Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Roger Bacon on January 06, 2013, 08:31:21 PM
-
Can we PLEASE team up and get a libertarian like Rand Paul into the White House in 2016?
PLEASE!?
-
Can we PLEASE team up and get a libertarian like Rand Paul into the White House in 2016?
PLEASE!?
Neo-Con's do not, and will never =/= Libertarian.
Seriously, they are about as far from Libertarianism as males are from females.
-
HAHAHA!!! You think that's even possible?
You honestly think the NEO-CON base that owns the Republicans is going to POSSIBLY not have a rich white guy be the nomination?
Damn man... You REALLY must be playing with fairy dust.
-
HAHAHA!!! You think that's even possible?
You honestly think the NEO-CON base that owns the Republicans is going to POSSIBLY not have a rich white guy be the nomination?
Damn man... You REALLY must be playing with fairy dust.
haha... :(
Than they're on their own. Decent people aren't voting for a Rick Santorum or Jeb Bush.
I thought maybe they had learned their lesson by now... :(
-
Can we PLEASE team up and get a libertarian like Rand Paul into the White House in 2016?
PLEASE!?
If he's for keeping my taxes low and from paying for in utero baby-killing, defending traditional marriage, and promoting LEGAL IMMIGRATION (instead of amnesty), I'll give him a look.
-
haha... :(
Than they're on their own. Decent people aren't voting for a Rick Santorum or Jeb Bush.
I thought maybe they had learned their lesson by now... :(
They won't learn, they're going to go extinct and take the Republican party with them.
They will be the animal that refused to evolve, mark my words.
-
They won't learn, they're going to go extinct and take the Republican party with them.
They will be the animal that refused to evolve, mark my words.
We ran two moderates and they got beat down.
When Bush got re-elected, the Dems were tripping the same way the GOP is now. They didn't look for moderates or libertarians. They went far left (how do you think Lieberman got booted from Dem primary and had to run as an independent to keep his seat?).
You don't beat the far left with moderates or libertarians.
-
We ran two moderates and they got beat down.
When Bush got re-elected, the Dems were tripping the same way the GOP is now. They didn't look for moderates or libertarians. They went far left (how do you think Lieberman got booted from Dem primary and had to run as an independent to keep his seat?).
You don't beat the far left with moderates or libertarians.
I think you're being extremely ignorant of the paradigm shift going on in the nation broseph.
Everything is moving left... the "center" is moving to the left. The majority of people out there do not identify with conservative values anymore... It's sad but true. And the newer generations are only moving further left.
I don't like it... but it's the truth.
-
I think you're being extremely ignorant of the paradigm shift going on in the nation broseph.
Everything is moving left... the "center" is moving to the left. The majority of people out there do not identify with conservative values anymore... It's sad but true. And the newer generations are only moving further left.
I don't like it... but it's the truth.
MCWAY is always refusing to admit that the FAR Right is alienating everyone in the middle... He says they ran moderates, but really, what the did was run NEO-Cons again... That's what killed them.
RINOs... everyone saw that... A true CONSERVATIVE... Not a NEO-CON, would have mopped the floor with Obama.
Ron Paul would have beat him... period.
-
MCWAY is always refusing to admit that the FAR Right is alienating everyone in the middle... He says they ran moderates, but really, what the did was run NEO-Cons again... That's what killed them.
RINOs... everyone saw that... A true CONSERVATIVE... Not a NEO-CON, would have mopped the floor with Obama.
Ron Paul would have beat him... period.
Define a "true conservative", please.
As for alienating people in the middle, Romney won the independents overall and in 5 of the 8 swing states. Yet, about 3 million fewer Republicans voted for him than voted for McCain. If Romney had, at least, matched McCain's numbers, he would have won.
Isn't the mantra that you win your base and independents to win the presidency. Romney didn't get the base turnout.
And, like it or not, without the "Christian Fundamentalists", no Republican is winning the presidency. But don't take my word for it. Go back to 2004. Part of the reason the libs LOATHE the "religious right" is because they hold them responsible for Bush getting re-elected.
-
MCWAY is always refusing to admit that the FAR Right is alienating everyone in the middle... He says they ran moderates, but really, what the did was run NEO-Cons again... That's what killed them.
RINOs... everyone saw that... A true CONSERVATIVE... Not a NEO-CON, would have mopped the floor with Obama.
Ron Paul would have beat him... period.
