Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by KalashniKEV, Oct 3, 2012.
So, you're saying your voting for Barry then?
So, you're voting for Barry then?
The OP wants Nelson Rockefeller for president.
No. See this is how it works for all you folks that think a vote for third party is a vote for Obama.
The GOP doesn't count on a Democrat to vote Republican any more than Republicans count on Libertarians to vote Republican. I don't vote Republican. I vote Libertarian.
Guess who counts on the Libertarian vote?
THE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE.
We aren't taking votes away from Romney because they weren't likely going to him ANYWAYS therefore they aren't going by default going to Obama.
I know it's tough, parroting that same stupidity over and over worked real well for Obama and his flock so it should work for dumbass Republican sheep as well huh?
If the GOP wants to attract the Libertarian and the likely Independent vote they may want to consider a conservative, Constitution abiding candidate and hope their constituent don't drive them off with their constant *********gery.
This lame *** rhetoric is no better than a Republican version of calling everyone that disagrees with them a racist. Idiots.
You're cutting your nose off to spite your face. Milton Friedmans was asked about his political affiliations, he stated he's philosophically a libertarian, but a republican for political expediancy. Primaries are for arguing for your philosophy, general elections are for big ideas. Voting 3rd party makes you part of the problem, not morally superior.
"They" don't choose the candidates. We do. When the truly conservative voters go Independent, Libertarian and Constitution party, the more moderate candidates win. Ron Paul figured it out. Unfortunately, too many of his supporters haven't and were unable to vote in the primaries. And that is where this fight is made the primaries. Anything else just ensures that the LEAST acceptable candidate wins.
If you truly think that the choice is "the lesser of two evils", get involved and encourage better candidate to run Republican, get back in the Republican party and vote for them in the primaries. If Gary Johnson ran in the primaries as a Republican and won, we'd all be voting for Gary Johnson. I suspect that most of us would be happier about that. As a Libertarian he will not win, has no chance of winning, even if all of us who think he's great abandoned the GOP and voted for him. The road you dream of leads to a 25-30% vote for the Libertarian at best. That still leaves another 25% or so voting for a moderate Republican and the country being run by Progressive/Socialist/Communist Democrats. The lesser of two evils? Or the greater? Voting 3rd party is ************. You end up with a smile on your face and feeling good about what you've done, but it doesn't do a damn thing for anyone else.
Color me the problem then.
I won't participate in the GOP turd polishing.
Until they fix the problems with their platform, they are not capable of fielding a viable candidate- even if they did have a true leader hiding out somewhere, waiting for 2016.
Onebigelf, I do not believe we do. Nobody asked me squat. I was given a limited choice on a piece of paper come primary time and it was a cast of fools, no of whom should lead our country.
I think the reason the republican party doesn't reflect our views is because republicans don't share our beliefs. They don't consider the constitution as important as their morality laws.
They certainly do choose the candidate. They do it in state house races, they do it in gubenetorial races, they do it in congressional races and they do it in presidential races, partially by doing it in the aforementioned races.
Bad news is there is no gun forum on the Internet where holier than thou Paulistinians are not spamming and hijacking almost any thread.
Good news is they only represent .5% of the electorate so as far as I am concerned they can stay home election day and spew their bile against the "neocons" and "Joos" from their parents home basement.
They just don't matter. In the grand scheme of things they're just a slight nuisance. I came to the conclusion it's better to ignore them and pretend they just don't exist.
Like any other organization the party looks out for the best interests of party leadership. Period.
I see it more likely another party will take the place of Republicans. Could be Libertarians. Could be something totally new and different. This won't happen overnight though. Maybe 10 or 20 years.
The worst thing these days any political party can do is nominate a POTUS candidate who is older, and not attractive. The Bamster got elected because his opponent was an old man and Barry looked like a hip dude.
Bill Clinton got elected twice because he was younger and perceived to be "hipper" then either George H or Bob Dole.
GW got elected twice because his opponents were the dufus who reminded the teacher she forgot to assign homework, and Lurch the lying hero.
Sadly, if the Bamster gets re elected it will be because people just like him. Not because of his policies or actions.
So to answer your question, the Republicans need an attractive, likeable, hip, person of difficult to detemine ethnic background.
See how easy that was?
Yep. Sad to say, for many people it really is an image thing. I've overheard more than a few girls say "I voted for Bush 'cause he's cute!" Didn't help that Kerry looked like a zombie.
It was like this with Kennedy and Nixon, too. I heard once that during their debates, people that heard them on the radio almost all sided with Nixon's policies, but when people saw them on TV, they all flocked to Kennedy.
It reminds me of a Churchill quote: "The greatest argument against democracy is to speak for five minutes with the average voter." IOW, we're screwed.
We'll see come the election when you get exactly 0% of the Libertarian vote for your Dbag candidate.
In the grand scheme of things the R's are no different than the D's other than the flavor of manure they spread.