Whats our political makeup?

[firestorm248]

Kinda curious what our political makeup and how many support who in the presidential race.
Feel free to comment if you want.

[Shaokhano]

Yeah go Gingrich.

[flyingirish04]

Anyone but the Charlatan in Chief

[MikeSantor]

Ron Paul is the only Patriot that is running. Anyone else and we'll see how many more constitutional rights get taken away...

[flyingirish04]

Ron Paul is good. He is way wrong on foreign policy. Isolationism is bull and begets larger conflicts than littoral ones. But, I do think he is the least bad of them right now.

[nrv216]

Ron Paul is good. He is way wrong on foreign policy. Isolationism is bull and begets larger conflicts than littoral ones. But, I do think he is the least bad of them right now.

[f3rr37]

My bet is that Gingrich will drop out within 2 months. As I did last time, I will probably cast my vote for Ron Paul.

I do think that his foreign policy is what is going to hurt Ron Paul, but I do think we need to pull back a bit and fix our own problems at home before we meddle in the affairs of others. By no means do I want us to pull out of every country and stop supporting others, but we do need to shift our focus to the political and economic issues that we have at home.

[flyingirish04]

No disagreements Fuzzy. But Paul in his heart wants to do more than that. BUT again, he will approach the job thoughtfully I think and will live with certain realities that could help him.

Now, lets be clear, that is who i like the best. The best guy at beating Obama, probably is Gingrich, maybe Romney now that Obie killed XL. I really don't like Romney. I can stomach Newt.

[f3rr37]

No disagreements Fuzzy. But Paul in his heart wants to do more than that. BUT again, he will approach the job thoughtfully I think and will live with certain realities that could help him.

No doubt about that, but I'm sure as all presidents have... once they actually step into the Oval Office their perspective on things change quite a bit.

Now, lets be clear, that is who i like the best. The best guy at beating Obama, probably is Gingrich, maybe Romney now that Obie killed XL. I really don't like Romney. I can stomach Newt.

I can't stomach Romney either, he reminds me of a sleazy car salesman. I really don't think Gingrich will last much longer. If anything, I would say it will come down to Santorum and Paul. Just my $0.02.

[firestorm248]

I would support either Romney or Paul. IMO only Santorum is a religious nutjob and Gingrich is a hothead, although the way he answered the first question at the debate tonight was awesome.

[flyingirish04]

IT was indeed. And yes, Santorum needs to keep his religion to himself a bit more. I may agree with most of his religious views, but I don't want to force it on others.

[Cyberfly]

If I could pick and choose the best of them all and put it into one person, then I could cast a vote.
Unfortunately, there isn't any one that I like better than the others.
I like Ron Paul, but his weakness on foreign policy is just too weak and Bam Bam would beat him.
Newt is too wishy washy and can't keep a coherent argument. He sold out on global whining on the past and I can't forgive him of that.
Santorum...I like, but has no real presence. And I don't think he believes in carving down the existing fedgov.
Romney is a liberal in conservative clothing. He's a 70's Democrat...that's how far everything has shifted to the left in the last 40 something years. We just haven't noticed it.
We need someone with the presence of Fred Thompson, the experience of Alan West and the savy of Ronald Reagan, polished up like a young Dan Quayle but eloquent enough and a man of the people. Someone who could reach out to and relate to everybody.
I'm not saying he fits the bill (at all), but I still wish that JC Watts had stayed with politics. He was the original TEA Partier before it was 'in style' to be a TEA Partier.

[flyingirish04]

I really like JC Watts. Great man. And I agree on Paul. He would lose a la Goldwater in 64.

I don't agree Newt is wishy washy at all. I think of anyone, he is the better debater and would beat Obama. I don't agree with some of his past equivocations or moderations on policies and issues, and well, marriage. But I just want to beat Obama right now.

Romney you are dead right on. The only thing I can say that is vaguely comforting is that Romney is a pragmatic guy that will be a slave to conservative polling. He doesn't have an original idea in his head. At Bain Capital, he was nothing more than the money guy and face. BUT, he will govern with conservative principles at least in the spirit of W. Which up until 2006 wasn't perfect, but way better than what we have now.

I hate that it has to be a compromise, but sadly I tend to think that true change will have to come at the state level and trickle up to the feds. Invest your time in electing great candidates for governor and eventually the feds will come around. Because all you can hope for now is a POTUS that isn't a heavy handed soft fascist like Obama.

[Cyberfly]

I think that with the economy the way that it is, the states won't stand up to the fedgov. They'll refuse to assert their rights or declare their sovereignty. Even with a strong conservative state government and a moderate fedgov, we'd be looking at a long haul to any kind of true recovery and another chance for socialist takeover.
Perhaps if Chris Christie were to step up in the meantime...I never really took the time to learn much about him, but recently I've seen a few vids of him and I'm learning to like the guy. He holds no punches, says what he means and the guy is startlingly smart. I think he would have done a much better job than any of the others, but again, that is all speculation. I thought that Perry would have done better as well. It's all second guessing without an actual horse in the race...

[SeaHawkDriver-B]

Agreed that Romney doesn't have a single original idea in his head; he's a face and suit, thats it. He'd say anything to get elected, for any party... typical career politician; expect ZERO change in the status quo if he gets elected.

The G-man gets my vote simply for his stance on the issues. Its too bad that people have to pick apart every OTHER facet of the man to bring him down, becuase simply based on what he says, he's pretty solid. His record is extremely long becuase he's been a washington front man forever; i walked by Newt on

Ron Paul has a soft spot in my heart as I am a half-hearted libertarian. Although I like the idea of extremely limited government and isolationism, I'm also a realist, and I understand that those extremes simply don't work. The last two isolationist periods the US entered-into, resulted in two World Wars... a pretty much undisputed fact that any historian can site... i.e. if you simply let the world run amuck, it will go to hell. If Ron Paul would simple come across a moderate libertarian in foreign policy, something like "walk softly but carry a big stick", I think he'd swing 80% of the republican party his way; but he refuses out of party loyalty, and he will not win the nomination as a result.

1) G-man
2) Ron Paul
3) Mitt (better than Obama) Romney

[flyingirish04]

You can be a libertarian and be strong on foreign policy. That is the whole deal about libertarianism. It isn't set one way. It allows for a variety of views as long as they are centered in individual freedom. Isolationism is in fact anti libertarian in so many ways. But I won't go through objectivist and liberty theory right now.

And Fly, FYI, Christie is Romney's biggest supporter.

And I disagree with you on the states not exerting their will. There are big examples of 10 amendment based legislation and lawsuits that the states are winning against the feds. Also, several non party insiders have been elected governor in many states. THis is a great sign that he party cronies are losing power. I hope it continues.

[toyslr]

Bad thing is I don't see one of them that can beat Obama! Trust me as ALL you guys know or should know, I can't stand this idiot but I can't see them pulling enough of the dems or fence sitters to secure the seat.

[Llagoud]

I'm still leaning towards Vermin Supreme.
I want healthy gums and a pony.

[flyingirish04]

And boots for hats :lmao:

[Cyberfly]

Oh, I know that Christie thinks very highly of Romney. Doesn't mean that I do though.
But I don't think that the states, though they've tested the waters (so to speak) on 10A issues, will have the testicular fortitude to actually step up and threaten to do what really needs to be done to make the drastic changes that need to be done.
Let me try to clarify that a bit. I'm talking about the states trying to accomplish the kinds of things that Perry had in mind. The doing away with useless FedGov agencies. They simply don't have the ability, nor do they have the clout.
Now, could the states come together and say, 'we don't need the Dept of Education' and get it done? Possibly. The Dept of Energy? Ehhh...maybe. But I doubt anybody would actually listen on that one. EPA? Nope. That is the liberals golden calf. The environment is their new 'god' and they won't listen to such heresy.
But could the states, IF they could actually ban together accomplish such tasks? Yes, I think that they could. The big Q is...WOULD they?
I don't think they have the vision. It would take the states as a whole and there are states like CA and NY that would balk. I'm sure there are others, but those two come to mind off the top of my head. They'd do it just because it would piss off the other states.

