So who's writing in Ron Paul?

you went from claiming he was a "drugczar" down to anti drug coordinator you never clarified it was only for the southeastern united states..
thats like claiming the head of the DEA,southeastern united states is "the head of the entire DEA"..
there is a huge difference on the ladder of power..

when it comes to one who is running for public office i personally feel information should be as correct as possible,not just a general statement that implies far more stature in the government than the candidate actually had..

but i guess you dont see facts as relevant so its useless to continue on with this.

i know you said you were busy,,so have fun jerkin off in your mirror..

 

Lol asspies.

 

if your vote is your belief then you have stood for something..
the statement doesnt have to be heard around the world,,only in your own heart and mind..
to stand true to ones convictions is the greatest statement one could ever make in his life..
for one to do that he must stand by those convictions even if no one sees.. that is in my minds eye the greatest statement and sign of character one could ever make..


no i will not follow the sheeple,,i will stand with my convictions and that will be my statement..

 

I corrected my mistake. And you haven't posted any facts since page 1.You just want the last word in an attempt to embarrass me. I don't care about your grudge you spiteful child.

 

I can't believe you actually said "sheeple". Did you ever think that, just maybe, everyone does the same thing because it's not a stupid thing to do?

Regardless of my views on Ron Paul's policies, politics doesn't seem to be his supporters' forté. It's great that you think you're making a great statement, but if it means that you get a slightly shittier candidate than you could've done as a result, what was the point?

I can't help but feel that "voting" for Ron Paul is just an excuse, an easy way out of picking between the choices that you have. Honestly, I think it's kind of childish to just decide that you're not going to vote unless you can have the precise candidate you want, especially if you in advance that it will make absolutely no difference. All it means is that you've been given the opportunity to keep your most hated of the two candidates out and you've snubbed it.

But hey, I'm not you, so I doubt that's what you think. But martyring your vote is only worth it if anyone gives a shit, unless you truly consider Ron Paul to be omnipresent, which you may.

 

ive voted every election cycle since i was old enough to vote.. as i have stated many times in these forums i have been a libertarian and a constitutionalist long before ron paul made it the latest fad..

as i have also stated in this forum many times,since paul dropped out i would have voted libertarian as i have done the last 4 election cycles,but i refuse to vote for the candidate that the libertarians nominated..
so as i stated i am leaning towards paul..

i do not see where there is a "lesser of evils" between obama and mccain as this nation is long past a two party system no matter what the main stream media forces down your throat..

as long as this country continues to buy into the "lesser of two evils" line,,this nation will continue on the same path to oblivion that its been on for the last 5 administrations..


i dont know if that cleared my beliefs up for you or not,but the way i feel is the way i feel..

 

Why make it more complicated then voting for the person you feel best suited for the role of president?

 

and you have yet to state a fully correct fact,nor did you fully correct your mistake as of yet..
and no i am not trying to embarrass you as you say.
i am merely trying to make sure the actual facts are stated on barr at the end of the day..

if you would quit coming back and insisting your half truth was fact this would be over with...

 

And hippiehillbilly screams, "No, I want the last word."

On topic, I have seen many failures come from regressive tax policies when it comes to essential spending, which has completely disillusioned me with the libertarian economic policy.

My opinion is now for somewhat higher taxes and a stronger focus on civil welfare. The higher taxes can be offset by making them more progressive and not invading everyone to establish permanent global military bases.

 

I'm not sure that it is a "lesser of two evils" thing though. Do you really expect a candidate to represent exactly your views yet to have broad appeal? I don't. I'm not sure anybody can really expect that, even the mythical "average" voter.

So I can vote for an imperfect candidate without thinking its a failure of democracy.

 

The same reason you make cooking more complicated than just eating whatever happens to be near your mouth. The reason you have an electoral system that limits people's freedom is because half of them would use their freedom to elect Fred Phelps and the other half would use it to elect Ashlee Simpson.

You can, obviously, vote for the person you feel best suited, but cmon: would you seriously be voting for Ron Paul if you were doing that? I mean, regardless of his policies, wouldn't it be a massive coincidence that the person you personally thought was best suited turned out to be one of the failed candidates?

If you've actually got that in mind, there's probably a lot of better candidates. What about Bertrand Russell? I mean, sure, he's not standing and he's dead, but why SHOULDN'T I vote for him? The answer is: because he's not standing and he's dead.