Jon Huntsman blew Mitt and Rick S. away. He was ignored...
-
without the "Christian Fundamentalists", no Republican is winning the presidency.
We know that, I'm asking if you folks can please get your shit together and support someone who isn't a psychopath. :)
-
Define a "true conservative", please.
As for alienating people in the middle, Romney won the independents overall and in 5 of the 8 swing states. Yet, about 3 million fewer Republicans voted for him than voted for McCain. If Romney had, at least, matched McCain's numbers, he would have won.
Isn't the mantra that you win your base and independents to win the presidency. Romney didn't get the base turnout.
And, like it or not, without the "Christian Fundamentalists", no Republican is winning the presidency. But don't take my word for it. Go back to 2004. Part of the reason the libs LOATHE the "religious right" is because they hold them responsible for Bush getting re-elected.
Dude... the base didn't turn out because of him... The base didn't turn out because they DYING OFF.
You think you have the same numbers of Christian fundamentalists as you did in 2008?
NO! They are dying off man... There are less and less of you.
Add to that you guys fucking up the whole immigration thing and you found yourselves in a world of hurt.
If your base didn't turn out NO MATTER WHAT to defeat the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, then they just don't fucking exist.
You needed to win the middle and you didn't.
-
Jon Huntsman blew Mitt and Rick S. away. He was ignored...
He's for amnesty and gay "marriage". I wonder why he was ignored.
Dude... the base didn't turn out because of him... The base didn't turn out because they DYING OFF.
You think you have the same numbers of Christian fundamentalists as you did in 2008?
NO! They are dying off man... There are less and less of you.
Add to that you guys fucking up the whole immigration thing and you found yourselves in a world of hurt.
If your base didn't turn out NO MATTER WHAT to defeat the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, then they just don't fucking exist.
You needed to win the middle and you didn't.
Yes, Romney did. The number show that. But, Romney got FEWER GOP votes than McCain did.
You really think a bunch of the base just keeled over and died the last four years? That the lion's share or Republican voters are in ICU, with tubes up their noses, flat-lining left and right over the last four years? PLEASE!!! Even Obama lost voters; he lost fewer than Romney lost McCain voters; hence, he pulled off the win.
And, to borrow from Rush, you really think the Dems are going to let the Republicans have the immigration/amnesty thing? NO WAY!!! Reagan went for full-blown amnesty. Yet, it didn't do GHW Bush much good. He lost a chunk of Latino voters that Reagan got in '84.
-
He's for amnesty and gay "marriage". I wonder why he was ignored.
Yes, Romney did. The number show that. But, Romney got FEWER GOP votes than McCain did.
You really think a bunch of the base just keeled over and died the last four years? That the lion's share or Republican voters are in ICU, with tubes up their noses, flat-lining left and right over the last four years? PLEASE!!! Even Obama lost voters; he lost fewer than Romney lost McCain voters; hence, he pulled off the win.
And, to borrow from Rush, you really think the Dems are going to let the Republicans have the immigration/amnesty thing? NO WAY!!! Reagan went for full-blown amnesty. Yet, it didn't do GHW Bush much good. He lost a chunk of Latino voters that Reagan got in '84.
The voters Obama lost have nothing to do with the voters that Romney didn't get... period.
Now... you talk middle of the road, but on almost EVERY issue when it came to the general election Mitt Romney leaned WAY right... SOCIALLY WAAAAY right.
He talked about the evils of abortion and shit like that.
So if the base didn't come out to oust the most HORRIBLE PRESIDENT EVER, then when the fuck would they come out?
-
The voters Obama lost have nothing to do with the voters that Romney didn't get... period.
I'm aware of that. The point was (and is) Obama kept more of the Dem base than Romney did with the GOP base.
Now... you talk middle of the road, but on almost EVERY issue when it came to the general election Mitt Romney leaned WAY right... SOCIALLY WAAAAY right.
He talked about the evils of abortion and shit like that.
As I recalled, he (under the advice of his handlers) barely talked about any of the social issues, especially abortion.
So if the base didn't come out to oust the most HORRIBLE PRESIDENT EVER, then when the fuck would they come out?
Merely voting against someone isn't enough to oust someone like Obama. Many conservatives simply did not want Romney and, unfortunately they stayed home, perhaps thinking their vote was worthless.
As for 2016, I'd like to see Scott Walker make a run.