[Shaokhano]

On of the best things about Gingrich is the fact that he is a political genius. I believe if we really want to make BHO a one term president, we need someone that is cut throat to do what ever we need him to do to win. Romney is a white BHO. Santorum doesn't have near the knowledge nor the experience to talk on BHO, and Paul well I like Paul I love some of his ideas, but let's be honest here he is way to far out there on somethings. One of the best things about Gingrich is he is an amazing debater. He will destroy BHO in any debate organized by anybody. I guess that's the real reason I'm going for him.

[fooschnickens]

On of the best things about Gingrich is the fact that he is a political genius.

Uhh, you did see how he handled being SoH, right? Hardly what I'd consider "genius".

Kinda surprising seeing Newt out in the lead, to say the least. I don't even think anyone in GA would vote for him again, regardless of station.

[toyslr]

Newt Gingrich a genius? Now I know POLITICS are F**KED

Sorry went back and censored myself! Was not believing what i read. Actually made the comment to my boss the other day that he Country is screwed when Gingrich is the only one that makes any sense

[nrv216]

This might be old news but it looks like Newt might want Alan West as his running mate.

In this, Newt knows how to greatly appeal to conservatives. According to The Shark Tank, he suggested two popular figures for a GOP VP selection: Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Allen West.

"Gingrich, like Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann before him, said that he would absolutely consider Rubio for the VP slot, adding that he (Rubio) was on everyone’s short list. Gingrich has also recently stated that he would consider Congressman Allen West for the job."

Both are fantastic, though I've had conversations with the Townhall staff about if these men would serve better in roles that wielded more actual power, like a cabinet position. Having Rubio actually VOTE in the Senate, instead of just there for a tiebreaker, is not something to be lightly discarded. Also, I'd hate for either of them have to defend the policies of a GOP administration that will probably go soft at some point, looking at the track record of the candidates running.

But still, having Rubio or West featured front and center this summer in the GOP would definitely ease the pain of the 2012 field.

[Shaokhano]

Newt Gingrich a genius? Now I know POLITICS are F**KED

Now you think we are in trouble????? The biggest liberal muslim I have ever meet (sorry spellcheck I am not capitalizing muslim) is in the highest political position in the United States of America and now you think we have a problem because Gingrich is making sense. Ok lets say that BHO has done as ok job for the last four years. He still said and I quote "If this economy hasn’t rebounded in three years, I’m a one-termer" now is he going to roll over and give up his seat. Well I know I wouldn't want to move out the White House and go back Chicago with Michelle. (Hell I wouldn't want to go anywhere with Michelle.) I again say Romney is not the man to fight BHO it will be comparing oranges to slightly darker oranges. Plus he doesn't have a spine. Someone here said Gingrich is a little hot headed which means he has a spine and isn't like that P.O.S. loser McCain. Santorum he's wet behind the ears, no spine and before this whole thing got started no one knew who he was. Which leaves us with Ron Paul I must admit I LOVE some of his ideas and some of them scare the poopey out of me. At the end of the day the goal here is to make BHO a ONE-TERMER Gingrich can and will do it. No one will argue the fact that Gingrich is an amazing debater. He will appeal to the American public on a multitude of levels. One being he has made mistakes he will admit that he has and he will ask for forgiveness, and America loves a come back underdog story. We will eat it up like shrimp fried rice. Then when we grant him the forgiveness that he seeks for any and all of his past transactions he will strike down the liberal muslim beast known as Barack Hussein Obama!!!!!!!!!!!

[panzermk2]

In his personal life Gingrich is scum. People forget he is not a lawyer bu a History professor. I used to love watching him as minority whip in the late 80's giving the Majority Dems in the house of Reps fits. With the rules they wrote to shut down the Republicans he beat them over the head. Without looking any thing up he would state "Mr speaker, point of parliamentary order sir" and then smoke them.

With his personal choices I just cannot vote for him. Now if he was Secretary of State? BOO YAH!

[Shaokhano]

In his personal life Gingrich is scum. People forget he is not a lawyer bu a History professor. I used to love watching him as minority whip in the late 80's giving the Majority Dems in the house of Reps fits. With the rules they wrote to shut down the Republicans he beat them over the head. Without looking any thing up he would state "Mr speaker, point of parliamentary order sir" and then smoke them.

With his personal choices I just cannot vote for him. Now if he was Secretary of State? BOO YAH!

This is truly the part where I hate republicans. You will attempt to condemn a man based on personal actions, but the liberals will place a baby slaughtering homosexual muslim drug head on the highest pedestal they can find. We are at a point in which we need to change fundamentally. I do not care about the mans personal issues. I care if he will do good for the country. Which he has always strived to do. Has he made wrong choices in the past. Yeap he has, and he has learned from them he has become a better and strong person because of these facts. One thing that the all might arrogant self proclaimed king of American BHO has not nor will ever do. We need to look past personal choices and look at records and positions that the candidates have on the issues that matter.

[f3rr37]

In his personal life Gingrich is scum. People forget he is not a lawyer bu a History professor. I used to love watching him as minority whip in the late 80's giving the Majority Dems in the house of Reps fits. With the rules they wrote to shut down the Republicans he beat them over the head. Without looking any thing up he would state "Mr speaker, point of parliamentary order sir" and then smoke them.

With his personal choices I just cannot vote for him. Now if he was Secretary of State? BOO YAH!

This is truly the part where I hate republicans. You will attempt to condemn a man based on personal actions, but the liberals will place a baby slaughtering homosexual muslim drug head on the highest pedestal they can find. We are at a point in which we need to change fundamentally. I do not care about the mans personal issues. I care if he will do good for the country. Which he has always strived to do. Has he made wrong choices in the past. Yeap he has, and he has learned from them he has become a better and strong person because of these facts. One thing that the all might arrogant self proclaimed king of American BHO has not nor will ever do. We need to look past personal choices and look at records and positions that the candidates have on the issues that matter.

So wait... this means that we should have forgiven President Obama for his past personal behavior and he should have been given a clean slate when he ran for the position of President? I'm not a Republican, but a Liberitarian, and yes I will condemn a man based on his personal actions. Why? Personal actions reveal a lot about a person's behavior and how they are as a person.

I will not vote along any party's lines, as that is what is wrong with this country. People no longer vote for an individual, they vote for a party and what the party stands for.

[firestorm248]

I will not vote along any party's lines, as that is what is wrong with this country. People no longer vote for an individual, they vote for a party and what the party stands for.

:clap:

[jgreenberg01]

I will not vote along any party's lines, as that is what is wrong with this country. People no longer vote for an individual, they vote for a party and what the party stands for.

Thank you!!!!

I stay out of the political discussions because this is exactly how I feel and saying what you just said in these hyper-polarized times can sometimes get you labeled the wrong way. Finally someone else who sees the really big picture. VERY well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumb:

[flyingirish04]

I will when it is BO that is in office. I have to admit, that I won't like it, but I will. If there were decent third party candidates, maybe I would vote that way, but sorry Ron Paul isn't that if he decides to run as a 3rd party guy.

I understand that we need to elect individuals. I just feel that to risk another BO term would be disastrous.

[nrv216]

I understand that we need to elect individuals. I just feel that to risk another BO term would be disastrous.

