Write-In Vote? Ron Says NO

[Kade]

Do you really think that you have more influence with either of them than the K Street lobbyists? Or do you just dislike the metaphor?

In January, we will have a new president. It will be one of two people. I know what McCain stands for, and to be perfectly honest, even if I am against welfare programs and socialist programs, it is much better than spending money to bail out corporations, expand the executive branch, a continuation of the loss of civil liberties, a continued promotion of a police state, more insane judges, and to continue a clusterfuck of a war in which trillions of dollars have been spent, (dwarfing magnanimously any "social program" I can think of...)

 

[acptulsa]

In January, we will have a new president. It will be one of two people. I know what McCain stands for, and to be perfectly honest, even if I am against welfare programs and socialist programs, it is much better than spending money to bail out corporations, expand the executive branch, a continuation of the loss of civil liberties, a continued promotion of a police state, more insane judges, and to continue a clusterfuck of a war in which trillions of dollars have been spent, (dwarfing magnanimously any "social program" I can think of...)

I'm sorry, I must be dense this morning. Was the answer to my question in here somewhere?

 

[Kade]

Do you really think that you have more influence with either of them than the K Street lobbyists? Or do you just dislike the metaphor?

I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.

 

[Kade]

I'm sorry, I must be dense this morning. Was the answer to my question in here somewhere?

And if you are getting your news from the clowns at the Hill, you should probably expand your horizon. Obama doesn't take money from any of the lobbyist, and the ones he gets advice from are mostly the lawyers guild, which I have no problem with personally.

 

[jmdrake]

Here's the deal. Look at alternatives and see who matches your core principles the best. I know, I know "Ron Paul". But he's not running so look again. The plus for Chuck Baldwin is that he doesn't have the baggage of having once supported the Iraq war, the drug war or the Patriot act and that he appeals to conservative Christians. The drawback is that he has no experience in government (maybe that's a plus?) and he puts off some non religious libertarian types. The plus for Bob Barr is that he has experience and he did come out against the war in Iraq, the drug war and the Patriot act when those things were still popular. (Unlike some of the dems who had to wait until the opinion polls shifted to complain.) The drawbacks are he supported those things once (although he did at least push for the sunset of the Patriot act) and the libertarian party itself puts off some conservative Christians. While I personally like Cynthia McKinney for having more guts than almost anyone in congress on standing up the to Bush administration with clear articulate arguments, she's definitely big government and not a good fit for most RP supporters.

Really, in some ways the presidential race is irrelevant. No matter who wins it's unlikely to be a pro liberty candidate. We have better shots in congressional races and I hope the bulk of our resources go there. But we can win an important symbolic victory. Someone mentioned in one blog comment about not voting to keep the turnout "low". But what kind of message does that send? That we simply aren't "thrilled" with John McCain? There are a LOT of republicans who aren't thrilled with McCain who do NOT share RP's values! The pundits could spin low turnout as simply "Christian conservatives aren't happy with McCain's stand on social issues" or "Many republicans are voting for Obama". A vote for Barr or Baldwin sends a stronger message. It gives a head count of conservatives who are against this stupid war. Our message will not get out from staying home. It likely wouldn't have gotten out from a write in campaign either. But if on election night Barr and Baldwin get a combined 10 percent that WILL receive a lot of coverage especially that amount is more than the margin of victory. That would send a much stronger message than any march or rally could ever do.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[acptulsa]

I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.

I want your rose colored glasses. Do they come in a baggie?

I suppose you feel the same way about the Clintons. Come on down to this neck of the woods some time--preferably to Arkansas--and find out what they got up to before they exploded on the national scene.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What are you talking about?! Please, I'm begging you folks, stop the insanity.

Read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was Bill Clinton's long-time mentor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley

He talks all about the Republican and Democratic parties being controlled at the top, by the same group of people. They just switch off parties when we get mad at the other. Giving us the belief that something is going to change. Of course, it doesn't.

 

[Kade]

I want your rose colored glasses. Do they come in a baggie?

Could you try not insulting me? You're not going to run into as many people in your life like me, who is more open and willing to understand where you are coming from, and you seem to want to close that door by being a prick.

I'm here because I don't disagree with the RP movement. Do you understand that?

That I have to battle nonsense daily, in the protection of what I deem liberty, should be a point of acceptance and understanding, not a linchpin for mockery and flames.

You can say "You don't get it" and I can respond all day the same... I think we do both get it, and in the end, I've made my decision, in mine, and in liberties best interest, to not elect another Republican Neo-Con to office.

