If I don't parrot SA's opinion back to her, I get banned. If I do parrot it, but she doesn't take me seriously, I get threatened to be banned. It seems like I not only have to kiss her hindquarters, but I somehow have to prove I really mean it, even if I might not. It's a predicament. The best I can do is insist that I agree with her on everything, and when anyone doubts that I do, just say, "That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

 

[The Free Hornet]

When she said that, it was in answer to a question about the electoral college strategy. If she wants to come out and change her position, that's up to her. I'll support her whatever she says. I wouldn't dare to go against her.

I fail to see it. First, you asked three questions and the only one affirmed was the, "Ever?", which was clearly in context of this post:

Meanwhile, this is Ron Paul's campaign forum and don't denigrate his viability as a candidate in his own forum.

The delegate strategy was part of the campaign. Your accusation that sailingaway advocates faithless electors is pure defamation.

 

[erowe1]

The delegate strategy was part of the campaign. Your accusation that sailingaway advocates faithless electors is pure defamation.

The campaign's delegate strategy was a strategy to win delegates in primaries, caucuses, and conventions. It was never a strategy to get delegates bound to Romney to break their word and vote for Paul at the convention. Both of those strategies have been called "delegate strategies," but the former was the campaign's and the latter was not.

In the same sense, the campaign is not following the electoral college strategy (a strategy to get Romney and Obama electors to go rogue and vote for Paul in December), but we here are. What the campaign wants is irrelevant. It's what SA wants that matters. And if you value your membership here, I recommend you not criticize the electoral college strategy.

 

[IronPatriot]

I'm unable to write in a candidate in my state, so I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

However, if I could, I would write in Ron Paul.

 

[ProIndividual]

The best strategy in game theory is to vote Obama, since he has the best chance to beat Romney. It's clear unless Ron runs 3rd Party that no liberty candidates will win. Our goal then has to be making Romney lose for 3 reasons:

1. We can't control the negotiations inside the only Party we are operating if they win elections without us. We have to become the new base (those they can't win without), or we fail to win any debates. All they care about is winning, afterall.

2. If Romney wins, there is no liberty movement in the Democratic Party, and therefore we will have to wait until 2020 or 2024 to run another liberty candidate. If Obama wins, we can run another liberty candidate in 2016. It is completely irrational to set the movement back an extra 4-8 years out of emotion.

3. This emotional need to vote for someone pallatable is nonsense, logically. If we take one vote away from the GOP and give to the Obama, we just swung the vote by 2 votes each. It gives each of us the maximum voting power as a voting block. This is mathematically undeniable. If you vote 3rd Party or write-in, for someone unlikely to win, as an emotional protest, you just halved your voting power. It's irrational, illogical, and not mathematically sound.

I know you people won't listen to me...I wrote a thread about this months ago. But then blame yourselves if Romney wins a close victory and we have no liberty candidate for 8-12 years instead of just 4 years. The game theory math strategy is as clear as day. If we just used game theory in elections we'd win far more of them, or at least when we lost we'd get more favorable outcomes to set up our future battles.

But why further the liberty cause, right? Just do what is emotionally pleasing. This is my last attempt to reason with you people. Please notice, none of my reasoning was "revenge" on the GOP. I'm not making emotional arguments, unlike "I can't vote for Obama, ewwww". That kind of nonsense has no place in stratagem.

Feel free to copy and paste and start a new thread with this. I won't. I've done it once already and MAYBE got one reasoned person to change their mind. You can find my original post on the subject is my past posts. If you do not vote Obama, barring a Ron Paul 3rd Party run, you are playing with fire (the possibility Romney wins, and thereby we lose for 8-12 years). If somehow Gary Johnson gets enough support to be a contender in a 3-way race, then by all means vote for him. But he had better be within the margain of error in polling, period.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Also, as you and I both know, Ron IS STILL in the race today every bit as much as he was a month ago. The electors haven't voted yet.

That's right. Dr. Paul hasn't formally suspended his campaign. It's time to move on to our electoral college strategy. Anybody have a list of names of the electors?

 

[tuggy24g]

Voting Gary Johnson is the best thing we can do! Show the two party system is not working!

 

[acptulsa]

Just in case anyone forgot why Rand chose not to emulate his father and decided not to continue right through to the convention.