GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2012, 16:22   #51
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,113
Good analysis. It's reality. We don't have a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister. We have, for all intents and purposes, a two party system. Pick the one that more closely represents you and your interests and leave the vanity candidates like Paul and Johnson for the late night comedians. Even if we had a parliamentary system, you’d still end up with a compromise Prime Minister that you weren’t happy with, since he or she would be elected by coalitions within the parliament. Politics means not getting everything you want. So does adulthood, for that matter.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:28   #52
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukeboy01 View Post
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.

Example 1: Election of 1912. Teddy Roosevelt gets into a snit with President Taft and essentially splits the Republican party when he creates the Progressive "Bull Moose" party. Together TR and Taft pull 50.6% of the popular vote, but the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson wins just under 42% of the popular vote and takes a whopping 435 electoral votes. You think Obama is a socialist? He's got nothing on Woodrow Wilson. The actual socialist candidate in that race, Eugene Debs, only got 6% of the popular vote and didn't win a single state, so he's not really a factor.

Examples 2 and 3: The elections of 1992 and 1996. Minature clown H. Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected twice in 1992 and 1996.

Example 4: The election of 2000. Ralph Nader spoiled this one for Al Gore, hands down. Why? Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush's final victory margin over Gore after all of the hanging chads and divination of voter intent was 537 votes. I know people can legitimately argue about how votes for Perot might have split evenly- ish between Clinton and either of his GOP competitors in 1992 or 1996 and maybe not really affected the outcome, but does anyone seriously doubt that Al "Earth In The Balance" Gore wouldn't have won 90%+ of the votes of the type of enviroweenies dumb enough to throw their votes away to the Green party? If those people had functioning brain cells, Al Gore would have won Florida by well over 89,000 votes. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad that over 90,000 bunny- huggers were dumb enough to vote their hearts instead of their heads. Can you imagine if Gore had been POTUS on 9/11?

Bottom line: We have the system we have. It's ultimately a lot stronger and more stable than multi-party systems that are always having to form various "coalition" governments after their elections are split 16 different ways. Protest votes in this country are for children. Civil libertardians should grow up.


Well said!
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:30   #53
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dukeboy01 View Post
Like it or not we have a two party system. The only thing that third party candidates ever accomplish is to throw the election to the mainstream candidate that they are most diametrically opposed to.
That "only thing" probably means a lot to the losing party. Enough to change their platform to bring in those missed votes next time around? Only if the voters aren't bullied into voting mainstream next time around. If the voters steadfastly refuse to vote mainstream until the mainstream party accommodates them in some way, the mainstream party will have to do just that. I'm not talking about the Republican party going all out libertarian to get those votes, just return some semblance of small goverment to their real platform. I'm sure non-libertarian conservatives wouldn't have too much of a problem with that anyways.

You can call it a "protest vote" if you want, but it's not simply a vote to make a statement. It's a vote to effect change, and there's nothing wrong with using your vote that way.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:51   #54
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
That "only thing" probably means a lot to the losing party. Enough to change their platform to bring in those missed votes next time around? Only if the voters aren't bullied into voting mainstream next time around. If the voters steadfastly refuse to vote mainstream until the mainstream party accommodates them in some way, the mainstream party will have to do just that. I'm not talking about the Republican party going all out libertarian to get those votes, just return some semblance of small goverment to their real platform. I'm sure non-libertarian conservatives wouldn't have too much of a problem with that anyways.

You can call it a "protest vote" if you want, but it's not simply a vote to make a statement. It's a vote to effect change, and there's nothing wrong with using your vote that way.
Change your State Reps, change your Governor, Change your Congressional reps. Did George Wallace's campaign change either party? did Ralph Nader's campaign change either party? did Ross Perot's campaign change either party?.

Just because YOU are involved doesn't mean the laws of politics have changed anymore than your weight on the planet affects gravity. It is still the same thing.

The path to changing a party is to USE the votes you get in the primary to change the platform, to help support VIABLE candidates that represent, at least some of the views of your constituents. If you throw away the opportunity to do that by refusing to admit defeat you have wasted your supporters votes.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:00   #55
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Change your State Reps, change your Governor, Change your Congressional reps.
Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
did Ralph Nader's campaign change either party? did Ross Perot's campaign change either party?.
Yeah, they did. If they didn't, you wouldn't be hearing so much "Remember Ross Perot?" these days. The acknowledgement of the effect of the third party is a start. What's important is follow through. A demonstration that Perot wasn't a fluke, and that the party will lose every time it strays so far from its stated principles.

Last edited by Gundude; 10-06-2012 at 17:01..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:11   #56
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense.
Yeah, they did. If they didn't, you wouldn't be hearing so much "Remember Ross Perot?" these days. The acknowledgement of the effect of the third party is a start. What's important is follow through. A demonstration that Perot wasn't a fluke, and that the party will lose every time it strays so far from its stated principles.
Did Ross Perot acheive what you claim as yn excuse for pimping a throw away vote? Did he change the party or did he giveu Democrats? and which is your goal again?

Even if you managed, (and you know it;s impossible, everyone older than 12 knows it) to get a "3rd" in the White House what could he do without the support from the States and a caucus on the Hill? You are floating an asnine notion.

Once again you fail to explain why, when he had an early victory and support ron Paul didn't accomplish diddly. and now you wnt people to accomplish more diddly themselves by throwing their votes away to get Obama reelected.