-
-Nearly 55% of Americans receive some sort of government check and/or subsidy. Republicans are unlikely to win many of those voters with their talks of spending cuts to social programs(but not the Defense budget).
-More Americans than ever are associating with Atheism or barely acknowledging religion. These voters are unlikely to side with anti-abortion crusaders and the Rick Santorum-types.
-The expanding and more influential Hispanic populations are highly unlikely to vote for a party whose base members clamor for strict immigration controls. The Hispanic unity on this issue is puzzling as granting amnesty or lax immigration would actually be severely detrimental to much of its population, it actually comes as no surprise as they show a great deal of togetherness since they have this one similar attribute: they speak Spanish.
-Democratic voters represent literally a quilt-work hodgepodge of voters: gays, racial minorities, religious blacks, the rich, city dwellers, Jews, and the highly educated. In spite of the obvious conflicts of interest presented amongst all these groups, few, if any, would ever be persuaded to go over to the Republican side.
-
-Nearly 55% of Americans receive some sort of government check and/or subsidy. Republicans are unlikely to win many of those voters with their talks of spending cuts to social programs(but not the Defense budget).
-More Americans than ever are associating with Atheism or barely acknowledging religion. These voters are unlikely to side with anti-abortion crusaders and the Rick Santorum-types.
-The expanding and more influential Hispanic populations are highly unlikely to vote for a party whose base members clamor for strict immigration controls. The Hispanic unity on this issue is puzzling as granting amnesty or lax immigration would actually be severely detrimental to much of its population, it actually comes as no surprise as they show a great deal of togetherness since they have this one similar attribute: they speak Spanish.
-Democratic voters represent literally a quilt-work hodgepodge of voters: gays, racial minorities, religious blacks, the rich, city dwellers, Jews, and the highly educated. In spite of the obvious conflicts of interest presented amongst all these groups, few, if any, would ever be persuaded to go over to the Republican side.
They also typically, on a percentage basis, vote less than their republican brethren.
-
-Nearly 55% of Americans receive some sort of government check and/or subsidy. Republicans are unlikely to win many of those voters with their talks of spending cuts to social programs(but not the Defense budget).
-More Americans than ever are associating with Atheism or barely acknowledging religion. These voters are unlikely to side with anti-abortion crusaders and the Rick Santorum-types.
-The expanding and more influential Hispanic populations are highly unlikely to vote for a party whose base members clamor for strict immigration controls. The Hispanic unity on this issue is puzzling as granting amnesty or lax immigration would actually be severely detrimental to much of its population, it actually comes as no surprise as they show a great deal of togetherness since they have this one similar attribute: they speak Spanish.
-Democratic voters represent literally a quilt-work hodgepodge of voters: gays, racial minorities, religious blacks, the rich, city dwellers, Jews, and the highly educated. In spite of the obvious conflicts of interest presented amongst all these groups, few, if any, would ever be persuaded to go over to the Republican side.
To me, the one shot you have with Latinos is through the church. If Bush can win 40% of the Latino vote, I'm sure there are other Republicans who can match that (or come somewhat close).
With that said, some folks have to learn the hard way. Certain American voters are going to have to get the shaft put to them, before they realized they got conned by Team Obama and his merry band of liberals.
-
To me, the one shot you have with Latinos is through the church. If Bush can win 40% of the Latino vote, I'm sure there are other Republicans who can match that (or come somewhat close).
With that said, some folks have to learn the hard way. Certain American voters are going to have to get the shaft put to them, before they realized they got conned by Team Obama and his merry band of liberals.
I'm afraid people like us are the ones that will get screwed. We agree more than not, if we don't get behind the same guy we can say "hello President Hillary".
-
Conservative Christians like me tend to lean towards Paleoconservatism, and Paleoconservatism and Neoconservatism are like oil and water. Paleos typically put God and Constitution first, while the idols of Neocons are foreign policy and money.
I was very surprised to see Neo-traitors like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin support Rand they way they did a few years back.
-
Neo-Con's do not, and will never =/= Libertarian.
Seriously, they are about as far from Libertarianism as males are from females.
This!
-
Define a "true conservative", please.
As for alienating people in the middle, Romney won the independents overall and in 5 of the 8 swing states. Yet, about 3 million fewer Republicans voted for him than voted for McCain. If Romney had, at least, matched McCain's numbers, he would have won.
Isn't the mantra that you win your base and independents to win the presidency. Romney didn't get the base turnout.
