Write-In Vote? Ron Says NO

[jbuttell]

I get that. But Obama will win in a landslide. The bigger the better IMO. There is still a ton of power in electing a president with a mandate. Obama will be viewed as the anti-war candidate. The anti-big business candidate. The Pro-economy candidate. If he has this mandate and screws it up, it will be better than if McCain gets the nod and takes us to Iran immediately with the draft. Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash.

If Dr. Paul endorses then yeah I will definitely vote for whoever he votes for.
3rd parties just don't work yet. It will be seen as a protest vote and to be honest, I am not throwing my vote behind someone that ran against Dr. Paul. The 3rd party leaders, rather than rallying to Dr. Paul waited around for him to fail so they could snatch his support. Don't want to go into details, but until I hear who Dr. Paul is voting for I'm throwing my weight (lol) along with the rest of the lemmings.

So sad, so very very sad. "Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash." It seems you underestimate the power of propaganda. Don't you get it? It's ok that Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. It's ok that Obama supports the Patriot Act. It's ok that Obama isn't taking anything off hte table for Iran. It's ok that Obama claims he'd invade pakistan to take out terrorists. It's ok, because it's Obama. If there were to be a backlash, you'd think it would be happening now. And then there are people like you, who seem to be well aware of this and still vote in these criminals. So sad.

 

[libertarian4321]

What are you talking about. You just beat around the bush, gave worthless reasons, and then said you'd vote for Obama. I don't care how long you've been around. No one with a spine or heart in this movement would vote for Obama.

ROCK,

Alright, I admit I have a soft spot for the slow witted. I will type slowly and try to explain one more time, even though its probably a waste of time.

I gave FIVE OPTIONS I/we could take, one of which was "vote for the lesser of 2 evils". I also said that IF IF IF (note the "IF") I CHOSE THAT OPTION that I believe Obama is the lesser evil.

I then said I had not yet decided which option I would choose- that I might vote for Barr, Obama, Baldwin or even write- in Ron Paul.

ROCK, the good news is, I'll make my own choice- I won't hold the fact that you are rude, annoying, and not the sharpest knife in the drawer prevent me from voting Libertarian (if I determine that Barr is not a LINO).

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Okay, I get it. You're trying to show us how the public education system has failed you.

If that was your intent, great job!

I'd read it to you and explain the meaning of the big words if I could, but I can't do that. You're going to have to read and comprehend without my help. Try it again. Use your index finger to help you as you sound out the words.

If you still don't understand, there is nothing more I can do...

It's convenient how you ignore my entire post to resort to personal attacks. Very nice.

And in response to your last post, there shouldn't be an if for Obama. Not even a second thought. I don't get how you could even consider someone like that. I mean, at least Barr and Chuck line up with a lot of Ron's positions on the issues, which are pro freedom. Obama can't even stick his foot in the door there!

 

[libertarian4321]

1. Obama was not in office to vote for or against the war BUT he voted on multiple occasions to fund the Iraqi war for over 300 billion dollars!! He never once opposed the Iraqi war in anyway other than empty words.

2. How is he more intelligent? He is for a aggressive foreign policy, unbalanced budget, federal reserve, lobbyist controlled government, for less civil and economic freedom (voted for re-dis of patriot act) etc.

3. McCain is a hot head but it doesn't matter since him and Obama both vote for the same things. It makes no difference if you vote to invade a country while angry or calm.

Sure, I'll answer these.

I know Obama wasn't in the FEDERAL Senate at the time (he was an officeholder), but he DID have the sense and courage to openly oppose the war- something lacking in most Americans, in Congress or otherwise.

I base the intelligence bit on a couple of things. One, Obama finished at the top of his class at the doctoral level at one of the tops schools in the country. McCain barely graduated at the baccalaureate level. Honestly, if McCain's father and grandfather hadn't been Admirals, he probably wouldn't have even been admitted to the USNA (a good school, but hardly Harvard). Also, he just seems quicker mentally- with McCain, it sometimes seems like the wheels are spinning a little too hard even when dealing with simple questions- thats just my impression- I could be wrong (but I don't think I am).

