By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Stop deciding on voting for Obama or Romney and look at Gary Johnson

insomniac17 on 06 October 2012
SamuelRSmith said:

... and what "ultra conservatives" worth their salt, would vote for Romney? A Massachusetts moderate who probably won't touch abortion or marriage, and is known to be anti-gun (said he would sign an assault-weapon ban).

I'm sure the conservatives who are sucking their gut to vote the party line, would do so no matter who the nominee is.

True. My point was just that we can't know for sure that RP would have won if he was the nominee, just like we can't assume that people who vote for Johnson would have otherwise voted for Romney.



Latest News/Discussion for Star Wars: Rebels and Star Wars: The Clone Wars!


Around the Network
Kasz216 on 06 October 2012
Mr Khan said:
ECM is right. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

...

Johnson 2012!

Eh.  If I had to vote between Obama and Romney i'd probably vote Obama like I did in 2008.

 

As  it is, i'm voting either Stein or Johnson... which, probably doesn't matter.



SamuelRSmith on 06 October 2012
insomniac17 said:
SamuelRSmith said:

... and what "ultra conservatives" worth their salt, would vote for Romney? A Massachusetts moderate who probably won't touch abortion or marriage, and is known to be anti-gun (said he would sign an assault-weapon ban).

I'm sure the conservatives who are sucking their gut to vote the party line, would do so no matter who the nominee is.

True. My point was just that we can't know for sure that RP would have won if he was the nominee, just like we can't assume that people who vote for Johnson would have otherwise voted for Romney.


We can't assume it. But, we can make some guesses, seeing as Johnson wouldn't have run if Paul got the nomination, you have the GOP base, and the fact that Paul would be more popular with independants and democrats than Romney.

I honestly believe that if the GOP/MSM hadn't cheated Paul out of the nomination, we really could have seen something special in November.



dsgrue3 on 06 October 2012
Soleron said:
dsgrue3 said:
Surely you can choose between two very different plans for our future. Big Federal Government Spending on stimuli, and social programs VS Smaller Federal government and more emphasis on State government. 

This is the weird part to an outsider. Both of those look like giving government more power and less personal liberty. State government isn't somehow better, it's just more excuse for the left-leaning states to impose economic controls and the right-leaning ones to impose social controls.

There is no option that will involve actual cuts to government programs other than welfare.

Found fathers believed in state government. The big difference is less oversight and power to the Federal government. But yes, obviously, they are both government.

Plenty of options to cut government programs.

 

thetonestarr said:
dsgrue3 said:
There is absolutely no reason to vote third party in this day and age (regrettably). 

You know that this race is between two men. Surely you can choose between two very different plans for our future. Big Federal Government Spending on stimuli, and social programs VS Smaller Federal government and more emphasis on State government. Social issues have no business in this year's election.

Look at your congressional races as well...they are probably even more important than who is president....


This attitude is the absolutely only reason why it's a race between two men. Obviously, this election isn't going to see a third runner winning. But it's going to see record non-DEM/GOP voter turnout, and that's a statement that must be made. The greater the number of people that realize it's a statement that needs to be made, the greater its potential in the future. This time, the third party candidate might see 15%. Next time, 25%. And after that, who knows? Make significant ground and more people see the potential and are swayed. And the DEM/GOP parties need to be stopped. They've been irrelevant to America for decades now, and it's time we move on. Only way that possibly can happen is if we, the voters, resolve to make it happen.

The problem is that so many people are too short-sighted to realize that sometimes one election must be sacrificed to see the long-term benefit. All you have to do is be able to accept that, and I am positive it will make a change.

You are an idealist. Mark my words. "A third party candidate will never win the Presidency." Just because some people are registered Independent does not mean they don't lean one way or another. It just means they choose not to be labled.  



thranx on 06 October 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Soleron said:
dsgrue3 said:
Surely you can choose between two very different plans for our future. Big Federal Government Spending on stimuli, and social programs VS Smaller Federal government and more emphasis on State government. 

This is the weird part to an outsider. Both of those look like giving government more power and less personal liberty. State government isn't somehow better, it's just more excuse for the left-leaning states to impose economic controls and the right-leaning ones to impose social controls.

There is no option that will involve actual cuts to government programs other than welfare.

Found fathers believed in state government. The big difference is less oversight and power to the Federal government. But yes, obviously, they are both government.

Plenty of options to cut government programs.

 

thetonestarr said:
dsgrue3 said:
There is absolutely no reason to vote third party in this day and age (regrettably). 

