
Moderator: Community Team
kentington wrote:thegreekdog wrote:GreecePwns wrote:TGD has it right. Romney will not see an election victory as "oh, look at all those libertarians that voted for me, I should adopt parts of their ideology." Because he can't tell from simple vote counts.
He won't even see the Congressional elections as "oh, look at those libertarians that entered Congress. I should adopt parts of their ideology." Odds are their power won't be enough to challenge the established Republican positions (which are closer to the ones you espouse on this forum, anyway, so I don't know what kind of changes you're proposing to the Republican party) after accounting for the co-opting of a majority of the so called Tea Partiers.
He will see it as "I won! HAHAHAHA MONEY POWER MONEY POWER!"
This is why you vote for a third party. Votes in an election determine ballot access in many states as well as funding on the national level.
I will add to this the following:
- Media is interested in and receives money (indirectly) from and gives money to the established political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Media has no interest in third party candiates.
- You hear a lot from both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals in the media and elsewhere that a third party vote is a wasted vote.
- A third party vote is not a wasted vote; rather, Republicans, Democrats, and media members do not want you to vote for a third party for the reasons above.
What is the closest a third party has gotten to be voted in?
Phatscotty wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?
Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.
thegreekdog wrote:Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?
Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.
Why not Ron Paul?
Of all those running in the primary Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were the MOST representative of historical Republican big government types. Why in the marx would you vote for Santorum if you were ostensibly voting to change the direction of the Republican party?
Night Strike wrote:
Because I could not support Ron Paul's view that it is America's fault we were attacked on 9/11. That viewpoint is almost as bad as being a 9/11 Truther.
Phatscotty wrote:Newsweek is very Liberal
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Let me ask you something - who did you vote for in the Republican primary this year?
Santorum, since Cain had already dropped out of the race. Of course, my primary was irrelevant since the delegates were picked at a caucus that I could not attend.
Why not Ron Paul?
Of all those running in the primary Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were the MOST representative of historical Republican big government types. Why in the marx would you vote for Santorum if you were ostensibly voting to change the direction of the Republican party?
Because I could not support Ron Paul's view that it is America's fault we were attacked on 9/11. That viewpoint is almost as bad as being a 9/11 Truther.
thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.
Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.
Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.
thegreekdog wrote:Symmetry wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I mean... okay. Except he's right and everyone acknowledges that he's right. The reason for the attack was because of American intervention in the Middle East.
Training the Taliban, or opposing the Taliban? I think a fair number of people support one or the other of those forms of intervention.
Either one really. Ron Paul wants to end US intervention in foreign affairs (unless directly affecting US security).
I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.
thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.
Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.
Because I actually support consolidating many of our overseas bases since they aren't really needed.
thegreekdog wrote:Night Strike wrote:thegreekdog wrote:I would note that Paul did not oppose attacking Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, anyone who voted for someone other than Ron Paul on the basis of his statements regarding 9/11 is not acknowledging the truth of US foreign policy and its effect on foreign relations; frankly, a stereotypical Republican wants to increase foreign intervention and military spending (so do stereotypical Democrats), so it doesn't surprise me that NightStrike decided not to vote for Ron Paul on that basis. What surprises me is that NightStrike continues to define himself as being the antithesis of the stereotypical Republican.
Because I actually support consolidating many of our overseas bases since they aren't really needed.
Do any of the former Republican presidential candidates support that?
In an advance leak of an interview with Fortune magazine, the Republican candidate says he will eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, ending half a century of modest state support.
"[F]irst there are programs I would eliminate. Obamacare being one of them but also various subsidy programs — the Amtrak subsidy, the PBS subsidy, the subsidy for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities. Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf."
Phatscotty wrote:Ron Paul is on his way to Tampa to stop the ring leader of the murderous ovary cancer-giving woman hating gay bashing knuckle dragging red face whiskey breathe flat-earth-felon Mitt Romney!
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users