Author Topic: Ron Paul for Pres? (Read 686 times)

x0847Marine · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2007, 04:08:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Laser... why is that stupid?

If your candidate isn't going to win... and you know it. Isn't it better to insure that you elect someone you're with on 80% of the issues rather than having the opposing candidate win if you agree with them only 20% of the time? (note these numbers are arbitrary... and selected to simply make a point).

This is politics... not utopia.

And nothing will change as long as people vote "not to lose", so go ahead and send the party masters (Clinton, Hastert, Palosi, Bush, Kenedy) another clone to manipulate, send Hillary and George one more voice to add to the endless bickering.

Rome wasn't built in a day, support for political "outsiders", or 3rd parties needs to crawl before it can walk.

I vote Independent / Libertarian because the Repubs and Dems job performance has been "felony stupid" for too long... I don't support people who fail to do their jobs... why do any of you?

For years now I've 'thrown away' my vote, now I can laugh at the scandals knowing I had nothing to do with putting that person in power, or sending another loyalist to serve the party masters. This country is going in the toilet because of most of you, I had nothing to do with it... and thats a great feeling... much better than knowing my political team won.

How do some of you people live with yourselves knowing your vote is keeping the downward spiral to the drain spinning?

Remember clone sheeple, on election day the party loves you...

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2007, 10:12:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Hehehe... ya know with the Patriot act still in effect... you may wanna watch what you type

You're starting to sound like Che...

The difference between me and Che is that I will not murder tens of thousands of people.

lazs2 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 29, 2007, 09:06:15 AM »

this is funny... lazer your an idiot.. you are saying that it is a good move to make myself and the country more misserable faster so that we can have a revolution maybe.

I understand that he is pretending to be a republican.. I would vote for him in a primary given a choice. There is no chance of course of him winning a primary for either the republican or democratic party.

voting for a person who has no chance at all is only worthwhile if a large enough percentage do it. In that case.. the real winner MAY move in that direction slightly... The last elections showed that protest votes just put in the scumbag democrats and made em think that they were wanted. They moderated nothing...

The bad thing is that in a close election you may allow the devil himself to win like a hillary or edwards say.

grow up. Face facts. At least lazerers fantasyland includes missery to the point of revolution.. that is the only good outcome in letting democrats in.

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 29, 2007, 10:13:17 AM »

You know, I've consciously made the decision that it WOULD be worth it for the democrats to get in office if it pushes up the revolution.

Want to know why? Because the entire system is ****ed. And in the real world, any revolution starts when the revolters are offended.

The american revolution would have gone no where if the british hadn't done stuff that the americans didn't like.

Gunthr · « **Reply #19 on:** March 29, 2007, 10:25:56 AM »

one solution to this quandry is to formally change our system of voting over to one of the Condorset Methods, essentially ranking candidates in order of preference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Samiam · « **Reply #20 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:02:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Laser... why is that stupid?

If your candidate isn't going to win... and you know it. Isn't it better to insure that you elect someone you're with on 80% of the issues rather than having the opposing candidate win if you agree with them only 20% of the time? (note these numbers are arbitrary... and selected to simply make a point).

This is politics... not utopia.

The way our two party system works is that many (most?) people cast votes for "the lesser of two evils", but the winner takes every vote as a mandate for their agenda.

Everyone should only vote for someone they truly believe should hold the office. If nobody qualifies, don't vote.

This is the only way to send a clear message to the candidates that they do NOT represent your interests.

Then we need the media to clue in to the fact that a light vote count doesn't mean apathy, it means disapproval. A "none of the above" vote solves this.

All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.

VOR · « **Reply #21 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:04:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samiam
All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.

Absolutely true. I've been guilty of it in the past, but I won't in the future.

Xargos · « **Reply #22 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:14:28 PM »

I'd hate to say it, but I'll have to agree with Laser on this one. If you vote for someone you are telling that person that you approve of him. And that my friends is sending that person the wrong message.

P.S. If the elections where held today I would vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

lazs2 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:25:38 PM »

Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.

A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.

You can vote for a person who is in tune with you but is in no way a viable candidate.... The results vary... If the lesser of two evils gets in anyway... No harm no foul... If the worst guy gets in by the percentage that the spoiler took away from the better candidate.... you screwed up..