Bingo! I am not a huge fan of any of the candidates either but, at this time, it might come down to voting for who I think could actually beat Barack Hussein Ali Baba.

nrv216

[SHEEPDOG]

They are all scum, thats how you get there. I think Gingrich is the only one who has a chance. He will take the South like Sherman. Romney is milk toast, he will not excite anyone. If you are looking for a Reagan conservative, don't go looking for Massachusetts liberals.IMHO

[Shaokhano]

I apologize I thought the goal here was to make BHO a one term president. If we continue to bicker about trivial matters. Then why have an election at all? Please, continue to break the election in to a million different issues and allow the incumbent to stay for the maximum number of terms like we have done with congress and the senate. Or better yet let's remove term limits from the executive branch and find out just how messed up BHO can make this country. I understand your need to a rebel and go against the system. It's in out blood as Americans. We do not like to be told what to do and we will fight it at every turn. But this time just go with republics rather than a third party because all you are doing is removing votes that will defeat BHO. The chances of a third party winning anything are extremely slim and I for one do not want to find out how large the national debt can get and on a personal level would like to have some symbolism of SS when I retire other than my own 401k and variance of investments I have made on my own.

[Cyberfly]

Just because some disagree with your choice for who to run against BHO, doesn't mean that they've given up the fight.
The race for the GOP is just getting started.
Right now...if the choice were a shoe or a one eyed gopher against BHO, I'd vote for the one-eyed-Gopher! Unless of course, the shoe already had chosen a sock as a running mate, then I'd consider the shoe stronger, but I got this thing for one-eyed-Gophers...

[flyingirish04]

:agree: :lmao:

[Cyberfly]

I'm leaning heavily towards that one-eyed-gopher.
In fact if it were an option in the poll...buddy, I'd have already voted!!

[romer522]

It's one of those elections where the House and Senate are equally important if not more important that the pres. Even if we elected the perfect conservative for pres he will be handicapped unless we take the senate back too, and if Obama wins, having both halves of congress would stifle his "progress" considerably.

[Llagoud]

But.....like having to pass a Bill to find out what's in it, we have to re-elect BO to find out what he can do! :laugh:

[nrv216]

Well according to the NRA, if we don't get BO out, the world as we know it will end! Granted, I want him gone as much as the next guy on this forum, but the NRA's scare tactics are a little insulting to my intelligence. Like romer said, the vote for senate and the house is just as important.

nrv216

[f3rr37]

I apologize I thought the goal here was to make BHO a one term president. If we continue to bicker about trivial matters. Then why have an election at all? Please, continue to break the election in to a million different issues and allow the incumbent to stay for the maximum number of terms like we have done with congress and the senate. Or better yet let's remove term limits from the executive branch and find out just how messed up BHO can make this country. I understand your need to a rebel and go against the system. It's in out blood as Americans. We do not like to be told what to do and we will fight it at every turn. But this time just go with republics rather than a third party because all you are doing is removing votes that will defeat BHO. The chances of a third party winning anything are extremely slim and I for one do not want to find out how large the national debt can get and on a personal level would like to have some symbolism of SS when I retire other than my own 401k and variance of investments I have made on my own.

So you're saying that I'm throwing my vote away if I vote for someone other than who the two major parties tell me I should vote for?
This is exactly how we got to the current state of our political system.

Men and women have shed blood to give you and I the freedoms we have today, including the right to vote. Honor their sacrifices and vote freely, not for someone of whom a party dictates you vote for.

[Shaokhano]

So you're saying that I'm throwing my vote away if I vote for someone other than who the two major parties tell me I should vote for?
This is exactly how we got to the current state of our political system.

Men and women have shed blood to give you and I the freedoms we have today, including the right to vote. Honor their sacrifices and vote freely, not for someone of whom a party dictates you vote for.

You are a 100% correct by saying our current system is flawed. Men and Women have been killed defending our country from threats both foreign and domestic. They have made sacrifices that, I as a civilian could not imagine or maybe I am just to terrified to.

One thing remains and that is our system. The system that allows us our freedoms as flawed as it is and as it will be, fore there will never be a perfect system. This system has two major parties but in total there is 39 different political parties. Out of those 39 different parties a candidate from a third party which not republican or democrat has only won a U.S. Senate election twice (0.6%) since 1990. There has only been two U.S. Presidents that were third party George Washington and Andrew Johnson. With these facts presented to you it is safe to say that a third party victory is extremely rare.

Am I saying that you are throwing your vote away by voting for a third party. No I am not, I am saying you are voting for BHO by taking a vote away from his opponent. I agree with you that our system is flawed and I don't like it either, but at this point in time. It is the system we have. Our common goal is to make BHO a one term president. We can not allow him to continue to destroy this country from within, and spit on the graves and in the faces of those men and women that have fought for our country, our system, our way of life. We have to come together, we have to be UNITED.

[bobapunk]

Santorum / Paul would be nice.

As things are going now, I wouldn't be opposed to voting for Newt Gingrich though.

[Llagoud]

I apologize I thought the goal here was to make BHO a one term president. If we continue to bicker about trivial matters. Then why have an election at all? Please, continue to break the election in to a million different issues and allow the incumbent to stay for the maximum number of terms like we have done with congress and the senate. Or better yet let's remove term limits from the executive branch and find out just how messed up BHO can make this country. I understand your need to a rebel and go against the system. It's in out blood as Americans. We do not like to be told what to do and we will fight it at every turn. But this time just go with republics rather than a third party because all you are doing is removing votes that will defeat BHO. The chances of a third party winning anything are extremely slim and I for one do not want to find out how large the national debt can get and on a personal level would like to have some symbolism of SS when I retire other than my own 401k and variance of investments I have made on my own.

So you're saying that I'm throwing my vote away if I vote for someone other than who the two major parties tell me I should vote for?
This is exactly how we got to the current state of our political system.

Men and women have shed blood to give you and I the freedoms we have today, including the right to vote. Honor their sacrifices and vote freely, not for someone of whom a party dictates you vote for.

Fuzzy, the last election cycle I did not agree with you. I do now.

When the choice is the same path, just fast or slow.....there needs to be a shake-up.
Repubs that are not conservative cannot count on getting my vote just because they are not the other guy.
That would make me as guilty as them for empowering them to continue the idiocy.
If they lose to someone so beatable, it's THEIR fault for not representing us, not our fault for not giving them a pass.

[firestorm248]

I think change back and forth between the parties is healthy and extremism either way isn’t. Many of yall may disagree with me there. Me and my wife have very mixed politics and consider ourselves independent.
We support the military but also support trimming the fat that is crippling it
We support an overhaul of the healthcare system with a individual mandate but with a lot of provisions dems won’t touch like tort reforms
Very pro 2nd amendment
Pro flat tax, very fiscally conservative
Support gay marriage and gays in military
Support abortion, except in late term
Support overhaul of the education system, we have one of the worst in the world
Our politics won’t fit either party because some items we like are cardinal sins in each party. One thing’s for sure, I won’t be backing Obama at all, but I don’t want to back anyone too extreme right either. Many of yall would disagree with me but that’s why we have our political system.

[jgreenberg01]

I think change back and forth between the parties is healthy and extremism either way isn’t. Many of yall may disagree with me there. Me and my wife have very mixed politics and consider ourselves independent.
We support the military but also support trimming the fat that is crippling it
We support an overhaul of the healthcare system with a individual mandate but with a lot of provisions dems won’t touch like tort reforms
Very pro 2nd amendment
Pro flat tax, very fiscally conservative
Support gay marriage and gays in military
Support abortion, except in late term
Support overhaul of the education system, we have one of the worst in the world
Our politics won’t fit either party because some items we like are cardinal sins in each party. One thing’s for sure, I won’t be backing Obama at all, but I don’t want to back anyone too extreme right either. Many of yall would disagree with me but that’s why we have our political system.

I think that in some people's minds you have just outed yourself as a flaming liberal, or at least that's the response I've seen when others have let feelings like yours be known.

Since you felt comfortable speaking your mind, I am going to chime in and completely agree with all you said and add one more topic that I believe in: I know it won't ever happen, but illegal aliens have to go. The word "illegal" kind of describes how they got here. I think we need to be open to immigration, but LEGAL immigration.

I think the views you stated are resonable and sensible, although not all will share them. The hyper-polarized atmosphere in the country won't allow it.