And, like it or not, without the "Christian Fundamentalists", no Republican is winning the presidency. But don't take my word for it. Go back to 2004. Part of the reason the libs LOATHE the "religious right" is because they hold them responsible for Bush getting re-elected.
yea...but it's basically the base that put Romney as the nominee. And they could've gone hardcore with Santorum.
-
What's wrong with an economic conservative, (maybe even a religious socially conservative too) that doesn't want to meddle in the lives of individuals, or play world police?
???
-
What's wrong with an economic conservative, (maybe even a religious socially conservative too) that doesn't want to meddle in the lives of individuals, or play world police?
???
Nothing, problem is the GOP will never nominate a guy like that.
See Ron Paul.
-
Nothing, problem is the GOP will never nominate a guy like that.
See Ron Paul.
Exactly.
-
So you don't think there's anyway they'll compromise on running peoples lives and policing the world to gain thousands of voters? ???
-
So you don't think there's anyway they'll compromise on running peoples lives and policing the world to gain thousands of voters? ???
Nope.
-
Nothing, problem is the GOP will never nominate a guy like that.
See Ron Paul.
you disagree w 95% of what RP stands for
-
If it comes down to another Rick Santorum, or Romney I'll vote democratic out of spite.
-
Here's some data indicating that going forward, social conservatism is going to damage Republican prospects ever further, given the increasingly wide divergence between its views and what most Americans think. I'm too lazy to post the data by age, but it reinforces my conclusion ever further by indicating that all of the below issues are generational: that is, the younger generation holds very liberal views, the older generation conservative views. This means that as the old generation "exits the stage," so to speak, the general population's conservative leanings with regard to social issues are going to tick downward in a big way.
I got the data from PollingReports.com and created the shitty graphs at some free kids website, lol.
Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012. N=3,130 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.
Organized religious groups of all kinds should stay out of politics. OR, It is important for organized religious groups to stand up for their beliefs in politics." Options rotated
Stay Out: 55%; Stand Up: 42%
(http://s14.postimage.org/eqln6dq6p/gaymarriage.jpg)
(http://s14.postimage.org/gmd0va4ep/roevwade.jpg)
-
Here's some data indicating that going forward, social conservatism is going to damage Republican prospects ever further, given the increasingly wide divergence between its views and what most Americans think. I'm too lazy to post the data by age, but it reinforces my conclusion ever further by indicating that all of the below issues are generational: that is, the younger generation holds very liberal views, the older generation conservative views. This means that as the old generation "exits the stage," so to speak, the general population's conservative leanings with regard to social issues are going to tick downward in a big way.
I got the data from PollingReports.com and created the shitty graphs at some free kids website, lol.
It's as I always say... Young people don't hate the gays and they don't think abortion is "evil".
None of the fundamentalists believe me... Then 2012 happens and they blame it on the "moderate".
::)
-
Unfortunately, Holmes is right. The people who were dropping acid on Haight Ashbury in the 60's are now in the White House, and abominable things like gay marriage and unrestricted abortion become more acceptable as time goes on.
-
Unfortunately, Holmes is right. The people who were dropping acid on Haight Ashbury in the 60's are now in the White House, and abominable things like gay marriage and unrestricted abortion become more acceptable as time goes on.
fyi - we don't have unrestricted abortion in this country
obviously gay marriage is an abomination. Can you tell us how it has wreaked it's destructive power on your life?
-
So the Republicans would be smart to look towards Economic Conservatives that are Socially Liberal or Center?
???
-
As far as an issue like abortion or gay marriage go, from a Christian/Biblical point of view. Is it considered sinful for a "Christian" politician to acknowledge that he doesn't personally support it, but that he isn't going to make that choice for others?
-
As far as an issue like abortion or gay marriage go, from a Christian/Biblical point of view. Is it considered sinful for a "Christian" politician to acknowledge that he doesn't personally support it, but that he isn't going to make that choice for others?
based on the "new testament" alone, my interpretation of the viewpoint would be complete anarchy.
-
As far as an issue like abortion or gay marriage go, from a Christian/Biblical point of view. Is it considered sinful for a "Christian" politician to acknowledge that he doesn't personally support it, but that he isn't going to make that choice for others?
I think the argument would be "YES", in some circles, if the tactic is passively allowing laws that endorse such without fighting them and standing up for life and traditional marriage.
-
So the Republicans would be smart to look towards Economic Conservatives that are Socially Liberal or Center?
???