If the lesser of the two evils doesn't stand a chance... say like when bob dole ran... go ahead and make your protest vote... no harm no foul...

lazs

bsdaddict · « **Reply #24 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:37:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Samiam
All you who vote for the lesser of two evils are just perpetuating the problem.

can't agree with you more. They take it as a mandate for their aganda and NOTHING EVER CHANGES. Gov't keeps getting bigger and bigger, intruding into more areas of our daily lives, spending our money like it grows on trees (well, they can just print more, so it kinda does...), etc...

Send a message! Vote for the candidate you BELIEVE in, or don't vote. Or abandon your principals, vote for the lesser of two evils and be part of the problem.

Of course, '08 could be different. If Ron Paul wins the primary and is up against the Dem in the general, it's a no-brainer that Reps will vote for him. The primary will be his toughest challenge, IMHO.

Xargos · « **Reply #25 on:** March 29, 2007, 02:39:00 PM »

I understand what you are saying laz, believe me. I don't think these people care how they won, but only that they won. If a greater percentage of the American PEOPLE voted for the person(not the party) that they truly believed in, America would not be as F upped as it is today. Voting for a party is just continuing this stupid cycle.

Samiam · « **Reply #26 on:** March 29, 2007, 03:55:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.

A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.

You can vote for a person who is in tune with you but is in no way a viable candidate.... The results vary... If the lesser of two evils gets in anyway... No harm no foul... If the worst guy gets in by the percentage that the spoiler took away from the better candidate.... you screwed up..

If the lesser of the two evils doesn't stand a chance... say like when bob dole ran... go ahead and make your protest vote... no harm no foul...

lazs

I admit that it's a gamble - or a leap of faith - lazs. But if you vote for the lesser of two evils, and that candidate wins, he believes he has a mandate. This is potentially WORSE than if the worse candidate wins knowing that his win was precarious.

I know many in here think Clinton was evil incarnate. But the reality is that in principle he was way farther left than he wound up acting on as president, and this is in part because he knew that between G.H.W. Bush and Perot, he really didn't have a mandate.

Being a true conservative, and seeing the absurd turn the republican party has taken away from conservative ideals under W, I'd say my interests were better represented by Clinton w/ no mandate and a republican congress than they would have been by Bush Sr. with a "mandate" and a republican congress. Even though on paper, Bush was the lesser of two evils for me.

But I'm also a strong believer in gridlock and think that congress should always be controlled by the opposite party than the president. So you know I'm a nut.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 29, 2007, 04:42:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Hardly... If you vote for someone it means that you like what he is pushing more than what the other guy is pushing.... They all have access to polls and such and know exactly why they got in.

A protest vote is a sucker vote if it allows someone who you detest to get in.

lazs

Ah, but your words are foolish. It is not I who make the protest vote, but you.

I vote for someone I believe in.

YOU vote against the other guy. Instead of fixing the system, you just protest the other party.

moot · « **Reply #28 on:** March 30, 2007, 09:26:32 AM »

laser, if the guy you're voting for will give up on what he believes in (which is identical to what he presents as his "plan", otherwise he's a crook) just because the votes don't come in, he's not worth voting for.

If your vote goes to someone who does not win, your vote is in vain. If in addition to that, it allows the worse worse/worst (this qualitative relative to you) candidate to get in, then not only was your vote to elect someone who lost in vain, but you also made it easier for said worse/worst candidate to -guess what- further his efforts against what you stand for.

You've effectively elected the opposite of who you voted for, something else than "what you believe in". Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what you say so far, you have zero tolerance for anything else than what you believe in.. so why would you do the above?

Skuzzy's idea of a forum (in the litteral sense) where candidates present their "plan" in text; that is, set their words in stone, is still the best idea.
No one will deny a truth once it's understood.. Candidates would have nowhere to go but towards the truth, should they fight in this text/idea-based medium.. it would shift the survival of the fittest type of fight you find being fought with money, nowadays, shifted back to where it belongs: IDEA.
Skuzzy's idea would allow candidates to fight on this even ground, no amount of money would matter, only the truth, only common sense.. no BS.
It would also allow people with short memory to keep track of how much any candidate's word is worth.

bsdaddict · « **Reply #29 on:** March 30, 2007, 09:42:54 AM »

Ron Paul will be interviewed on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher tonight, Friday Mar 30 at 11PM

Set your tivo's!

America is Sick.
Dr. Ron Paul
is the Cure.

Ron Paul '08 or bust!