mitt, mitt, mitt
 

and they say women can't make up their mind...:rolleyes:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...ut_taxes_.html


of course, in that 'secret' tape from the big pocket dinner, people kind of ignored the part where mitt said that just by him winning, the economy would begin to do better. ta-daaaa
so, i guess this current scheme is just an offshoot of the 'do nothing, everything will fix itself' plan? the lame will walk, the dumb will speak, the deaf will hear, just because the money man wins. it's gonna be great.

Sounds eerily similar to the idea tha Obama winning in 2008 was going to lead to an elevation of America's prestige abroad, that our enemies would see our point of view, our relations to the Muslim world would dramatically improve...

"The planet will start to heal, the levels of sea will stop rising" ... blah blah blah...

That by the way has all been proven to be nonsense.

yep, they're both full of ish.

OK - all things being equal - I'll take the new guy.

which is no good move.

try taking the third guy.

Sadly, a vote for the third guy is the same as a vote for the current guy. That is the way the math plays out - today. Unless the third guy is Ralph Nader.

not necessarily, and not if enough people did it.

my vote for Gary Johnson will NOT in any way shape or form be a vote for Pres Obama. nor is it in any way shape or form a vote for non-Pres Romney.

and you wonder why nothing changes... the majority of this country believes that there are only two choices.. and SOMEHOW (not sure how) they believe one is less evil than the other?

No offense, but this is an ideology that is precisely why the country is doomed.

Your corporate puppetmasters offer you a choice of two evils, then use their corporate-controlled media to get you to believe that going off the menu will result in you getting the evil that you tolerate less than the evil that only makes you throw up a little.

How about "don't vote for evil"?

The reality is that a vote for Romney or Obama only weakens the country and does nothing to force the change we so desperately need. So the prospect of getting Romney by sacrificing ideals that you believe in (not assuming you do, you may really believe Romney can make a difference) is no bargain anyway you look at it.

Will a third party candidate get elected? Absolutely not. Not a chance in hell.

Can the entrenched system ignore 20 million voters who essentially tell both of them "No Thanks"? No, they can't.

A vote for Gary Johnson, in this election, is a vote for Barack Obama. That is a statement summarizing the fact that the mathematical outcome is the same.

It is also identical to writing in your own name at the ballot box. And pretty close to just staying home.

I respect your conviction in your beliefs. Unfortunately, elections are won or lost by the counting of votes, and on that basis all the justification you put into Gary Johnson evaporates when the count is made.

Those are the facts. Anything else is like Quixotic tilting at windmills.

That's where we disagree. They can and will ignore 20 million people who threw their vote away. They could and did ignore the 20 million Ross Perot voters that gave us Bill Clinton.

They also ignored all the John Anderson voters from the Reagan-Carter race in 1980. When was the last time you actually heard anyone MENTION John Anderson?

The fact is there are two viable parties. We do not yet have a coalition government like the UK, Israel, or Italy where such coalitions exist. And I'm not sure that's any better.

If you don't vote for Romney in 2012, you are, in mathematical effect - NOT intent - endorsing a second term for Barack Obama and all the threats to your freedom that will certainly follow with it.

[quote=joeydb;892612]That's where we disagree. They can and will ignore 20 million people who threw their vote away. They could and did ignore the 20 million Ross Perot voters that gave us Bill Clinton.

They also ignored all the John Anderson voters from the Reagan-Carter race in 1980. When was the last time you actually heard anyone MENTION John Anderson?

The fact is there are two viable parties. We do not yet have a coalition government like the UK, Israel, or Italy where such coalitions exist. And I'm not sure that's any better.

If you don't vote for Romney in 2012, you are, in mathematical effect - NOT intent - endorsing a second term for Barack Obama and all the threats to your freedom that will certainly follow with it.[/QUOTE]

What threats to our freedom Joey?

god..the melodrama Joey..Please.

And of course, we all know who Ralph Nader gave us :zz:

what about liberals who do not like Obama and will vote Libertarian.. is that still a vote for Obama.. or is that a vote away from Obama? It's not like those people would have ever voted for Romney.

No amount of rhetoric will make me vote for Obama or Romney in this election. I'm simply no longer interested in the status quo, which is what we will get with both of them. Both parties are equally interested in taking away freedoms, its one of the only bipartisan supported issues going on now. Romney will not change that, business as usual.

I'm voting Libertarian. If that indirectly makes me vote for Obama, well then so be it.

I really cant believe that voting 3rd party is no better than staying home. So much for personal responsibility and choices in this country.

:tro:

if enough people voted c, it would be a revolution.

That is all we need, another Johnson in the White House.

hey, maybe third times' the charm there too. hopefully not a drunk like the first one.

Condy then? ;)

It wasn't intended as rhetoric - honestly. If you vote third party, you will get the status quo when the incumbent wins.

If you indirectly vote for Obama, as you correctly put it, then how is it NOT the same as staying home or simply voting for him?

This is just the math of the situation. Third parties (for both sides - though the left is less frequent in having a split) suffer from this numerical handicap.

If enough people feared capital punishment, there would be no premeditated murder.

The polls are close - 47% each, or 46% to 45% - how is that remaining 9% going to go third party and win?

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?