There's nothing wrong in theory with doing what you're saying - unless you want your vote to count for anything - but I think it'd be naïve to think that these Ron Paul fans are just voting for who they think is the best candidate. I'd say it's more likely that they're all just butthurt that their candidate isn't king yet even though they really really want him to be and even though they threw themselves on the floor and drummed their fists and screamed and held their breath and peed themselves and so on and so forthly.

YES! Thank fuck someone makes sense. OK, it's not cool to be cynical when RP's fans are around, but yes, basically democracy is about keeping people out of power far more than it is about getting a certain person in.

 

Doesn't matter. Here we have three main parties and a couple of minor but notable ones. In some of the Middle Eastern countries they have dozens. Under any of these systems though, people are being represented by the party that they vote for. And yes, often no party fits your views exactly. And that's why people vote against parties.

Say my local election is being fought. A person who represents my views is not running in the election. A party which represents an entirely contradictory view is running. A party which represents a less contradictory view is running. Both of these parties have a core support that would allow them to win if one or the other gained a decent share of the floating vote.

Now, in that situation, do I vote for one of those parties, or do I write in the name of the guy who isn't standing because he's the guy I think should be running the place? And what do you think the outcome would be?

You've clarified your beliefs, but not why you think it's worth voting for someone in an election who isn't standing.

At the risk of quoting South Park you should get used to choosing between some douche and some turd because it's usually the choice you'll have. While I'm not so cynical, I think that the two-party system is just a refined example of the "lesser of evils" argument, and unless you expect someone to represent your own personal viewpoint EXACTLY, then you'll always be voting for the least shit candidate or not voting at all.

Even if you had two Libertarian candidates with slightly differing policies, and one of them was guaranteed to win, you'd still more than likely be basing your vote on the subtle differences between their policies. If one of them is opposed to something that you're in favour of, while the other is indifferent, says nothing about it or whatever, you'll vote for the latter because you're voting against the former.

 

once again,i vote my conscience,, not what others perceive to be right or correct...

i really dont expect you or anyone else here to understand a person standing by there convictions whether it be a lost cause or not..
why should i?? lol

 

I will most likely write in paul unless the better polls are fairly close. I will be voting obama, however, if he grows a pair and filibusters telcom immunity. I doubt he will.

 

I guess I just think it's a bit selfish. It's great to stand by lost causes and vote with your conscience when there's no negative consequences of doing it, but are you that certain that both candidates are precisely, exactly, evenly shit?

I don't know, I guess you're right, I won't ever understand why individualism is so important to you that you'll openly admit that you don't care about the outcome of the election if it can't be exactly what you wanted.

 

wow,, yall must be hellu sports fans.. if your teams losing do you carry the opposing teams jersey and switch shirts mid game??

it has NOTHING to do with "individualism" and everything to do about character and your convictions and staying true to your beliefs...

geeze,, i would say i dont see why thats so hard to understand,,then i remember what era we are living in and again i say,,why should i expect anything less...

 

I'm pretty sure we have sports specifically to keep that mentality out of politics.

As for this being 'the era we are living in', I'm not sure whether you're referring to late-20th/early-21st century political apathy, but I don't think that has anything to do with a person understanding that candidates are selected in order to reign in the worst excesses of democracy.

What I'm struggling to understand is why you're opting to put your anti-vote in for Ron Paul specifically. I mean, if you're refusing to vote for the candidates chosen in the caucuses (and assuming that you're not just butthurt about your candidate not winning), I can only assume that it's because you consider it to have failed or to be farcical or otherwise a deficient means of choosing those candidates.

But if that's the case, why would you vote for someone who was part of that process? Surely if you consider the caucuses to be irrelevant to your choice of anti-vote, it's a bit of a coincidence for you to vote for someone who just happened to be one of those candidates.

I just don't see any other way to interpret what you're saying here.

 

I could be mistaken but i think he means 'to each his own.'

:cheers2:

 

I don't have voting allowance but I would vote for him if I could....

 

well the bottom line for me is,i live in a overwhelmingly republican state.. obama couldnt win no matter what he did..

that being said,,its really irrelevant who i vote for,it will not change the outcome of this state.. if i voted for McCain,,no one would notice,if i voted for obama it would be a wasted vote.. so in essence,,im free to vote my convictions and it wont matter one way or the other..