They're all the same guy- None of them will make the hard decisions to fix this country, they will both spiral us further and further down the shi.t hole. It's like being held up at gunpoint by two criminals at the same time and having to decide which one is going to get your cash - in the end, it doesn't matter where it goes, all you know is you'll never see it again.

As George Carlin famously said, "Your only choice in America anymore is paper or plastic".

what part of 'if enough people did it' do you not understand?

We should at least give Romney a chance to fucl< things up and break all his campaign promises like we did the last guy(s). :rolleyes:

How can we forget these slogans:

George W. Bush: Compassionate conservatism, Leave no child behind, Real plans for real people, Reformer with results, Yes, America Can!

Barack Obama: Change We Can Believe In, Change We Need,Hope,Yes We Can!, Forward

Mitt Romney: Believe in America

deleted

Our jobs shipped out of the country at an expidited pace, higher taxes on me while the rich get a tax brea and no health care when I really needed are 3 reasons off the top of my head not to vote for Romney.

Why not just generalize to:

If (an impossibility) happens, then (some result never seen before) will occur.

What are the odds that the 6% to 9% who neither preferred Romney nor Obama will grow to the 34% minimum you need to win?

Astronomical. A hell of a lot closer to an impossibility than an attainable feat.

i didn't say it would happen this election. it's why i encourage people when the discussion comes up to break away from the one or the other mindset. it's not either/or.

and growth in spending on the biggest ticket item we have-the military. removal of banking regs, for new, better, but not described ones.

of course staying with the turd sandwich over the douche bag isn't much of a confidence booster.

Using Joey's tactics. It is a vote for status quo or Financial Armegeddon.. A vote for Status quo or a vote for Middle Class Genocide... I can go on and on:rolleyes:

The status quo has been both of those things for a bit though.

So if "they are all the same", your vote, and consequently your opinion, are meaningless. This is a "reductio ad absurdum" - a finding that contradicts the premise: that we are a constitutionally federated republic, and that as such we do have differences contrasted with monarchies, dictatorships, and despotism.

Give yourself the best chance of defeating an unsatisfactory incumbent. Vote for Romney.

I respectfully disagree.

Elections are discrete events. There is no continuum to be found in between those events. So I don't think that you will grow a populace who will consistently vote when that vote is ineffective - a significant percentage will instead stay home and say things like "they are all the same". Unfortunately at that point, the actions of those objecting to the party system and the voting process are indisguishable from those who don't give a sh*t or are just too drunk or stoned to make it to the polls that day.

You're not going to get the progression to a 40% plurality win. You'll get single digits, over and over again - a true exercise in futility.

In theory - I do agree that I'd like a broader spectrum of choices than "for or against" either party, where "Anti-Democrat = Republican" and vice versa. But the math will not work out in our current voting system.

As others have suggested, if there was a ranked system instead of a single choice - your third party would have a good shot. I would rank mine: "1. Republican 2. Libertarian and 3. (or zero) Democrat." A liberal might do the opposite, with Libertarian being #2 for him as well.

Or 3 points for top choice, 2 points for second choice, 1 point for last choice.

A Corporate Oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company, or privileged bargaining rights to unions (labor monopolies) with very partisan political interests.

This is what we are living in.

Only when we all collectively dismiss the bullsi.t spewed from the corporate-controlled (RE: State Run) media and reclaim our nation, can we try that whole "Constitutionally Federated Republic" thing again.

but if you think you're getting there with Romney or Obama, I'd say you're in for a disappointment.

I thought you supported Ron Paul?

You do realize he is/was in favor of dismantling Medicare and Social Security right?

So would you say your views are closer to Romney's or Obama's when viewed in a comparison to Ron Paul?

http://www.isidewith.com/paul-vs-romney-on-the-issues

http://www.isidewith.com/paul-vs-obama-on-the-issues

Kev, Neither Ron Paul nor any other Libertarian is going to pass laws that dismantle Medicare or SS. They need to be reformed, and part of that reformation is developing markets that aren't controlled by the insurance companies and big pharma via their profit funded, influence peddling lobbyists in DC.

Here are plenty of reasons, as a Libertarian, to dismiss Romney:



Should the United States increase our space exploration efforts and budget?

Ron Paul: Regardless, we should only use government funds for national defense purposes and leave exploration to the private sector
Mitt Romney: Yes



Do you support the Patriot act?

Ron Paul: No, and pass strict laws prohibiting any government surveillance
Mitt Romney: Yes


Are you in favor of decriminalizing all drugs?

Ron Paul: Yes, and retroactively reduce sentences for those already serving time for drug use
Mitt Romney: No

Should marijuana be legalized in the U.S.?

Ron Paul: Yes, and immediately free all citizens jailed for drug offenses
Mitt Romney: No


Should the U.S. end the war in Afghanistan?

Ron Paul: Yes, and only approve future wars through Congress
Mitt Romney: No, not until all U.S. military leaders are confident the mission has been accomplished


Should the U.S. continue to support Israel?

Ron Paul: No, we should not give aid to any foreign nations
Mitt Romney: Yes


How should the U.S. handle the genocide in Sudan?

Ron Paul: Do not get involved
Mitt Romney: Support a NATO effort to contain the Sudanese military


Should the United States end its trade embargo and travel ban on Cuba?

Ron Paul: Yes, allow Americans to travel to any country they choose
Mitt Romney: No

Should gay marriage be allowed in the U.S.?

Ron Paul: Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision
Mitt Romney: No, marriage should be defined as between a man and woman

Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

Ron Paul: Leave it up to the states
Mitt Romney: Yes

Should the federal government subsidize U.S. farmers?

Ron Paul: No
Mitt Romney: Yes

I like Ron Paul and given the test I posted awhile back (forgot the link) my take on the issues clearly supported him and Obama next. I'm not your typical idiot that has blinkers on will vote republican just becuase they picked Romney over Paul. Anyone in the middle class voting for Romney really is voting against themselves.

:tro:

"So the Dark Side has already won." - Obi Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker, in "The Empire Strikes Back"

:wf Dan - appreciate your response and do understand that viewpoint.

I think for me it is a bit simple - I'll vote for the guy that wants less government involvement in my life. I would find it hard to pull the lever for Obama based upon that criteria.

What does that really mean (I'll vote for the guy that wants less government involvement in my life). I hear it on these threads as a stock answer time and time again. What is less government to you Geeker?