Bravo (IMHO) for seeing some logic on both sides of the aisle! If only our government can learn to compromise as opposed to going farther and farther to the extreme left/right, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

There has to be some common sense used. Sadly I don't anticipate it happening any time soon

I firmly believe term limits are the answer: ONE term for ALL in the government - that way their #1 job is not re-election... no more career politicians that are in the pockets of corporations and their campaign funds.

Just my (taxable) $0.02.

[firestorm248]

I think that in some people's minds you have just outed yourself as a flaming liberal, or at least that's the response I've seen when others have let feelings like yours be known.

Since you felt comfortable speaking your mind, I am going to chime in and completely agree with all you said and add one more topic that I believe in: I know it won't ever happen, but illegal aliens have to go. The word "illegal" kind of describes how they got here. I think we need to be open to immigration, but LEGAL immigration.

I think the views you stated are resonable and sensible, although not all will share them. The hyper-polarized atmosphere in the country won't allow it.

Bravo (IMHO) for seeing some logic on both sides of the aisle! If only our government can learn to compromise as opposed to going farther and farther to the extreme left/right, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now.

There has to be some common sense used. Sadly I don't anticipate it happening any time soon

I firmly believe term limits are the answer: ONE term for ALL in the government - that way their #1 job is not re-election... no more career politicians that are in the pockets of corporations and their campaign funds.

Just my (taxable) $0.02.

I will 100% agree with you on illegal immigration, I do think it should be strictly enforced, however we can relax the legal immigration rules just a little. But your right to some I would be a flaming liberal nut but to others I am a right wing nut. I was raised in a far right family and dems were evil, my wife was raised in a far left family and repubs were evil. IMO only, nothing can seem to get done because no one is willing to sit done and compromise on anything. I agree having term limits would do so much to fix the political system because all anyone is worried about is getting re-elected.

[Cyberfly]

Ah, but gentlemen, as I've stated before in many, many, many late night rants, the things it would take to 'fix' many of the things that plague this country are actually quite 'simple' to fix.
The problems that plague our great nation is that nobody in Washington actually wants to fix the problems. Then they'd be out of a job.
They spend 90% of their time CREATING the problems so that the common man can be divided, then spend the other 10% of the time coming up with creative ways to spend our money to correct the 'problems' that they created while lining the pockets of their friends AND themselves and making it appear legal in the process.
Fixing the problems could be done in practically no time.
Everything from the education system to illegal immigration.
The answers are actually IN the Constitution. The FedGov simply got too big for their britches. They have NO business sticking their nose into things like marriage (gay OR straight), abortion or any other 'private' matters. Those are issues left to the states to figure out. Period. If California wants to allow gay marriage..God bless em. If Kentucky don't, God bless them as well. State issues. NOT Federal.
However, illegal immigration? That is so simple...it shouldn't have ever been an issue. Simplify it. Allow those who are alrady here to register themselves and give them a year to learn the language and pass the test. If they don't want to be citizens but just work? Let em...for a year. Then let em go home for 6 months and spend a little time with the familia. Then they can come back. FELONS need not apply. Don't register and get caught? Shipped home and no longer eligible to participate. Period. No second chances.
People like Biden who THINKS his IQ is too big tries so hard to make things difficult, and it doesn't NEED to be. There are COMMON SENSE answers to all of it.
MOney not worth as much? STOP FRIGGIN PRINTING SO MUCH OF IT. Jebus.
Get rid of the Fed. Congress has the authority to COIN money. It should be silver and gold. Period. Let's see North Korea counterfeit THAT?! As long as the metal content is the same, who cares where it comes from, right?
>sigh<
Back to basics folks.
It ain't rocket surgery or brain science...its common sense.

[CenCalSplicer]

Ah, but gentlemen, as I've stated before in many, many, many late night rants, the things it would take to 'fix' many of the things that plague this country are actually quite 'simple' to fix.
The problems that plague our great nation is that nobody in Washington actually wants to fix the problems. Then they'd be out of a job.
They spend 90% of their time CREATING the problems so that the common man can be divided, then spend the other 10% of the time coming up with creative ways to spend our money to correct the 'problems' that they created while lining the pockets of their friends AND themselves and making it appear legal in the process.
Fixing the problems could be done in practically no time.
Everything from the education system to illegal immigration.
The answers are actually IN the Constitution. The FedGov simply got too big for their britches. They have NO business sticking their nose into things like marriage (gay OR straight), abortion or any other 'private' matters. Those are issues left to the states to figure out. Period. If California wants to allow gay marriage..God bless em. If Kentucky don't, God bless them as well. State issues. NOT Federal.
However, illegal immigration? That is so simple...it shouldn't have ever been an issue. Simplify it. Allow those who are alrady here to register themselves and give them a year to learn the language and pass the test. If they don't want to be citizens but just work? Let em...for a year. Then let em go home for 6 months and spend a little time with the familia. Then they can come back. FELONS need not apply. Don't register and get caught? Shipped home and no longer eligible to participate. Period. No second chances.
People like Biden who THINKS his IQ is too big tries so hard to make things difficult, and it doesn't NEED to be. There are COMMON SENSE answers to all of it.
MOney not worth as much? STOP FRIGGIN PRINTING SO MUCH OF IT. Jebus.
Get rid of the Fed. Congress has the authority to COIN money. It should be silver and gold. Period. Let's see North Korea counterfeit THAT?! As long as the metal content is the same, who cares where it comes from, right?
>sigh<
Back to basics folks.
It ain't rocket surgery or brain science...its common sense.

:agree: :agree: KONA IS BACK IN THE BUILDING FOLKS!!!!!! :clap: :clap:

[Cyberfly]

If I thought I could sell a couple of copies, I'd probably sit down and put my incoherent thoughts together into a book. Maybe, "Common Sense From a Common Man For Uncommon Times" and pass free copies to all of those 'serving' in Congress.
Keep It Simple Stupid. . . would be the catch-phrase and we could see just how many of those clowns could grasp the situation?
Maybe once they understood what they've done they'd realize? Leftist politicians declaring that 'Healthcare is NOW a right...so the FedGov has to 'PROVIDE it to ALL Americans!' Oh, really? Well guess what, Mr. Reid!? The Second Amendment declares that the right to bare arms has ALWAYS been a right, but I haven't seen my FedGov provided firearm? So where is it?! If self-defense from a tyranical government has been our right for a couple of centuries, I want restitution for all the PREVIOUS generations of my family who didn't get provided their FREE government firearms, including when machine guns WEREN'T illegal! AND, for all those who are too wishy washy and think guns are icky, I'll be more than happy to take theirs! I'll take good care of them!
And what good is a gun without ammunition? Cases of ammunition to feed those cute little critters, too please!
Common sense gentlemen. Common sense.

[flyingirish04]

Mitch Daniels last night was fantastic. I really wish he were running. I don't care about his divorce or his personal life. He is the best candidate for president since Reagan.

[firestorm248]

Want to hear something funny, I listen to conservative radio hosts all during the day, I agree with them on a lot and disagree with some of course, however months prior to Obama and his ilk unveiling the health care law I distinctly remember 2 radio hosts saying we should have an individual mandate for healthcare. Oh how their tunes changed.

[flyingirish04]

Don't fall into the spin.

The individual mandate existed on the basis in order to recieve care at an emergency room, EVERYONE had to have insurance, or pay a fine for not having it. In theory it makes sense. We can't keep just giving out service to illegals or to those that have no intention to pay and don't care about credit being wrecked.

I still disagreed with it then though because I never felt that govt mandating anything is ever a good idea. I can only think of in times of war where it may be necessary to mandate something federally.

The fact remains that today, we see it as a terrible idea. Who cares who supported it back then? Its still a bad idea now.