 

[acptulsa]

Here's the deal. Look at alternatives and see who matches your core principles the best. I know, I know "Ron Paul". But he's not running so look again.

We really, really need to not let them split our vote. We can convince people that third parties/independents are viable, and we can probably do it this year, but not if we split our vote.

We can't perform a pincers movement. It won't be effective. We have to pick one and rally. We must demonstrate our numbers. And you can accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat if you must, but we must also monitor the November election.

It has become a game of numbers. We must demonstrate that we can break this benchmark, that benchmark, and the "I don't want to throw my vote away" crowd will be drawn by the gravity of the greater and growing mass.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't believe Obama is influenced by them at all. That project is a Republican party and lobbyist endeavor.

K street is irrelevant. Obama is influenced by Bilderberg, the CFR, the Trilatteral commission and AIPAC.

http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel-endorses-obama-after-aipac-speech
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=47760&cat=14

Obama supports universal healthcare which will bankrupt the last profitable sector of the economy.

Obama supports Al Gore's greenhouse scaremongering agenda which will bankrupt the entire nation in one fell swoop.

Obama wants to pretend the NAU doesn't exist while actually PRAISING the NAFTA superhighway all while claiming to be "kinda sorta" against NAFTA.

Obama links Iraq needs to be "stabilized" before we can withdraw. (That's the Bush/McCain position).

Obama supports illegal immigrant amnesty.

While I do NOT want a John McCain presidency Obama will beat him by a landslide without the 1 million votes Ron Paul got in the primary. If the only news on election night is how much Obama beat McCain by the liberty agenda will not have been helped and worse it may be seen as a "mandate" for change will have trouble sleeping with. On the other hand if there is a strong libertarian party / constitutionalist party showing it puts BOTH "major" parties on notice and will stand as a springboard for other efforts. Look at what happened with Ross Perot. As much as people like to laugh at him, the reform party DID eventually get a governorship out of its efforts.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[LibertyEagle]

Kade,

You're right. You shouldn't be mocked. I personally think it's wonderful that you're over here.

To get a really good understanding of what this whole movement is REALLY all about, it would probably be best to read some of the books that Ron Paul recommended. That would give you a clearer picture. You have that list, right?

 

[nbhadja]

And if you are getting your news from the clowns at the Hill, you should probably expand your horizon. Obama doesn't take money from any of the lobbyist, and the ones he gets advice from are mostly the lawyers guild, which I have no problem with personally.

*In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records.
*http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/


You wanna talk more facts?

 

[SnappleLlama]

I suppose you feel the same way about the Clintons. Come on down to this neck of the woods some time--preferably to Arkansas--and find out what they got up to before they exploded on the national scene.

LOL...I actually spent a significant portion of my childhood in Arkansas, and I can still remember the antics of the Clintons when Bill was Governor. Granted, I was just in elementary school at the time, but it's hard to forget stories about Bill's numerous "lady friends" and him ducking out of restaurants because Hillary was on the way...

 

[Kade]

Read Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley. Quigley was Bill Clinton's long-time mentor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley

He talks all about the Republican and Democratic parties being controlled at the top, by the same group of people. They just switch off parties when we get mad at the other. Giving us the belief that something is going to change. Of course, it doesn't.

I read Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, and much of it contained the same information that several of my favorite authors have spoken and written about through the last 50 years, including Russell and Phillips.

He makes excellent points about religion and sexuality, (The role of Christianity) which is something both Russell and Phillips discuss openly, but Professor Quigley also is a closet "socialist" by this movements generalizations.

He believes strongly in centralized "compassion" and intellectual progression. I also believe that the controlling interests in many of the parties have been notably the same money supplies.

His term, "Inclusive Diversity" is remarkably similar to the style of implied pluralism championed by Dr. Allan Lichtman.

I also believe one of the BIGGEST CHAMPIONS of liberty, is actually one of these money lenders, a person who spends his own personal wealth to promote the ideals of Karl Popper, someone who, because of this role, is so wildly misunderstood, that even the mention of his name would probably get me banned....

I would like to see if anyone knows who I am talking about....

 

[acptulsa]

You can say "You don't get it" and I can respond all day the same... I think we do both get it, and in the end, I've made my decision, in mine, and in liberties best interest, to not elect another Republican Neo-Con to office.

The last part I do get. However, to say that Obama is a liberty-minded man of the people with no contact with lobbyists and no contact with the CFR (even though his wife is a member) is pushing the argument a bit past credulity.

