Who will you vote for in November?

[Brett85]

I would vote for Romney (very reluctantly) if I lived in one of the swing states. But as it is, I'll most likely just vote 3rd party since I live in a heavily Republican state where my vote won't matter. I can vote 3rd party without having it damage Romney at all.

 

[Okie RP fan]

I am abstaining.

Oklahoma will not have Gary Johnson (or any other third party, I believe) on the ballot in November.

And before people question that statement, here you are: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20120830_16_A9_OLHMIY716725

 

[georgiaboy]

Georgia leans red these days.

Though I'm not sure where I'm landing yet, I won't be in the Romney or Obama columns.

For me, my vote needs to be clearly understood by the R's as a continued protest against their big gov't candidates. Undecided about how best to reflect it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I probably won't bother to vote (what a waste of time), but nevertheless my position is:

Ron Paul 2008 2012 FOREVER! ! !​

We won Campbell County, Wyoming for Ron Paul this round, and I see no reason not to do the same in 2016. And 2020. And forever. Just for fun.

 

[Origanalist]

Because he won't be able to get away with bad ones in the confirmation process. He won't risk a Harriet Miers style debacle.

Not necessarily good judges, but way better judges than the kooks Obama has been appointing.

I have no problem with Romney's record on judges in MA btw. I think it's one of the most misunderstood points of his record.

Wow! Good luck with the abused spouse syndrome. Also, nice non-answer on the judges. You never addressed the "why".

 

[wgadget]

Since my state has sore loser laws, I will be voting GJ. IF by some chance he's not on the ballot, I will leave the Presidential slot blank.

 

[specsaregood]

I don't understand why the OP would leave the constitution party candidate off the options. He is trying to get our votes.

Just look at the issues Ron has run on: audit the Fed, the gold standard, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s our platform! Campaigning on the issues that matter most to those who believe in the Constitution will resonate with Ron Paul supporters.
--Virgil Goode Constitution Party candidate 2012.

http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/campaign-news.html

 

[DeMintConservative]

Wow! Good luck with the abused spouse syndrome.

Nah, I don't think it's the case.

Also, nice non-answer on the judges. You never addressed the "why".

I think I did:

Because he won't be able to get away with bad ones in the confirmation process. He won't risk a Harriet Miers style debacle.

Not necessarily good judges, but way better judges than the kooks Obama has been appointing.

Why do you think this isn't addressing the why?

 

[D.A.S.]

Because he won't be able to get away with bad ones in the confirmation process. He won't risk a Harriet Miers style debacle.

Not necessarily good judges, but way better judges than the kooks Obama has been appointing.

I have no problem with Romney's record on judges in MA btw. I think it's one of the most misunderstood points of his record.

Yea, Republicans appointed grrrrreat judges, didn't they... They gave us "corporations are people, too". If it weren't for the so-called liberal judges in the Supreme Court panel, our liberties would go down the tubes a lot faster than they have. The only person who would pick GOOD judges would be Ron Paul. Lacking that, I'd rather take my chances with the Democratic appointments which tend to be more liberty-friendly.

 

[Darguth]

I don't understand why the OP would leave the constitution party candidate off the options. He is trying to get our votes.

http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/campaign-news.html

He probably should have been included, but I think he likely fits the mold of a liberty candidate even less than Johnson does. He's got a pretty terrible record on civil liberties and has plenty of pro-Big Government spending votes on his record as well.

 

[specsaregood]

He probably should have been included, but I think he likely fits the mold of a liberty candidate even less than Johnson does. He's got a pretty terrible record on civil liberties and has plenty of pro-Big Government spending votes on his record as well.

Well if that is the criteria than johnson shouldn't be on the list either. Besides, Goode claims to have come around and been educated, he was a part of Dr. Pauls liberty caucus in the house and is pushing much of our platform. He is pushing an non-interventionist foreign policy vs. Johnson wanting to go get Kony -- thats a major issue for me. I'd say he fits the mold just as well as johnson.

As far as a non-interventionist foreign policy goes, let me say this to begin with: I’ve learned a lot in my years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party. Some votes I cast in Congress were not well matched with Constitutional principles. I oppose the Patriot Act provisions and the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that trample on the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford—nor is it strategically necessary—to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.
--Virgil Goode Constitution Party candidate 2012.

 

[sailingaway]

Romney/Ryan.

plus rep for courage!

 

[DeMintConservative]

Yea, Republicans appointed grrrrreat judges, didn't they... They gave us "corporations are people, too". If it weren't for the so-called liberal judges in the Supreme Court panel, our liberties would go down the tubes a lot faster than they have. The only person who would pick GOOD judges would be Ron Paul. Lacking that, I'd rather take my chances with the Democratic appointments which tend to be more liberty-friendly.