[Cyberfly]

Yup.
If the FedGov can mandate that you HAVE to have health insurance, then they can mandate that you HAVE to have auto insurance.
They already do?
Nope...state by state issue. What if you choose not to own a car? Can they still force you to buy auto insurance?
Can they FORCE you to maintain a certain weight? What if you are on the 'lean' side? Do they then force you to 'over-eat' unhealthy foods? What if you are naturally a large person with low body fat?
The point is, any time the FedGov tries to force everybody into a one-size-fits-all, they CAN'T. Everybody may have been created equally, but that doesn't mean that we all are or should be forced to do anything against our will.

[toyslr]

The parties are what is wrong with this country that and the fact that they are allowing Congress to benefit from insider trading

"I will not vote along any party's lines, as that is what is wrong with this country. People no longer vote for an individual, they vote for a party and what the party stands for."

I whole heartedly argree with the comment and WILL vote for who I think can do the job not the party he is for..

[jgreenberg01]

Don't fall into the spin.

The individual mandate existed on the basis in order to recieve care at an emergency room, EVERYONE had to have insurance, or pay a fine for not having it. In theory it makes sense. We can't keep just giving out service to illegals or to those that have no intention to pay and don't care about credit being wrecked.

I still disagreed with it then though because I never felt that govt mandating anything is ever a good idea. I can only think of in times of war where it may be necessary to mandate something federally.

The fact remains that today, we see it as a terrible idea. Who cares who supported it back then? Its still a bad idea now.

Personally I look at this a little differently. I care. I care because it is a perfect example of how politics works. Candidates say whatever they deem necessary at the time to get/stay elected. They support whatever is expedient/most popular at the time to get/stay elected.

We as a society seem to have short-term memory loss when it comes to who said what and when. Do we really want to continue to put people in office who consistently flip-flop (aka... lie) to get/stay elected?

Two words: TERM LIMITS.

[flyingirish04]

It still doesn't matter. Bad ideas are voiced all the time, from both parties, the fact they don't pass them means they didn't truly want them.

Either way, it sucked then, it sucks now. We live in the now. Quit the politicking and bs and lets solve the issues facing us today.

[flyingirish04]

I still think Mitch Daniels should enter the race. He does, and we have our next president.

[Llagoud]

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/01/25 ... ternative/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why Mitch Daniels Should Enter the Race: The Real Conservative Alternative

The comments are interesting.

[flyingirish04]

The comments are what is wrong with extremists on the Republican side. The fact is that Daniels is exactly like Reagan on social issues, pretty moderate. However he is the most free market minded of anyone in America now. He privatized prisons because unions were costing the state too much. He took away direct withdrawal of all state employees to union coffers. He has championed a flatter tax with less loop holes. He even went so far as looking into Friedman's negative income tax idea.

Furthermore, he was the first to bring HSAs and even keeled healthcare options to state employees and his record on negociating with unions is stellar. He has kicked their but continuously.

But since he decided to value his family over bitterness. Because he took back an unfaithful wife. Because he doesn't have time for unsolvable social battles, he is a RINO. What a bunch of crap.

[Shaokhano]

Well, it's Mittens or the crazy old guy. Me for one I really like the crazy old guy. COME ON CRAZY OLD GUY.

[brianz]

I think change back and forth between the parties is healthy and extremism either way isn’t. Many of yall may disagree with me there. Me and my wife have very mixed politics and consider ourselves independent.
We support the military but also support trimming the fat that is crippling it
We support an overhaul of the healthcare system with a individual mandate but with a lot of provisions dems won’t touch like tort reforms
Very pro 2nd amendment
Pro flat tax, very fiscally conservative
Support gay marriage and gays in military
Support abortion, except in late term
Support overhaul of the education system, we have one of the worst in the world
Our politics won’t fit either party because some items we like are cardinal sins in each party. One thing’s for sure, I won’t be backing Obama at all, but I don’t want to back anyone too extreme right either. Many of yall would disagree with me but that’s why we have our political system.

I agree with you, and with the further comments on illegal immigration. It's funny because to me, your views are what Libertarianism is all about. In my opinion Ron Paul, with his government out of our lives except in the bedroom views, has corrupted Libertarianism.

I was hoping for Huntsman. He was a candidate that was fiscally conservative, socially liberal and had a great chance of capturing the independent vote, something that I don't believe anyone else has. He also had great ideas about reducing the budget, including intelligent cuts to the military, something which MUST happen.

[jgreenberg01]

I think change back and forth between the parties is healthy and extremism either way isn’t. Many of yall may disagree with me there. Me and my wife have very mixed politics and consider ourselves independent.
We support the military but also support trimming the fat that is crippling it
We support an overhaul of the healthcare system with a individual mandate but with a lot of provisions dems won’t touch like tort reforms
Very pro 2nd amendment
Pro flat tax, very fiscally conservative
Support gay marriage and gays in military
Support abortion, except in late term
Support overhaul of the education system, we have one of the worst in the world
Our politics won’t fit either party because some items we like are cardinal sins in each party. One thing’s for sure, I won’t be backing Obama at all, but I don’t want to back anyone too extreme right either. Many of yall would disagree with me but that’s why we have our political system.

I agree with you, and with the further comments on illegal immigration. It's funny because to me, your views are what Libertarianism is all about. In my opinion Ron Paul, with his government out of our lives except in the bedroom views, has corrupted Libertarianism.

I was hoping for Huntsman. He was a candidate that was fiscally conservative, socially liberal and had a great chance of capturing the independent vote, something that I don't believe anyone else has. He also had great ideas about reducing the budget, including intelligent cuts to the military, something which MUST happen.

Huntsman was never a viable contender unfortunately. He made the mistake of committing conservative heresy when he said that he tends to believe the scientists when they say that climate change is real.

It's such a shame, the GOP is so dysfunctional that they pick someone who's only consistent message is that he'll change his message depending on what group he's addressing. For whatever reason, it seems that they actually want to lose this election cycle.

All IMHO of course...

[Llagoud]

Yep, and then blame the citizenry for the loss rather than accept any responsibility for offering us Mittens.

I'm tired of voting against a candidate....I want to vote for one. :wall:

[flyingirish04]

I agree Jim, but I cannot stomach a lame duck term from the Charlatan in Chief. Therefore, I am putting my full support behind Mitt. He isn't my first choice, but he is WAY better then the alternative. Its just reality.

[Rapier1772]

I'm tired of voting against a candidate....I want to vote for one. :wall:

:agree:
Also tired of picking the lesser of two weevils

[Llagoud]

When and how do we make it stop?
I think both candidates will take us to the same place just at different speeds.
State elections may be the only defense left to us.

edit, add:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... st-meeting" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brianz]

I would love to see Libertarianism, true Libertarianism, take off as a viable third party.

As it stands, I really don't know who I am voting for. I would say I would watch the debates, but those things are so ridiculous and full of lies that I don't know if I will. I understand a Lame Duck Obama is a little scary, but a President for sale to the highest bidder is also scary, although at least in Mitt's case he knows he would have to get re-elected. Although in today's GOP that seems to be more about social agenda than anything else which is what I hate about the GOP.

All I can hope for is a third party candidate (Vermin?, jk) who I can believe in. If I can find one of those I will actually hit the streets and do some campaigning.

[Oldbindlestiff]

<SIGH> I wish that I had a clue as to how to start fixing this mess. Florida tried term limits. It has turned into a "Buy this legislator quick before you are out-bid" exercise in futility. As a former Rhode Islander, where politicians are valued mostly for their entertainment value, rather than their integrity, we just voted on the basis of better the crook who you know than the new guy/gal who you don't.

I wonder whether checking a politician's net worth at the start of his/her first term against the net worth towards the end of it would be a useful indicator? That, and ceasing all the stonewalling, lying/crying and finger-pointing at the other side and try to compromise. Something always beats nothing.

Having said that, I will vote :wall: because I view voting as a duty as well as a privilege. God help us all.

[flyingirish04]

It does start and end with the states. That is why my pops is running. If you have leadership at the state level, true leadership, the feds will be held in check.