SO where is Ron Paul's accomplishment exactly?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:17   #57
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,113
And maybe send up a better candidate than Ronnie Earmarks next time. How about someone who lives up to the ideals he loudly espouses? Someone with executive branch experience, perhaps. That would be a switch.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:21   #58
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,113
After living through eight years of "Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" and Janet "Torch 'em" Reno" and Al "The plahnet has a feeever" Gore, the protest votes for Ross Perot did nothing to help the country. I suspect many of Paul's supporters (and Johnson's too) were not politically active or aware during the 1990s. Bill Clinton is just a guy they read about in Social Studies class. For many of us, though, he is part of our own painful political memories. Experience teaches many lessons.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:23   #59
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortyofforty View Post
And maybe send up a better candidate than Ronnie Earmarks next time. How about someone who lives up to the ideals he loudly espouses? Someone with executive branch experience, perhaps. That would be a switch.
Aw c'mon. It obvious now. When he said this,

"Those aren't mutually exclusive things. Each is a separate, independent vote, so saying "focus on your local and state, but toe the line with your presdential vote" is nonsense".

it showed up.

"Pooh-pooh" the idea of change at other levels that would provide a foundation for larger change.

Try to make a deal out of either wasting a vote to "prove a point' or to get one of the people he says he hates reelected.

Dismiss the idea of actually make effective changes within the party.

All of those positions actually work against the change he claims to want.

He doesn't really want "change" he just wants attention for being "different"
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:28   #60
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Did Ross Perot acheive what you claim as yn excuse for pimping a throw away vote? Did he change the party or did he giveu Democrats? and which is your goal again?
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:52   #61
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.
So your answer is for a minority to control the direction of the Country?

Oh that has worked so well in history.

It is the Country that needs changing as a whole. I am very fearful of people who place so much emphasis on the top position especially a small percentage of the voters.

So answer me this question.

If you are part of such a small group that you can't make a blip on the radar of the major parties in their primaries how do you expect to change the whole Country?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:55   #62
fortyofforty
Capt. Hindsight
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.
OK, so four more years of Odumbo gets us smaller government how, exactly? You've got Obamacare in place, upheld by the Supreme Court. Like it? Think Obama will help repeal it? How do you feel about all those massive social programs that have been in place for decades, now? Think Odumbo will reduce any of them? Think Odumbo will expand them and ensure more people qualify? What has he done so far?

This is called spite. Pure spite. Paul lost, and for good reasons (his actions belied his shallow convictions about lower spending and smaller government, for one thing). Get over it. Get over yourselves. Sheesh.

You Paulistas, like Paul himself, revel in your own self-importance. "Look at me! Look at me! My vote really matters! And I will wield my vote like a toddler swinging a plastic 'He Man' sword." For me I'm done playing your game. Do whatever you want. You will do that anyway and logic or history or common sense will not convince you otherwise. You will have to learn the lesson yourself, since your parents and teachers succeeded in boosting your self-esteem to grandiose levels and each of you thinks you're the smartest guy in the room.
__________________
Odumbo: Unpatriotic, Narcissistic Man-Child. Democrat is the Party of Rape, Special Interests, Greed, Slavery, Sloth, Ignorance, Bigotry and Segregation. Click here to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 18:27   #63
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
My goal is to have one of the two mainstream parties work towards smaller, less intrusive government. Currently neither of them do. Accomplishing that goal doesn't require having the Libertarian party become one of the mainstream parties, nor having the Libertarian candidate become president. Obviously those aren't realistic in the forseeable future. Therefore, the goal is to have the Republican party become that party, since they already pay lip service to those principles. In order to get them to actually walk the walk though, they have to understand that victory depends upon them honoring those principles. They're not going to adopt small government principles just by being asked to do so. Idle threats or "protest votes" in safe states won't work. Victory will have to depend on it. That means votes against them where and when it counts. That means in swing states, and that means now.
Guess what? The GOP is becoming that party. Compare the socially and (relatively) fiscally liberal Northeastern dominated "Country club" GOP of the first half of the 20th century to the Libertarian infused GOP of the 60's (Goldwater) through the tax- cut, supply side 80's (Reagan) and the (slowly) willing to tackle entitlement reform GOP of today (Tea Party). You're just upset that it hasn't happened according to what you think the time table should have been.

Real, permanent change takes time.
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield

Last edited by Dukeboy01; 10-06-2012 at 18:29..
Dukeboy01 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 06:58   #64
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,369


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Gary Johnson believes in a strong military and protecting America's foreign interests. He does not however believe in wasting money on nation building.
Nice try.

http://www.ontheissues.org/gary_johnson.htm

Says there he's calling for a 43% cut in defense spending.
Iran is not a problem for him either.

I don't agree with him. I'd cut military spending by 20%, food stamps by 95%, replaced with soup kitchens, and return unemployment back to 9 weeks total. Welfare would be cut to sustenance only levels. Review boards for the ambulatory disabled too. There would be a lot of jobs when you start jailing the employers of illegals and cutting off all education benefits to illegal kids, and I mean all benefits K through grad school


If you find that candidate, let me know. Maybe even I'd vote third party if there were anyone worth looking at running in them.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 10-07-2012 at 07:00..
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2012, 14:20   #65
dcc12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 322
While every fiber of my body would like to vote for Johnson I voted for H. Ross Perot many years ago. Never again. I will be holding my nose and voting Romney. Because regardless of what others say. If you vote for Obama you will vote for Obama. If you Vote for Romney it is a vote for Romney. But if you vote for anyone other than Romney it is a vote for Obama because none of the other guys have a chance, NONE. In fact if and your State may vary but in Texas if the person is not a Declared candidate, or a declared write in candidate the vote is not counted at all it hits the garbage. So thinking you are being cute and voting for Paul, Sponge Bob, or your pet cat does nothing except 4 more years of socialism.
dcc12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,337
341 Members
996 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42