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, 06:51   #41
onebigelf
Senior Member
 
onebigelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
The obvious seems to slip right by the fanatics.

Many of us had the chance to vote for other candidates, it is what we in good ole' USA on planet Earth call "The Primary"

That"s P R I M A R Y

Many of us didn't vote for Romney. Most of us were mature enough to accept that Romney won the P R I M A R Y, and as such we will support him to defeat Obama, rather than live in denial and keep voting for the candidates that lost, that is L O S T the P R I M A R Y.
This

If all you libertarians and conservative independents would get back in the party and back in the game, what comes out of the primary might be better choices. When you abandon the primaries to the moderates, what you get is more moderate choices. To then come back and whine, "If only you people would make better choices we wouldn't be in this mess..." .... yeah. Piss off.

John
onebigelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:56   #42
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The only thing that makes him worse than Romney is his foreign policy. IF you could meld GJ's domestic policy with Ronald Reagan's foreign policy, presence, ability to speak and belief in American exceptionalism, he'd be a good candidate.
Gary Johnson believes in a strong military and protecting America's foreign interests. He does not however believe in wasting money on nation building.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 07:58   #43
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post


The fringe Pauls and Johnson's are an irrelevance
So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:00   #44
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
So, you now agree that a vote for Johnson is not a vote for Obama.
No, I did not say that, Dishonest One.

Anything that does not help Romney fire Bongo, helps bongo.

Irrelevant as they don't have a prayer of ever winning themselves. Their sole purposes are to stroke their own ego, and perhaps be a spoiler by vote siphoning, out of childish vindictiveness. Which you know well.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:54   #45
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
In the future, those who want a more conservative candidate/executive will have to do a better job of convincing not only their faithful fringe supporters but the broader electorate. That's as it should be.
Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?

Last edited by Gundude; 10-06-2012 at 11:56..
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 11:56   #46
Gundude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
You are correct. Problem is, that description is accurate - as in, there is no exit from the circle, other than giving up and giving the election to the side you dislike most.

To vote Libertarian, you have to agree to let Obama win (since Libertarian votes are, for the most part, people who would vote Republican, if forced to choose beteen D and R).
Yes!!

At least you get it, whether or not you agree with it. Thanks.
Gundude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:38   #47
series1811
CLM Number
Enforcerator.
 
series1811's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Retired, but not expired.
Posts: 14,312
I've already made my stupid vote on principal when I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and helped put Clinton in office.

One of my rewards was having Clinton fire my great boss and make one of the biggest morons I ever met in my life my new boss.
__________________
I sure miss the country I grew up in.

Last edited by series1811; 10-06-2012 at 13:38..
series1811 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:45   #48
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
Why in the future? Why not now, by not voting for a progressive candidate?
Because people who actually try to convince others that, all of a sudden, a third party messiah is going to come along and actually be elected, much less accomplish anything without having the backing of a political caucus on Capitol Hill, are rightly viewed as ...well...."Loony"
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 13:54   #49
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by walt cowan View Post
if mitts going to win hands down....so why are you all so worried about johnson?
My only worry is that in a fairly close race, he could draw enough R votes to reelect Obama, which is really his only possible impact on American politics.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:10   #50
Dukeboy01
Pretty Ladies!
 
Dukeboy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 2,597
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.
__________________
"You want it to be one way... but it's the other way." - Marlo Stanfield
Dukeboy01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 16:22   #51
fortyofforty
Narcissist
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,460
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
to save the country! Click
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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: 7,446
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: 7,446
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
Narcissist
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,460
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
to save the country! Click
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
to save animals! Gun Rights are Civil Rights.
fortyofforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2012, 17:21   #58
fortyofforty
Narcissist
 
fortyofforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,460
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
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
to save the country! Click
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
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: 7,446
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

 
  
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 00:24.




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


Users Currently Online: 800
220 Members
580 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31