Finally, I just don't want an irrational hot head given the ability to start wars (even worse, a senile hot head). Obama, on the other hand, seems pretty cool under pressure- I have seen no evidence of the kind "blow ups" that are pretty much routine for McCain. Until I see evidence otherwise, I will assume McCain is FAR more likely to act impulsively and violently.

I'm not fan of Obama, but I feel he is less likely to do something SERIOUSLY DANGEROUS to this nation than McCain...IF I choose to vote for the "lesser evil", at this point, it would be Obama.

 

[Knightskye]

im voting for obama then. sorry but I won't make the mistake of letting McCain control the world. I hate to let Obama get it, but i'll have to go with the lesser of evils on this one if I am going to throw away my vote.

3rd parties and independents ehh... I don't see the point in that either unless Dr. Paul endorses.

So, you'd rather vote for a liberal Democrat than a conservative, liberty-minded candidate? Umm... why were you supporting Ron Paul in the first place?

 

[familydog]

I know Obama wasn't in the FEDERAL Senate at the time (he was an officeholder), but he DID have the sense and courage to openly oppose the war- something lacking in most Americans, in Congress or otherwise.

I think I'll just restate the opinions of many here and suggest that while it is great Obama opposed the war to begin with, it didn't take that much courage to do it representing a district that agreed with him about it in the first place.

 

[libertarian4321]

It's convenient how you ignore my entire post to resort to personal attacks. Very nice.

Junior, you responded to my first post with aggressiveness and ignorance. If you'd responded civilly, I'd have responded civilly, as I have with the other folks here.

I'll admit I have little tolerance for ignorance or snotty children- I guess its a character flaw of mine (I never said I was perfect).

BTW, I didn't ignore your post- I explained my points clearly. Again, if you can't read/comprehend, I'm not an elementary school teacher, I can't help you. See your local HS for adult ed classes...

 

[libertarian4321]

I think I'll just restate the opinions of many here and suggest that while it is great Obama opposed the war to begin with, it didn't take that much courage to do it representing a district that agreed with him about it in the first place.

Perhaps it didn't take a huge amount of courage, like it did for Ron Paul.

Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama) over a guy who GETS IT WRONG (McWar) every time...

 

[familydog]

Perhaps it didn't take a huge amount of courage, like it did for Ron Paul.

Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama) over a guy who GETS IT WRONG (McWar) every time...

Ron Paul represents a pretty conservative district. Many of his constituents don't agree with him on foriegn policy. Barack Obama's district while he was in state government agreed with him on the war. You can't compare the two.

While foreign policy is a big issue, it is not the only one. I fail to see how Obama is better than McCain on the economy or civil liberties.

 

[newbitech]

So sad, so very very sad. "Obama won't be able to do that without a serious backlash." It seems you underestimate the power of propaganda. Don't you get it? It's ok that Obama voted to fund the Iraq war. It's ok that Obama supports the Patriot Act. It's ok that Obama isn't taking anything off hte table for Iran. It's ok that Obama claims he'd invade pakistan to take out terrorists. It's ok, because it's Obama. If there were to be a backlash, you'd think it would be happening now. And then there are people like you, who seem to be well aware of this and still vote in these criminals. So sad.

No, In fact I understand this headline, "Has the GOP lost its viability? 49% of registered Republicans vote Democrat." If you are trying to influence propaganda with your vote by voting 3rd party you are kidding your self. Thats not what I want to do, but you underestimate my reasoning. None of what you said about Obama is ok. I GET THAT. But look what happened to the repubs when Bush deserted his party. It opened the door for Dr. Paul. There is backlash happening now in the repub party and I'd like to see that continue to set the table for 2010. I think its more sad that Year after Year 3rd parties continue to fail at getting anything accomplished other than fattening up the leaders resumes and bank accounts.