I completely disagree. You probably don't care much for the 2nd Amendment to say such a thing. What exactly are the cases in which you believe the liberal block took the more liberty-friendly position? I can't think of a single one.

"Corporations are people, too" was given to us by the Marshall court in the early 19th century. I have no idea why you think that corporate personhood is anti-liberty. Plus, you're probably reading or watching too much liberal crap if you're convinced that Citizens United was about corporate personhood or that the concept is somewhat novel.

 

[Origanalist]

Nah, I don't think it's the case.



I think I did:

Because he won't be able to get away with bad ones in the confirmation process. He won't risk a Harriet Miers style debacle.

Not necessarily good judges, but way better judges than the kooks Obama has been appointing.

Why do you think this isn't addressing the why?

You are stating opinion and projection as fact, there is nothing I can see in Romneys past actions to support your opinion. One would think that so soon after GW Bush that people wouldn't fall into that trap.

 

[DGambler]

Georgia leans red these days.

Though I'm not sure where I'm landing yet, I won't be in the Romney or Obama columns.

For me, my vote needs to be clearly understood by the R's as a continued protest against their big gov't candidates. Undecided about how best to reflect it.

I live in GA as well, I'll either:
Write in Paul - vote wont count
Vote Johnson
Vote on everything but the president

 

[DeMintConservative]

You are stating opinion and projection as fact, there is nothing I can see in Romneys past actions to support your opinion. One would think that so soon after GW Bush that people wouldn't fall into that trap.

You seem to be misunderstanding ,my argument. You can't see nothing in Romney's past actions that supports the viewpoint he won't buy a silly war that might jeopardize his chances of re-election?

GWB is actually a good example: Alito and Roberts, especially the later, aren't ideal, but they certainly are much better than any Justice appointed by Obama or Clinton and it's not even close.

There's simply too large of a difference between judges nominated by Republican and Democrat presidents to pretend it doesn't matter.

 

[wgadget]

Yay, Roberts! He is solely responsible for NOT killing Obamacare.

Great.

 

[Origanalist]

You seem to be misunderstanding ,my argument. You can't see nothing in Romney's past actions that supports the viewpoint he won't buy a silly war that might jeopardize his chances of re-election?

GWB is actually a good example: Alito and Roberts, especially the later, aren't ideal, but they certainly are much better than any Justice appointed by Obama or Clinton and it's not even close.

There's simply too large of a difference between judges nominated by Republican and Democrat presidents to pretend it doesn't matter.

No, I can't see nothing. What I see is a man who says one thing and does another, shades of John McCain. How long before he calls you a Hobbit?

 

[georgiaboy]

You seem to be misunderstanding ,my argument. You can't see nothing in Romney's past actions that supports the viewpoint he won't buy a silly war that might jeopardize his chances of re-election?

GWB is actually a good example: Alito and Roberts, especially the later, aren't ideal, but they certainly are much better than any Justice appointed by Obama or Clinton and it's not even close.

There's simply too large of a difference between judges nominated by Republican and Democrat presidents to pretend it doesn't matter.

In America today, your approach is how the majority views the issue. Your argument is clearly understood, and repeated every cycle, on every outlet, everywhere, all the time.

Thank you.

"The Ayes Have It"

 

[Darguth]

Well if that is the criteria than johnson shouldn't be on the list either. Besides, Goode claims to have come around and been educated, he was a part of Dr. Pauls liberty caucus in the house and is pushing much of our platform. He is pushing an non-interventionist foreign policy vs. Johnson wanting to go get Kony -- thats a major issue for me. I'd say he fits the mold just as well as johnson.

As far as a non-interventionist foreign policy goes, let me say this to begin with: I’ve learned a lot in my years as a member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party. Some votes I cast in Congress were not well matched with Constitutional principles. I oppose the Patriot Act provisions and the NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act] that trample on the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford—nor is it strategically necessary—to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.
--Virgil Goode Constitution Party candidate 2012.

Not to draw this into an argument (though I likely will) but words are cheap. If I believed politicians with a long history of voting/governing one way but now say they "know better, and will do it differently" were being genuine...I'd be voting for Romney.

I'm not so extreme as to hold a few bad past votes against someone indefinitely, but he has quite the track record of bad civil liberties votes. I'm not aware of anything since that time which points to a genuine reversal of opinion.

If you have information regarding actions (not words) of Mr. Goode in the last several years that highlights a genuine conversion, honestly I'm all ears and would love to see it. I was just looking into Goode this past weekend hoping he might be a viable--or even palatable--alternative to Gary Johnson but came to the conclusion that he was not. If you can convince me otherwise, I'd be thrilled. Like I said right now I'm planning on a write-in for Ron Paul but in MI it likely won't count, so I'd like somewhere to place a protest vote that doesn't violate my principles either.