You know that this race is between two men. Surely you can choose between two very different plans for our future. Big Federal Government Spending on stimuli, and social programs VS Smaller Federal government and more emphasis on State government. Social issues have no business in this year's election.

Look at your congressional races as well...they are probably even more important than who is president....


This attitude is the absolutely only reason why it's a race between two men. Obviously, this election isn't going to see a third runner winning. But it's going to see record non-DEM/GOP voter turnout, and that's a statement that must be made. The greater the number of people that realize it's a statement that needs to be made, the greater its potential in the future. This time, the third party candidate might see 15%. Next time, 25%. And after that, who knows? Make significant ground and more people see the potential and are swayed. And the DEM/GOP parties need to be stopped. They've been irrelevant to America for decades now, and it's time we move on. Only way that possibly can happen is if we, the voters, resolve to make it happen.

The problem is that so many people are too short-sighted to realize that sometimes one election must be sacrificed to see the long-term benefit. All you have to do is be able to accept that, and I am positive it will make a change.

 

You are an idealist. Mark my words. "A third party candidate will never win the Presidency." Just because some people are registered Independent does not mean they don't lean one way or another. It just means they choose not to be labled.  

Why not? It has happened before, why not now. We haven't always had the two parties we have now. Change has happened when a big party started to split, or loose the views of the people. I plan on voting third party just not sure who yet.



Around the Network
the_dengle on 06 October 2012

we already had a President Johnson. wasn't one enough?



Moonhero on 06 October 2012

Gary Johnson? Nah, I'm looking to keep drugs illegal. Besides, he's no Ron Paul. I'll just stick with what I know.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

PullusPardus on 06 October 2012

i keep seeing that guy's name on Omegle, sounds like a douchebag, and I hate omegle for doing it.



SamuelRSmith on 06 October 2012
the_dengle said:
we already had a President Johnson. wasn't one enough?


Yes, Andrew Johnson was a fantastic President...

Wait, what, there was another one?

 

(He was not, actually, a fantastic President...)



-CraZed- on 06 October 2012
ECM said:
His plan will work? Really? How? I'd love to hear an explanation.

Also: Obama's economics are *not* trickle-down--they are 'stuff select constituencies with government cash'-down, which has *nothing* to do with trickle-down as classically understood (HINT: private versus public spending).

Let me be blunt: you vote for Johnson, you're voting for Obama (there is far, far more crossover between Republican and Libertarian voters than Libertarians and Democrats). If you're OK with that, that's great, but you could just vote for Obama and cut out the middleman.

Finally: that anyone still tosses around the 'not a dime's-worth of difference' canard proves nothing other than the person hurling it is completely out-of-touch with reality. After all, do you really think Romney is going to direct tens-of-billions of dollars into green energy boondoggles? Do you really think Romney is going to actively seek to give more money to Planned Parenthood and the like? Do you really think Romney is going to try to *shutdown* coal producers thus causing energy prices to grossly skyrocket? No, you don't, but since libertarians have nothing else to run on, they run on this silly meme that there's no difference between them.

(And I don't even LIKE Romney: he's a cardboard cut-out, but even a cardboard cut-out is better than Obama* and he's certainly better than the no hope on earth of doing anything other than helping Obama win Johnson.)

*That anyone would actually vote for this guy again after 'just' the titanic debt increase (never mind the rest of it) boggles the mind.

Well said....

 

Look I personally like Gary Johnson and I'm with Libertarians for the most part but unfortunately Gary Johnson has absolutely no way to win and that is a fact that sound minded libertarians must acknowledge and in fact Heck even Wayne Allen Root (big libertarian) had to back Romney at this stage.

Look as a conservative I know the Republican party hasn't had the best track record on smaller government but that doesn't mean we have to allow the guy in the white house (and folks in congress) to keep us heading for the abyss. You know as well as I do (I hope) that once a government program is started it is pretty much permanent. So when someone comes along and is willing to do away with Obama care right away we have to stand up and take notice. If we don't repeal it right away we will forever be stuck with it and the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of its architect (okay so he didn't really write it himself, his teleprompter did).

Its time to grow up boys and stop with the wishing and waiting. What needs to happen is we need to vote in Romney and Ryan and then hold their feet to the fire! Keep the heat up while they are in office. I also think the Libertarians need to continue to stay with the Republican party to help drive the debates within the party so as to affect change there.  Ron Paul may not be getting elected President but he has helped to bring light to many issues especially regarding economics and tax reforms etc. Heck even Mitt Romney is backing an audit of the Fed. Reserve. Mostly thanks to the work of Ron Paul and Libertarians.

Bottom line: a vote for Gary Johnson IS a vote for Obama.