Unless there is some sort of religious revival or "awakening" (certainly not unheard of) among the youth, the current trends suggest Republicans will need to nominate socially moderate/liberal candidates in order to be competitive; presumably such candidates will come from either the 'establishment' moderate or libertarian camps. (To the extent that social issues matter to voters, that is. It's conceivable that for certain elections they will vote solely on the basis of economic policy, in which case social conservatism would not be a negative. But it's hard to imagine social issues being totally irrelevant, and thus Republicans are still safer jettisoning social conservatism from their platform).
-
Unless there is some sort of religious revival or "awakening" (certainly not unheard of) among the youth, the current trends suggest Republicans will need to nominate socially moderate/liberal candidates in order to be competitive; presumably such candidates will come from either the 'establishment' moderate or libertarian camps.
One could argue that Romney came from that camp. But, how many Dems are you going to peel off?
Again, to cite Rush, do you think the Dems are going to give up their gay-rights/amnesty voters to the Republicans?
NOPE!!
Remember that a lot of moderate Republicans took a beating this past election. Some will say it's because they were painted as "far right", even if they weren't.
-
One could argue that Romney came from that camp. But, how many Dems are you going to peel off?
Again, to cite Rush, do you think the Dems are going to give up their gay-rights/amnesty voters to the Republicans?
NOPE!!
Remember that a lot of moderate Republicans took a beating this past election. Some will say it's because they were painted as "far right", even if they weren't.
They are painted as far right because that's the direction that they had to move.
-
One could argue that Romney came from that camp. But, how many Dems are you going to peel off?
1. Yes, I think it's fair to say Romney was a candidate derived from the moderate 'establishment' camp. That he didn't win doesn't mean that a social conservative would have done better; in fact, the data I cite (and lots more that I didn't) indicates that a social conservative ala Santorum would have done significantly worse.
2. How many Dems would start voting Republican if the latter abandoned social conservatism entirely? I don't know; maybe a small contingent, maybe large -- it's an empirical matter either way. I could imagine some Blue Dog Democrats switching over if they support fiscal conservatism but were turned off by Republican social conservatism.
But it isn't an especially important question, since only 31% of Americans are Democrats anyway. At 37%, independents are the largest block of voters (Republicans clock in at a measly 29%). So the question ought to be, "how many independents would such a change in the Republican party attract?" And I think that a fair amount would switch. I am an example of one, so I know they exist: I'd be willing to give genuine fiscal conservatism a try, but won't vote for repealing Roe v Wade nor suppressing gay rights, especially not on the basis of millenia old goat herder opinion steeped in the false certainty of "divine" inspiration.
Again, to cite Rush, do you think the Dems are going to give up their gay-rights/amnesty voters to the Republicans?
NOPE!!
3. As I've already indicated, what Dems do isn't particularly important: what matters is how many of the somewhat ill-informed independents in the middle -- the largest voting block -- such a move would attract. And I think it would be sizable, even if social issues aren't what people generally emphasize most when deciding who to vote for.
Republicans will probably lose votes if they jettison social conservatism; evangelicals and their political conspecifics may well not accept a move toward social liberalism. Republicans will also lose votes if they bake any or all elements of social conservatism into their platform. The point of the data seems to be that they will lose more voters holding onto such conservatism than they will keeping it (since the stock of people who believe in social conservatism is getting smaller and smaller). It isn't an enviable position to be in, but the former is apparently the least worst choice.
2. Rush's mistake in formulating his views is assuming the rest of the country thinks like the political class ( the media, politicians, activists). The fact is, his audience is an extremely small segment of both the population and eligible voters, and so goes it with all the freaks on cable news as well. As I already said, most voters are rather ignorant men and women with no party affiliation and relatively moderate views.
-
you disagree w 95% of what RP stands for
So does the neocons thats the problem.
-
Unless there is some sort of religious revival or "awakening" (certainly not unheard of) among the youth, the current trends suggest Republicans will need to nominate socially moderate/liberal candidates in order to be competitive; presumably such candidates will come from either the 'establishment' moderate or libertarian camps. (To the extent that social issues matter to voters, that is. It's conceivable that for certain elections they will vote solely on the basis of economic policy, in which case social conservatism would not be a negative. But it's hard to imagine social issues being totally irrelevant, and thus Republicans are still safer jettisoning social conservatism from their platform).
Good to know, I hope you're right
-
Jon Huntsman blew Mitt and Rick S. away. He was ignored...
