Yep.

Which is why I wanted Ron Paul and why I'll be voting for Obama now that RP is out.

Fact is, the main two parties main people are essentially the same. They'll commit to the same overall plans and handle the big things like economy etc all the same.

Regardless of what they preach or the fanboys on the opposing aisle like to claim... they are far closer in what they'll actually do than anyone would like to believe.

However, since Obama will be in his 2nd go around, he'll be more risky and hopefully stronger vs Israel. So, I'll vote for him and hope RP or his son makes it as a candidate in 2016.

It's a nice trick. No matter how much government is already meddling in the economy, if things aren't going well, it's always evidence that the government needs to meddle even more - not less.

Bolded: Sure. I don't have any data for or against this point. It seems to me that it would cost a lot, but I don't actually know. If you have any data on it, please share.

Did we try it in the 80s? What exactly did we do then?

I'm not exactly sure what your source is for. It looks to be the same as what I linked to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan#Immigration

Well we already did it in the 1950s, Eisenhower did it. It took very little resources.

Reagan said he would give amnesty to 1 million illegal immigrants living here, and then he would secure the border and the USA Government would never do it again. He clearly lied. It ended up being 3 million and he did not secure the border and now the USA Gov. wants to do it again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The only candidate I think is absolutely perfect is Ron Paul. He wants to abolish the Fed, end these costly wars, tackle illegal immigration, end the Patriot Act, etc. etc.

Yeah I have to be honest though I am tired of voting for the lesser two evils.

One day I hope to be able to vote for a REAL President.

Just look at Obama. The dems managed to pull both the house and the senate. Yet he still had a hell of a time trying to get anything done. A libertarian will have very little support much less than Obama did his first term in office

@badgenome: Thank you.

You would be referring then, to this act; the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1986. From Wikipedia, this act did the following;

In brief the act:^[1]

• required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status.
• made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
• granted amnesty to certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
• granted amnesty to illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously.

This is not what Gary Johnson is arguing for. He is arguing for a 2 year grace period to illegals here currently, after which they will need to have obtained a permenant visa or gone for citizenship. He is arguing for it to become easier to become a US citizen. He is also arguing for fighting the underlying causes of illegal immigration. This act failed to address the causes of what made people come to the US illegally in the first place.

By ending the War on Drugs, he eliminates the funding of the Mexican drug lords. They will be left with a significantly reduced market. That should allow the Mexican government to deal with them much more easily, and it should reduce the crimes in Mexico drastically. That would then allow stability to return to the region, which should be good for businesses. If businesses come to Mexico, then Mexicans have less of a reason to try and come to the US illegally. I do believe that this will help contribute to getting rid of the problem of illegal immigration.

He would also make it easier to come here legally. If it's easy enough to do something legally, people tend to do it; at least in my experience. I would imagine that many people who do come here illegally would love to come through legal means, but they can't manage it. So this too should help get rid of the problem of illegal immigration.

As for your first point, that we have deported illegals in the past. It looks to have worked. I don't really know much about the situation though, and I'm not sure what was causing the problem of illegal immigration back then. However, Gary Johnson would continue to deport illegals. The only difference is that for those here now, he would give them the option of being here legally.

You always vote for the lesser of evils. Even a vote for Paul was the lesser of an evil. There have been numerous discussions on this board regarding several of Paul's more outlandish policies - including his views on sodomy laws and flag burning. Not particularly important issues, but still a "lesser of evils".

Here's the thing: if Romney wins, there will be no GOP alternative in 2016, which means no Paul (either one), DeMint, Amash, whoever, or whatever. Zero chance. Nada. Also, if Romney wins, and continues the same policies, people will be attributing it to the fact that he's a "free market guy". At least when Obama cocks up, people associate it with his Big Government rhetoric.

Look at the expansion of Gov't that Bush put the US through, under the name of Conservatism.

If you want to beat the system, you have to vote tactically at the Federal level - voting for Johnson is pointless unless you're in one of a handful of states, writing in Ron Paul is even more pointless, as some states don't count write-ins, and mot only count them once they get to a certain threshold.

At this point, you'd have much more chance if you were focusing locally. Any positions in local Government that you could run for? If so, put your name down and run. Even if you don't win, it's another avenue to get our arguments heard.