If you don't appreciate my reasoning and me posting the thought process of the people who will put Obama in power thats fine. Ron Paul said himself that his campaign competed with none other than Obama's campaign for the youth vote. You think that those young people are going to vote 3rd party when their primary or secondary choice is still on the ballot? You got a lot of convincing to do their and not a lot of time to do it. I for one would rather hand Obama an overwhelming upset over McCain than try to further splinter and fracture the electorate with the 3rd party nonsense. Or, I could do what I planned on doing all along and waste my vote by writing in Ron Pauls name.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

If you are voting for Obama...you were NEVER a true Paulite. TONES

 

[rockandrollsouls]

What "hate speech" did Dr. Baldwin project against homosexuals?



Like most Americans, you're confusing libertarianism with libertinism. The Constitution Party does not advocate a platform which allows men and women the freedom to act however they feel without any moral restraint, responsibility, or accountability, which is what libertinism essentially is. Our country was not founded on those principles, either.

I posted a link in the thread earlier where he rants against homosexuals. For people who claim Barr can't convert, it's funny that you think Baldwin can. The things he said showed more than a distaste for homosexual individuals...it was malicious. He's said some things I don't particularly agree with, but that's not my issue. I can look past that. My issue is the Constitution party platform. I did generalize broadly by saying they advocate a social policy, and I believe they do. Let's be honest, they are based heavily on religiously influenced moral ideas, and I don't like that being preached to me. It's very evident on their website.

I do not support libertinism. One should be held responsible and accountable for one's acts. Now, let me elaborate. I feel like the Constitution party has ideas on how individuals should act. For example, they dislike pornography, therefore their interpretation of the Constitution ends up being a ban against pornography. I don't think it's acceptable for them to dictate a social policy like that. They also have a moral thing against gambling. They also seem to support the drug war. Again, an example of telling people what they can and cannot do with their body. They also define marriage according to the Bible. What happened to religious freedom? All men are created equal? Another example of them contradicting themselves. They Believe what their God says should apply to everyone, therefore it's ok for them to impose this on others. These seem like minor things, but they really irk me. I think their party is for a religious and like minded group.

I do support libertarianism. Let people make their own decisions. It is not your place impose your will on them. Let them choose religion, who they will marry, what they do to themselves, etc. etc. as long as they don't hurt anyone else (to be quick and general).

You see where I'm coming from? This is why I prefer the Libertarian party to the Constitution party.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

so ...you are going to follow the herd of young people who vote on trends? Pitiful. whatever..but the Obama forum is that way <---------------------------> TONES

 

[pahs1994]

Alex Jones DOES NOT SUPPORT BOB BARR! Alex Jones supports Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

LOL i like Barr a little more now

 

[SLSteven]

Still, I'd prefer a guy who GETS IT RIGHT (Obama)...

I can't think of anything he has gotten right.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Junior, you responded to my first post with aggressiveness and ignorance. If you'd responded civilly, I'd have responded civilly, as I have with the other folks here.

I'll admit I have little tolerance for ignorance or snotty children- I guess its a character flaw of mine (I never said I was perfect).

BTW, I didn't ignore your post- I explained my points clearly. Again, if you can't read/comprehend, I'm not an elementary school teacher, I can't help you. See your local HS for adult ed classes...

Again, no comment on the content of my posts. Just foolish, arrogant remarks. You didn't explain yourself, you didn't respond to any of my criticisms, and you clearly didn't read my posts.

I'm snotty, I'm stupid, I'm uneducated, etc. etc. Listen, buddy. I don't care how old you are or how smart you think you are. The fact of the matter is I was never naive enough to even consider voting for Barack Obama. You don't know me, what I do, my education, or how I live. But I can tell you one thing, and it's evident from my posts. I love freedom and I won't compromise it for anything. And, I know one thing from your posts; you've considered doing the opposite. That's where we are different. Don't preach to me, buddy. I will not compromise my ideals. You've stated you could. That's enough for me. I'll leave it at that.