[Llagoud]

All I can hope for is a third party candidate (Vermin?, jk) who I can believe in.

Vermin Supreme is the only candidate willing to discuss Zombie Preparedness.




Crap. That will cost him Blue's vote. :laugh:

[flyingirish04]

A third party vote is a vote for Obama. Plain and simple. Just like gun control is basically wanting only criminals to have guns.

It seriously is a vote for the worst president in history.

[brianz]

A third party vote is a vote for Obama. Plain and simple. Just like gun control is basically wanting only criminals to have guns.

It seriously is a vote for the worst president in history.

That is the thought process that prevents a viable third party.

[Cyberfly]

A vote for Ross Perot was a vote FOR Klinton...yet I voted for him.
It sent the message, but it also allowed the rapist to inhabit the White House.

[flyingirish04]

A third party vote is a vote for Obama. Plain and simple. Just like gun control is basically wanting only criminals to have guns.

It seriously is a vote for the worst president in history.

That is the thought process that prevents a viable third party.

No what prevents a viable third party is crackpot candidates. Paul is right half of the time, but the other half he lives in a world that doesn't exist, won't ever exist. RP was the same way. And I am a libertarian.

The GOP needs better candidates. That is all. Libertarians have had success in it recently, it is the best path for them currently.

I don't mind third parties, but honestly they don't have the support you think they do. And as long as parties are big tents, they never will.

[f3rr37]

When and how do we make it stop?

Vote for who should really be in the position, not the lesser of two evils. Let people see the true reality of Progressivism and Socialism... they won't back away until they've seen it with their own eyes and see how it will destroy this country. If that means another term of President Obama, so be it.

[flyingirish04]

Completely disagree. Sorry, I enjoy my freedom. History has shown that socialism creates such despair and hardship that lasts generations. It isn't a quick fix. You think you are being noble by suggesting it, but you are just being naive.

Vote for who you want, but you are being part of the problem by doing so.

Think of it this way, Romney in WH will at least allow for states to exert their power. Obama won't. That is huge.

And lets not forget how Reagan was classified before making his big push.

[f3rr37]

Completely disagree. Sorry, I enjoy my freedom. History has shown that socialism creates such despair and hardship that lasts generations. It isn't a quick fix. You think you are being noble by suggesting it, but you are just being naive.

Vote for who you want, but you are being part of the problem by doing so.

Think of it this way, Romney in WH will at least allow for states to exert their power. Obama won't. That is huge.

And lets not forget how Reagan was classified before making his big push.

We will agree to disagree on the issue then. I know what history has shown about Socialism... and by no means am I endorsing it to solve our problems. I'm just saying that maybe the American people need a taste of it to see how it destroys everything we love as Americans. Never claimed to be noble, naive...maybe I am. But by no means is Romney a path to the solution, he'll just be delaying the inevitable... and it just shows that the Republican party can put up a candidate that people will vote for over President Obama and not someone who they really want.

I will vote for who I want, and I really appreciate you not dictating who you think I should vote for... as it seems that's how things typically turn on here. :p

A fight for state rights is coming with or without Romney or Obama, I pray that it is just a political fight, but the way things are going it could turn ugly. The federal government has stomped on state rights for years... probably close to 100 years.

Just my $0.02, naive or not.

[panzermk2]

After McRomney sucked up to Bloomberg I decided to right in R.P. The Judge put it better then I ever could,

[flyingirish04]

I'm not dictating anything. But a vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. That is a fact. If you are ok with that for a multiple of reasons, fine.

I don't like Romney, but I can be darn sure he won't do anything to piss of the conservative base, especially in his first term. To me that is a step in the right direction.

Then the states can take over and lead. That is the wonderful thing about this country and its enabling act and 10th Amendment. States have a ton of power if the right leaders are elected. That is where we change.

It is more difficult for that change to occur with Obama as president.

Honestly it is about being rational and shrewd about your decision and not letting emotional reaction take over. We have two choices. One is clearly better then the other, so I will do everything to ensure that choice is what most people choose. I will not take action that will be detrimental to the outcome.

Do what you want, but know it isn't anchored in any rational thought insofar as it is after a constructive result. It is an emotional reaction to a serious problem, and that is rarely good or effective, IMO. It is spiteful and degenerative in nature.

To say what you say says that the system is beyond repair. That no matter what good can be done, it won't matter. That we should just allow for destruction. The problem is that destruction wouldn't be creative and therefore it would be wrong. At least that is how I see it.

I am not agreeing to disagree. I am not even begging for you to agree. I am merely challanging you to think things through and be sure the externalities you are creating are ones that you can live with. Personally, I don't think doing anything to re-elect the invalid we have in office is an externality any of us really want.

[firestorm248]

Hate to agree with Irish here….just kidding, but Irish does make a point. Is it worth letting freedom erode with 4 more years of Obama just to make a political point? A third party candidate will probably never get enough votes to win. The best way would be to revolutionize the party from the inside. 4 more years of Obama and a small possibility of him winning back the house would be a disaster. Obama would have no fear of having to be re-elected and could push any agenda he wants. It would also create the huge risk of Liberals taking control of the supreme court, that’s worse than Obama’s re-election and super majorities in both houses. You might not agree with Mitt on everything but he’s dang sure a better choice than losing the supreme court because we wanted to make a political point.

My 2 cents

[f3rr37]

I'm not dictating anything. But a vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. That is a fact. If you are ok with that for a multiple of reasons, fine.

I never said you were dictating anything... in fact I thanked your for NOT doing so, to show others that debates can happen w/o dictating what the person should do.

Sorry, the vote not for Romney is not a vote for Obama. 1 + 2 is not equal to 2, even though 2 might seems to be equal to 1. A vote for anyone other than Obama or Romney is a show of freedom and the power of the vote, not a vote for Obama. It is a form of demonstration, protest, and a push back against the dictation of mainstream media of the two party system.

Voting for the lesser of two evils solves nothing, it just delays the inevitable because we'll continue down the same path we've been heading. Both Democrat AND Republican Presidents have lead us down this path which has lead to an increase of social programs which in turn has lead to an increase in debt because we can't afford them.

I don't like Romney, but I can be darn sure he won't do anything to piss of the conservative base, especially in his first term. To me that is a step in the right direction.

Are you saying that because he is a Republican or because of his history of leadership and executive experience? I bet many Republicans didn't think Bush would stomp on privacy at the expense of security until he did it.

Then the states can take over and lead. That is the wonderful thing about this country and its enabling act and 10th Amendment. States have a ton of power if the right leaders are elected. That is where we change.

It is more difficult for that change to occur with Obama as president.[/quote]
As far as I'm concerned the states have minimal power because of the 17th Amendment, it essentially turned the country into a Democracy.

I'm not saying they have no power, they just have very limited power now. I do completely agree with you about states having a ton of power if the right leaders are elected. If state leadership changed across the country and did not agree with the president, he would basically have 0 power... no matter who the president was. The true power in the country resides in the people and their representatives, not the president. And here we are again full circle as to why I will not be voting for either a Democrat or Republican candidate in this election.

Honestly it is about being rational and shrewd about your decision and not letting emotional reaction take over. We have two choices. One is clearly better then the other, so I will do everything to ensure that choice is what most people choose. I will not take action that will be detrimental to the outcome.

Do what you want, but know it isn't anchored in any rational thought insofar as it is after a constructive result. It is an emotional reaction to a serious problem, and that is rarely good or effective, IMO. It is spiteful and degenerative in nature.

To me, emotional reaction taking over would be voting for the lesser of two evils, even though you truly would rather have another candidate so that the greater of two evils doesn't get elected. And again, the outcome of the presidential race doesn't matter if the states are in power and a the people who represent the American people don't agree with the president. Hell, take the most evil person in history, place them in the Oval Office and they have their hands tied by Congress.