What didn't you like about Huntsman?
-
If it comes down to another Rick Santorum, or Romney I'll vote democratic out of spite.
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sack up and vote Gary Johnson like a man.
Then again, you like RINO Huntsman so you're really just a Dem anyway. Part of the system and part of the problem.
-
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Sack up and vote Gary Johnson like a man.
Then again, you like RINO Huntsman so you're really just a Dem anyway. Part of the system and part of the problem.
pip has a valid point with what he just said without it translating to him being a Rino supporter.
3333 and other hardcore righties made the same kind of "either, or" arguments in this last election. I can't blame PiP for saying fuck that when it comes to the ultra religious and neocon types they're putting forward.
Republicans need to dump neocons and religious nuts and just go back to common sense conservatism and you'll see hordes bail from the moderate left to back that bandwagon. Might sound crazy but it's true. I'd bet money on that candidate if he/she existed.
-
pip has a valid point with what he just said without it translating to him being a Rino supporter.
3333 and other hardcore righties made the same kind of "either, or" arguments in this last election. I can't blame PiP for saying fuck that when it comes to the ultra religious and neocon types they're putting forward.
Republicans need to dump neocons and religious nuts and just go back to common sense conservatism and you'll see hordes bail from the moderate left to back that bandwagon. Might sound crazy but it's true.
Understandable, but people like that are perpetuating this situation. Because of people like that, guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are forced to label themselves as Republicans. It ensures two party rule.
Voting Dem out of spite is still voting for the economic destruction of this country. He's just as responsible for that as the scumbags in office.
-
Understandable, but people like that are perpetuating this situation. Because of people like that, guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are forced to label themselves as Republicans. It ensures two party rule.
Voting Dem out of spite is still voting for the economic destruction of this country. He's just as responsible for that as the scumbags in office.
Pip is a pretty big Ron Paul supporter. He hasn't perpetuated anything by bringing this up. This is shit that should be brought up. Republicans are killing themselves with the religious and hardcore neocon bullshit when they could just go right back to simple conservatism and score a horde of moderates from the left while the pissed off freaks on the right wouldn't have a choice but to also vote for him. (not a mormon because mormons will vote for christians but many christians still won't vote for a mormon... sorry but true...)
It's time for republicans to ignore the nuts on the right and force the party toward a simple common sense conservative candidate--end of story. That's the way.
Nothing wrong with that and Americans will back that kind of person if you can still find one.
a candidate similar to Goldwater would get elected in a heartbead today. Just make sure that candidate is removed from the totally corrupted so called "tea party" That name is poison now and should be.
Just go back to traditional conservatism and watch the hordes flock BIGTIME... I'd bet on it...
-
Pip is a pretty big Ron Paul supporter. He hasn't perpetuated anything by bringing this up. This is shit that should be brought up. Republicans are killing themselves with the religious and hardcore neocon bullshit when they could just go right back to simple conservatism and score a horde of moderates from the left while the pissed off freaks on the right wouldn't have a choice but to also vote for him.
It's time for republicans to ignore the nuts on the right and force the party toward a simple common sense conservative candidate--end of story. That the way.
Nothing wrong with that and Americans will back that kind of person if you can still find one.
240 also claimed to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Then he couldn't bothered voting for him.
People would make more of a point voting for Johnson than Dem out of spite.
-
240 also claimed to be a big Ron Paul supporter. Then he couldn't bothered voting for him.
People would make more of a point voting for Johnson than Dem out of spite.
That's 240 story, not pips... Pip is good people imo.
I chose to vote Gary Johnson too. In the end I figured he was on the ballot so I chose to vote for Ron Paul lite lol... but considered still writing in Paul up to the last minute.
-
8)
-
8)
We already have two Al Gore threads.
-
8)
now that's some funny shit :D :D :D :D :D
-
That's 240 story, not pips... Pip is good people imo.
I chose to vote Gary Johnson too. In the end I figured he was on the ballot so I chose to vote for Ron Paul lite lol... but considered still writing in Paul up to the last minute.
Exactly... I voted for who I saw as the BEST candidate, not just someone who was the best between the two major parties.
-
What didn't you like about Huntsman?
???
Second to Paul, he was the best choice.
-
Thank you Chavez, well said. I appreciate it sir, dead on.
I voted for Romney (I shouldn't have, and learned my lesson), as it was our best chance to beat Obama.