Steven, thank you for illustrating my point before I posted. Libertarian4321 just said Obama got it right. We all know he hasn't, and I don't know what libertarian4321 has been reading. He should change his screen name, do some research, and stand down from his attack on me. Libertarian4321, you should waltz on over to the Obama forums and talk about preemptive war, big government, socialized health care, and higher taxes. Clearly, the man has it right.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't think you understand what libertarianism really means rock. I wouldnt' say that the libertarian party condones all of that or condemns it ..the point is the 10th amendment. Most of those issues you mentioned are not listed in the constitution, therefore it is left to the states and to the people. The Federal government needs to keep hands off. Now, if those issues are left to the states and to the people where they belong,,, the people will decide on them..and you might not like it so much. THAT's the point ...allow the people to decide. You also can not force people to accept gay marriage or porn or whatever. TONES

 

[pahs1994]

No, In fact I understand this headline, "Has the GOP lost its viability? 49% of registered Republicans vote Democrat." If you are trying to influence propaganda with your vote by voting 3rd party you are kidding your self. Thats not what I want to do, but you underestimate my reasoning. None of what you said about Obama is ok. I GET THAT. But look what happened to the repubs when Bush deserted his party. It opened the door for Dr. Paul. There is backlash happening now in the repub party and I'd like to see that continue to set the table for 2010. I think its more sad that Year after Year 3rd parties continue to fail at getting anything accomplished other than fattening up the leaders resumes and bank accounts.

If you don't appreciate my reasoning and me posting the thought process of the people who will put Obama in power thats fine. Ron Paul said himself that his campaign competed with none other than Obama's campaign for the youth vote. You think that those young people are going to vote 3rd party when their primary or secondary choice is still on the ballot? You got a lot of convincing to do their and not a lot of time to do it. I for one would rather hand Obama an overwhelming upset over McCain than try to further splinter and fracture the electorate with the 3rd party nonsense. Or, I could do what I planned on doing all along and waste my vote by writing in Ron Pauls name.

My problem with your reasoning to vote for Obama is that it will send the message to republicans that we want an even more liberal Republican running in 2012 than McCain is!!! By showing all of our votes going to Baldwin or Barr they would see that we want more Libertarian individuals like Dr Paul and not socialists like Obama.

If people keep voting for the lesser of two evils we will keep getting one of the two evils. (If that makes any sence)

 

[SLSteven]

My problem with your reasoning to vote for Obama is that it will send the message to republicans that we want an even more liberal Republican running ...

Exactly!

 

[libertarian4321]

Ron Paul represents a pretty conservative district. Many of his constituents don't agree with him on foriegn policy. Barack Obama's district while he was in state government agreed with him on the war. You can't compare the two.

While foreign policy is a big issue, it is not the only one. I fail to see how Obama is better than McCain on the economy or civil liberties.

I wasn't comparing Obama to Paul. What Ron Paul did (voting against the war that his party was pushing) obviously took more courage than what did (opposed the war while a state senator). I was comparing Obama (opposed the war) to McCain (neocon warmonger).

On the economy, I don't expect anything out of either- though McCain's "I don't know much about economics" bit is hardly encouraging.

On civil liberties, they both voted for the Patriot Act reauthorization, but Obama tried to amend it to make it less onerous (he failed). McCain, I believe, went right along with the Republicans and pushed for reauthorization of the act.

Another thing I didn't mention before. I don't think McCain has a lot of character. Yes, I know, he was a POW 40 years ago (its in all his ads), but since then, he has done some things I find personally disagreeable. Little things like dumping his injured wife and 4 kids to marry a rich "trophy wife" half her age- that may not matter to some people, but to me, it says the guy is a scum bag.