To say what you say says that the system is beyond repair. That no matter what good can be done, it won't matter. That we should just allow for destruction. The problem is that destruction wouldn't be creative and therefore it would be wrong. At least that is how I see it.

I am not agreeing to disagree. I am not even begging for you to agree. I am merely challanging you to think things through and be sure the externalities you are creating are ones that you can live with. Personally, I don't think doing anything to re-elect the invalid we have in office is an externality any of us really want.

I don't think the system is beyond repair. This is America where anything is possible. Mitt Romney could be elected, clean house, and restore our country to the Democratic/Constitutional Republic it once was. I don't want this country destroyed by any stretch of the imagination, it is the greatest country that has ever been born. I kind of see this period in time as a teenager experimenting with drugs... things that some people don't see as a hazard, but prolonged use of can cause serious damage. People can warn them all they want about what they've seen drugs do to other people, but they continue to use them because it makes them feel good. Soon we're going to hit the adult years and realize that life isn't all play, in fact it is hard work that makes you feel the best, not some cheap high. Will we hit that turning point and realize life isn't easy? I pray that we do. But choosing to be dependent on marijuana isn't necessarily a better choice than being dependent on meth.

Just my $0.02.

[Llagoud]

I didn't leave the party, it left me. GOP has been 'revolutionionized from the inside'.... by progs and RINO's.

Both parties have been moved siginificantly Left.
My grandad died still thinking he was a Democrat but if you listened to him, all his tirades more closely matched the Republicans platform of the 1980's.


This presenting of Romney by the GOP as their candidate and the expectation that we will just hold our noses and toe the line is just more of the "I hear what you're saying but we know what's best for you" crap.


I'm not as optimistic as Fuzzy about the chnaces of repairing the system. This is something that I hope I am very wrong about. Wronger than I've ever been. Much like the last-ditch 'austerity programs' in Eurasia that are too little too late, I think Romney is way too little way too late.

Again, I did not leave the party.... it left me, and because of that I refuse to accept any argument that a failure by the party has anything to do with me.
My core values and beliefs are unchanged, theirs have taken a hard left turn.
They had a chance at reform when faced with the Tea Party but they co-opted the message and watered it down.


There is also a defeatism-like feeling that voting for Romney would give me. I don't like that feeling and am not going to carry it around for four years.

Give me the Crazy Old Guy and we'll work with his flaws. The flaws of the other two are insidiously progressive and smell to high heaven.

[romer522]

It all comes down to congress, plain and simple, if the recently elected "tea party" congresspeople get sent home, we are all screwed either way, if more tea partyish people get elected then we have some hope, frankly I'd rather have somebody in the white house that will actually sign some legislation that the new congress will pass than have 4 years with absolutely nothing getting done other than BS executive orders etc.

IMHO a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the end of this country as we know it, because its essentially saying that you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama and possibly go completely off the cliff so we can rebuild it later. If the republicans win more congressional seats but we still have Obama, its the end of the road for the entire tea party movement and all the momentum that has been built will be lost because of the stalemate that will ensue. If you truly think its time for all hell to break lose, and that it's needed, vote for your 3rd party candidates but keep in mind that if our country fails, what evidence do you have that we should put it back just how it was that lead us to this failure? I think we are much better off, at least for 1 more election cycle, to actually give somebody a chance to do the right thing and keep the fire lit under them to do it now that more people KNOW that we are not running things sustainably and that we need to fix it.

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is conceding that we are F'ed either way, there is no way to fix it if you guys are correct, so why not vote for the 1 option that puts a faint glow back at the end of the tunnel?

[f3rr37]

It all comes down to congress, plain and simple, if the recently elected "tea party" congresspeople get sent home, we are all screwed either way, if more tea partyish people get elected then we have some hope, frankly I'd rather have somebody in the white house that will actually sign some legislation that the new congress will pass than have 4 years with absolutely nothing getting done other than BS executive orders etc.

IMHO a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the end of this country as we know it, because its essentially saying that you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama and possibly go completely off the cliff so we can rebuild it later. If the republicans win more congressional seats but we still have Obama, its the end of the road for the entire tea party movement and all the momentum that has been built will be lost because of the stalemate that will ensue. If you truly think its time for all hell to break lose, and that it's needed, vote for your 3rd party candidates but keep in mind that if our country fails, what evidence do you have that we should put it back just how it was that lead us to this failure? I think we are much better off, at least for 1 more election cycle, to actually give somebody a chance to do the right thing and keep the fire lit under them to do it now that more people KNOW that we are not running things sustainably and that we need to fix it.

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is conceding that we are F'ed either way, there is no way to fix it if you guys are correct, so why not vote for the 1 option that puts a faint glow back at the end of the tunnel?

Don't forget, Congress can override a Presidential veto with enough support.

[Shaokhano]

Then he appoints a Czar and issues an executive order and shove's it down our throat with a smile on his face and hand full of our hair in his hand.

[flyingirish04]

I'm not dictating anything. But a vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama. That is a fact. If you are ok with that for a multiple of reasons, fine.

I never said you were dictating anything... in fact I thanked your for NOT doing so, to show others that debates can happen w/o dictating what the person should do.

Sorry, the vote not for Romney is not a vote for Obama. 1 + 2 is not equal to 2, even though 2 might seems to be equal to 1. A vote for anyone other than Obama or Romney is a show of freedom and the power of the vote, not a vote for Obama. It is a form of demonstration, protest, and a push back against the dictation of mainstream media of the two party system.

Voting for the lesser of two evils solves nothing, it just delays the inevitable because we'll continue down the same path we've been heading. Both Democrat AND Republican Presidents have lead us down this path which has lead to an increase of social programs which in turn has lead to an increase in debt because we can't afford them.

I don't like Romney, but I can be darn sure he won't do anything to piss of the conservative base, especially in his first term. To me that is a step in the right direction.

Are you saying that because he is a Republican or because of his history of leadership and executive experience? I bet many Republicans didn't think Bush would stomp on privacy at the expense of security until he did it.

Then the states can take over and lead. That is the wonderful thing about this country and its enabling act and 10th Amendment. States have a ton of power if the right leaders are elected. That is where we change.

It is more difficult for that change to occur with Obama as president.

As far as I'm concerned the states have minimal power because of the 17th Amendment, it essentially turned the country into a Democracy.

I'm not saying they have no power, they just have very limited power now. I do completely agree with you about states having a ton of power if the right leaders are elected. If state leadership changed across the country and did not agree with the president, he would basically have 0 power... no matter who the president was. The true power in the country resides in the people and their representatives, not the president. And here we are again full circle as to why I will not be voting for either a Democrat or Republican candidate in this election.

Honestly it is about being rational and shrewd about your decision and not letting emotional reaction take over. We have two choices. One is clearly better then the other, so I will do everything to ensure that choice is what most people choose. I will not take action that will be detrimental to the outcome.

Do what you want, but know it isn't anchored in any rational thought insofar as it is after a constructive result. It is an emotional reaction to a serious problem, and that is rarely good or effective, IMO. It is spiteful and degenerative in nature.

To me, emotional reaction taking over would be voting for the lesser of two evils, even though you truly would rather have another candidate so that the greater of two evils doesn't get elected. And again, the outcome of the presidential race doesn't matter if the states are in power and a the people who represent the American people don't agree with the president. Hell, take the most evil person in history, place them in the Oval Office and they have their hands tied by Congress.

To say what you say says that the system is beyond repair. That no matter what good can be done, it won't matter. That we should just allow for destruction. The problem is that destruction wouldn't be creative and therefore it would be wrong. At least that is how I see it.

I am not agreeing to disagree. I am not even begging for you to agree. I am merely challanging you to think things through and be sure the externalities you are creating are ones that you can live with. Personally, I don't think doing anything to re-elect the invalid we have in office is an externality any of us really want.