And, no, I have no faith in his ability or willingness to do significantly better than the G.O.P. Look at how many times he's pushed back his troop withdrawal date. I'm not flaming you because I'm mad at you. I'm sick of the soft soap. Been listening to it for forty-five years and haven't detected a truthful statement yet. We can and must do better than play the ball in their ping pong game--

What, mad at us? Go over there!

What, mad at us now? Go back over there! We'll be here when you get mad at them again!

How many decades must we endure this mularky before we wise up? Why are we hollering about revolution? Because the powers that be suck. We won't fix that by playing the misdirection game they dreamed up for us. Nor will we fix it by focusing on our divisions rather than the strength we can have when unified.

It's about power, people. Do we want the people to have it?

 

[Kade]

*In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records.
*http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/


You wanna talk more facts?

Obama did in fact raise $1.2 million from PACs for his 2004 U.S. Senate race. Obama did not pledge to refuse money from lobbyists or PACs during his previous campaigns.

Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?

 

[Aratus]

gotta agree with Kade... for mcCain is topheavy with lobbyists and now has karl rove on his team...

gotta agree sorta SteveMartin... if all the 3rd parties come together and have a tacit agreement, we might

get interesting debates... the idea of an idealistic summit throwing a gauntlet down to the big two!!!

 

[jmdrake]

We really, really need to not let them split our vote. We can convince people that third parties/independents are viable, and we can probably do it this year, but not if we split our vote.

No. You don't get it. Whether the vote is "split" or not is irrelevant. Neither Bob Barr nor Chuck Baldwin has a snowballs chance in hell of actually WINNING! The only think that's important is the combined total of the votes from BOTH candidates! And the vote will be "split" regardless based on the reasons I already gave. Some simply are NOT going to vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. And a write in Paul campaign simply isn't viable. Look at it this way. Would you rather have an 7 percent vote for Barr or a clear 10 percent vote for people who picked a pro liberty candidate? The 10 percent has the larger impact. The last thing we need is for RP supporters to say "I can't vote for Barr" or "I can't vote for Baldwin" and choosing to "strategically vote" for Obama or McCain or deciding to "not vote".

We can't perform a pincers movement. It won't be effective. We have to pick one and rally. We must demonstrate our numbers. And you can accuse me of wearing a tinfoil hat if you must, but we must also monitor the November election.

If you've been paying attention to the infighting over Barr and Baldwin you should know that "picking one and rallying" simply will NOT happen. Not unless Ron Paul decides to formally endorse one. And even in that case there's no guarantee that everyone will go along. Again consider Ross Perot. The death of the Reform Party came when he chose to pick Pat Buchanan and Jesse Ventura balked at the idea.

No, the only way forward is to stop the "cat herding" and make it clear that people should support which ever candidate THEY like best but PLEASE stick to principles. (IMO that rules out Obama, McCain and others).

Also as someone who questions 9/11 I wouldn't dream of calling you a "tin foil hatter". But I don't think that election fraud will be needed to keep a liberty minded candidate from winning this year. The odds are simply too high against that. Oh there may be election fraud favoring McCain over Obama or Obama over McCain. A liberty candidate might even benefit as Pat Buchanan did in 2000 when votes that should have gone to Al Gore in Florida where shifted to him. (Pat Buchanan even acknowledged on national TV that there was no way that many people legitimately voted for him in that precinct.) But in the end no third party candidate will come close enough to actually winning. But we can get our combined numbers up high enough to be noticed IF we avoid cat herding.

It has become a game of numbers. We must demonstrate that we can break this benchmark, that benchmark, and the "I don't want to throw my vote away" crowd will be drawn by the gravity of the greater and growing mass.

The only way to break that benchmark is if people feel they can vote their conscience. If people think that HAVE to vote for Barr some either won't vote or will choose McCain or Obama. Same if people think that HAVE to vote for Baldwin.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[acptulsa]

Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?

Ummm... Because you didn't google those few words before making a flat statement that was, at best, "misleading"?

 

[nbhadja]

Obama did in fact raise $1.2 million from PACs for his 2004 U.S. Senate race. Obama did not pledge to refuse money from lobbyists or PACs during his previous campaigns.

Why are you talking to me in that condescending tone? Do you think I'm going to buy for a second that you know what you are talking about beyond your ability to Google a few words?

So you really think Obama takes no money from lobbyists??
Go look at his campaign records, it alone will prove you wrong.

I have that tone because I can never understand why Ron Paul supporters could think that Obama is actually good. He is the same as McCain. He is for amnesty, for policing the world, for the federal reserve.