I don't think the system is beyond repair. This is America where anything is possible. Mitt Romney could be elected, clean house, and restore our country to the Democratic/Constitutional Republic it once was. I don't want this country destroyed by any stretch of the imagination, it is the greatest country that has ever been born. I kind of see this period in time as a teenager experimenting with drugs... things that some people don't see as a hazard, but prolonged use of can cause serious damage. People can warn them all they want about what they've seen drugs do to other people, but they continue to use them because it makes them feel good. Soon we're going to hit the adult years and realize that life isn't all play, in fact it is hard work that makes you feel the best, not some cheap high. Will we hit that turning point and realize life isn't easy? I pray that we do. But choosing to be dependent on marijuana isn't necessarily a better choice than being dependent on meth.

Just my $0.02. [/quote]


Fuzzy, I understand where you are coming from. The facts are though that a vote not for Romney is a vote to elect Obama. It is as simple as 1+1=2. Their is unquestionable causality established. And you reaction is emotional. You are stretching so far on both those arguments it irrational realms of reason. But I am not going to convince you, I know.

If I were to vote emotionally, I would write in David Koch for President. He is the person that I would want for President.

If I vote shrewdly, I vote for Romney, for that gives this country the best chance for success.

[flyingirish04]

I didn't leave the party, it left me. GOP has been 'revolutionionized from the inside'.... by progs and RINO's.

Both parties have been moved siginificantly Left.
My grandad died still thinking he was a Democrat but if you listened to him, all his tirades more closely matched the Republicans platform of the 1980's.


This presenting of Romney by the GOP as their candidate and the expectation that we will just hold our noses and toe the line is just more of the "I hear what you're saying but we know what's best for you" crap.


I'm not as optimistic as Fuzzy about the chnaces of repairing the system. This is something that I hope I am very wrong about. Wronger than I've ever been. Much like the last-ditch 'austerity programs' in Eurasia that are too little too late, I think Romney is way too little way too late.

Again, I did not leave the party.... it left me, and because of that I refuse to accept any argument that a failure by the party has anything to do with me.
My core values and beliefs are unchanged, theirs have taken a hard left turn.
They had a chance at reform when faced with the Tea Party but they co-opted the message and watered it down.


There is also a defeatism-like feeling that voting for Romney would give me. I don't like that feeling and am not going to carry it around for four years.

Give me the Crazy Old Guy and we'll work with his flaws. The flaws of the other two are insidiously progressive and smell to high heaven.

You won't get the batty old guy. You will get Obama and that is frankly, untenable. Your decision doesn't occur in a vacuum. It has second and third order effects that bring treachery down to us.

[flyingirish04]

It all comes down to congress, plain and simple, if the recently elected "tea party" congresspeople get sent home, we are all screwed either way, if more tea partyish people get elected then we have some hope, frankly I'd rather have somebody in the white house that will actually sign some legislation that the new congress will pass than have 4 years with absolutely nothing getting done other than BS executive orders etc.

IMHO a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote for the end of this country as we know it, because its essentially saying that you'd rather have 4 more years of Obama and possibly go completely off the cliff so we can rebuild it later. If the republicans win more congressional seats but we still have Obama, its the end of the road for the entire tea party movement and all the momentum that has been built will be lost because of the stalemate that will ensue. If you truly think its time for all hell to break lose, and that it's needed, vote for your 3rd party candidates but keep in mind that if our country fails, what evidence do you have that we should put it back just how it was that lead us to this failure? I think we are much better off, at least for 1 more election cycle, to actually give somebody a chance to do the right thing and keep the fire lit under them to do it now that more people KNOW that we are not running things sustainably and that we need to fix it.

A vote for a 3rd party candidate is conceding that we are F'ed either way, there is no way to fix it if you guys are correct, so why not vote for the 1 option that puts a faint glow back at the end of the tunnel?

:agree:

[Llagoud]

Then perhaps I can just speed things up and vote BHO.
That way my knees and back may still be good and I won't need to manage a walker with an AR.
If we got Mit in he might slow the process (that I think is unavoidable under either candidate) to the point that
it could hamper my mobility.

It's past time to hold any hope that a RINO can reverse any of this mess. The best he could do is slow it down until he has raped the treasury and rewarded his pals.

A vote for either of them is a vote against a Constitutional Republic IMO.

[f3rr37]

A vote for either of them is a vote against a Constitutional Republic IMO.

:thumb:

[romer522]

Then perhaps I can just speed things up and vote BHO.
That way my knees and back may still be good and I won't need to manage a walker with an AR.
If we got Mit in he might slow the process (that I think is unavoidable under either candidate) to the point that
it could hamper my mobility.

It's past time to hold any hope that a RINO can reverse any of this mess. The best he could do is slow it down until he has raped the treasury and rewarded his pals.

A vote for either of them is a vote against a Constitutional Republic IMO.

I can understand that point of view, I just don't think we are quite there yet myself. :thumb:

[Cyberfly]

At this point, I'd vote for an old SHOE instead of Obama.
I'd vote TWICE if the shoe named a SOCK as his running mate this early in the game...


I can't bring myself to vote for a Marxist. Ever.
I'm not quite convinced that Romney is actually a Marxist, but he definitely has leftist leanings for someone who is supposed to be a conservative.
Is he better than Obama?
A one-eyed billy goat is better than Obama.
Even if Romney kept us on the same road as Obama, as long as he took his foot off the gas and shifted down a few gears, THAT would help!

[brianz]

Check out the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson. Supports no restrictions to the second amendment, wants to cut spending by 43%, supports gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. Finally a true Libertarian.

[Shaokhano]

Ron Paul wins 21 of Maines 24 Replublican Delegates?!?!?!??!?!?!!!?!??!!!!!!!!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6313.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And the crazy old man goes on a rampage.

[Llagoud]

The GOP in general, and Mitt Romney in particular are big-government, big-spending, big-intrusion-into-our-business. The Republic is facing a fiscal crisis - the nation's credit has been downgraded, the Entitlement programs are just now tipping into a bottomless sea of red ink, the middle class has been hammered with collapsing housing valuations, persistent unemployment, and a higher education bubble that is ensuring that our children graduate with so much student debt that they will never be able to marry.

http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2012/05/i ... a-for.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And rather than a million Tea Partiers taking to the streets, it will be two million, or three. Rather than five or ten corrupt GOP Establishment corrks turned out of office, it will be thirty, or fifty.

And that will be the time when the calculators like Mitt Romney will get the idea that they will most likely advance their career by striking down the Progressive beast, again and again.

Because if that message doesn't come across loud and clear, and repeatedly, then the game is over. It simply won't matter who's in office, because they're both the Establishment Party.

[flyingirish04]

Then perhaps I can just speed things up and vote BHO.
That way my knees and back may still be good and I won't need to manage a walker with an AR.
If we got Mit in he might slow the process (that I think is unavoidable under either candidate) to the point that
it could hamper my mobility.

It's past time to hold any hope that a RINO can reverse any of this mess. The best he could do is slow it down until he has raped the treasury and rewarded his pals.

A vote for either of them is a vote against a Constitutional Republic IMO.

I don't agree, and quite frankly, I don't know if Reagan would have past some people's levels of 'conservatism' and 'constitutional republic."

[flyingirish04]

Check out the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson. Supports no restrictions to the second amendment, wants to cut spending by 43%, supports gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. Finally a true Libertarian.

Except his record is anything but libertarian as gov of NM. He was way further left of Romney on spending. And frankly, having a pro-choice stance doesn't make anyone more libertarian then a pro-life one. In fact the argument for pro-life would be more libertarian, as it secures liberty for all life.\

That being said, I really don't think abortion is a political issue right now that can be won. We need a social truce, and focus on fiscal matters.

[Llagoud]

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/20 ... etter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




:lmao:

[jgreenberg01]

I'm only zombifying this thread because one of our members posted this on their FB page and I really like the handy-dandy chart:



The caption said:

Because Libertarians are neither "left" nor "right," many are confused about what we believe. Here's a handy chart: